Freeing us, and the ‘Jews’, from the Cult of Judaism, and its ‘Jew’ World Order (project working on, please finish if I don’t get to)

Posted on January 19, 2018. Filed under: z. |

EDITING NOW REED The Controversy of Zion

All the work I do is motivated by goodwill, beneficience, and compassion towards all sentient beings. I act in good faith, according to my own ‘Optimal Ethics Generator’, an evolution of Rawls’ ‘Veil of Ignorance’, Obadiahs’ ‘For as you do unto others, so shall be done unto you’, and the universal ‘Golden Rule’ to ‘Do unto others, as you wish others to do unto you’. Until we all live vegan lifestyles, and cease treating any sentient being as mere means to our own ends, our own pleasure and relief, none of us can claim to be ‘innocent victims’. So that is my ultimate aim. An aim which this current work diverts me from. However once the ‘Cult of Judaism’ completely realises its 3000 year old plan for a ‘Jew’ World Order, I will not be free to pursue any objective not perfectly aligned with, and sanctioned by, the leadership of the Cult of Judaism. And they have never promoted Veganism, universal justice for all sentient beings, let alone universal justice for all human beings. So you see this ‘digression’ from my genuine passion is necessary to give my real ambitions a chance. In fact if the ‘Jew’ World Order’ tomorrow made a genuine offer to me to ‘Veganise’ the world, I would cease all my ‘Amaleky’ and/or ‘Edomite’ behaviours in a flash, and devote all my energies to Veganising this planet.

The Cult of Judaism could not but be aware of my ambitions. It knows everything everyone is doing. They can turn on your mobile phone, activate your microphone and camera, download any file from your computer hardrive, and access any document you have ever published in any form, including every email and web post you ever made. They have your dental records, any medical record, your school records, your psychological profiles, and any document that exists relating to you. They own and control the internet service providers such as, Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, Amazon, Google, and manage police data bases around the world, security systems for your public transport, the ‘security’ cameras that film your every movement in most large cities. They have biometric data on every one of us. They could locate you, just using the ‘security’ cameras you walk past every day. They could locate your current location using your EFTPOS or SWIFT banking details. In fact the RF ID chip in your credit card, drivers license, or government issued I.D card or passport, can be read by a huge number of devices as you walk down the street. Your phone, the moment you ‘register’ it in your name, or ‘register’ to use any of the ‘Apps’ on it, such as a dating site, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Yahoo, Gmail, or activate the GPS on your phone in any way (even if you don’t activate it, the Cult can ‘hack’ into your phone using ‘back doors’ in the chips in your phone and smart phone and smart television, even your fridge, because they manufactured the chips in their own factories, or wrote the operating systems, or simply gained access when you ‘registered’ any ‘Application’.

So it is safe to assume that the ‘Jew’ World Order, the Cult of Judaism leaders, would be aware of my universal code of Ethics, as embodied in my ‘Eden Protocols’, the product of my ‘Optimal Ethics Generator’. And they have made no effort to help me in realising my universal ethics on this planet. So it is safe to assume they are not ‘good guys’ secretly using an ‘evil’ existing power structure to subvert it to ‘good’ ends. That said, I would love to be proven wrong. But for now I need to operate on the information that I have.

In one of my now banned books, I detailed exactly how the ‘Cult of Judaism’, the ‘Jew’ World Order’, co-opting agencies such as the C.I.A and N.A.T.O to collaborate with their own MOSSAD, carried out the 911 attacks, and used them to ‘justify’ their war crimes around the world, including in Iraq and Syria. This is in fact what ‘sounded the alarm’ for me. This is what ‘woke me up’ to the facts about the power and ambitions of the Cult of Judaism, the ‘Jew’ World Order.

In a novel I had written years before, I independently came up with the idea of a ‘fake crisis’ with ‘crisis actors’. So it was no surprise to realise that all the ‘Gun massacres’ from ‘Port Arthur’ to ‘Las Vegas’, via ‘Sandy Hook’, were faked.

The idea of ‘False Flags’ never occurred to me because they involved real victims. And I have rejected the idea of ‘The ends justifying the means’ as repugnant. Ethical people judge the means as much as the ends. The means chosen define the actors at least as much as the ends they claim to be pursuing. And usually they ‘belie’ the claimed ends. For people seeking justice, truth, and beauty, do not employ unjust, deceitful, and ugly methods, no matter how ‘convenient’ and ‘efficiacious’ they might appear to be.

Macchiavelli gives us the first recorded, published use of the dictum ‘The ends justify the means’. In the same work that dictum appears, Macchiavelli explains how to use ‘false flags’ to trick people into submitting to your authority, and paying ‘protection’ money in the form of ‘taxes’.

The false flag is an original ‘Problem-Reaction-Solution’ model. You confront your target population with a problem. In the case of 911, a ‘terrorist threat’. You never let on that it was in fact you that carried out the ‘terrorist attack’. You then use this ‘terrorist attack’ to persuade your target population that they require protection. You make out that this current attack is ‘just the beginning’ of the threat posed. You make out that the threat is real, present, and massive.

You convince your target population that their only salvation lies in submitting to you, who offer to protect them from this threat. All they need to do is give up their freedoms. Normally they would never give up these freedoms. But faced with the perceived alternative, continued ‘terrorist’ attacks, they comply with your ‘Patriot Act’ and ‘Martial Laws’. They accept the limits placed by you, on their freedoms. They accept your intrusions into their privacy, having been persuaded, by the ‘events’, that they are necessary, in order that you can effectively ‘protect’ them.

You carry out further ‘terrorist acts’ in order to maintain the level of fear, the perceived sense of ‘threat’, as you sign executive order after executive order, imposing restriction upon restriction, violate one privacy protection after another.

Most people will simply passively submit, even as they see their freedoms and rights being eroded.

David Icke’s ‘Totalitarian tiptoe’ best describes how the ‘government’, in ‘baby steps’, goes from at least pretending to be democratic, and existing in the interests of the public, to being an obvious tyrannical dictator, operating ‘the government’ as a private enterprise, in the narrow, selfish, unelightend self-interests of a few oligarchs. A few people with the ultimate power over everything on this planet. A few mere mortals thus gain control and power over every person on this planet.

These mere mortals began their career by assuming the authority of ‘gods’. They ‘spoke for’ the gods. Later they reduced it to one ‘God’, with whose ‘transferred authority’ they spoke. Thus the supposed omnipotence of this ‘God’ was transferred to the Priests of the Cult of Judaism, which from then on had the power to offer ‘relief’ from hell, and entry to ‘heaven’. They used this imaginary power to accumulate real power over life and death, often employing ‘fates worse than death’, such as torture, to add to the ultimate ‘fate worse than death’, a.k.a eternity in ‘hell’, for the few people who could never be persuaded that this ‘hell’ existed, and were thus ‘immune’ to the Priests ‘other worldly’ threats.

I detail all the religions of this world in my book ‘Religion’. So I shall not say too much about religion in general. This work deals with one particular cult, the Cult of Judaism, because it has succeeded where others have failed. This Cult has realised its ambitions to totally dominate and control this planet. This Cult has produced the ‘Jew’ World Order which is about to bring about World War Three, probably a combination of real and faked ‘wars’ and ‘crises’, and then steal the vestiges of our remaining rights, freedoms, and liberties. In a very short time you will be faced with one choice. ‘Serve the Cult of Judaism, or die’. Serve the ‘Jew’ World Order, or die.

As I am about to explain, thanks to the research done by D.Reed, most ‘Jews’ rejected the Cult of Judaism’s attempts to enslave them. Most ‘Jews’ are ‘emancipated’ ‘Jews’.

I related my ‘religious affiliation’ ‘operationalisation’ of the concept ‘religion’ background because we must be clear about one thing. Most ‘Jews’ are NOT part of the ‘Jew’ World Order. However they DO bare more responsibility for it than most of us.

Most ‘Jews’ are merely ‘affiliated’ with the Cult of Judaism. They do NOT subscribe to ALL its dogmas, restrictions, rules, beliefs, rituals, or laws. Many ‘Jews’ are not at all ‘religious’. They are what I call ‘culturally’ ‘Jewish’. They have grown up with some ‘traditions’ such as ‘Bar Mitzvah’ and ‘Yom Kippur’ and ‘Hannuka’, which are based in ‘religious’ texts, but have become mere cultural habits and traditions. Most ‘Jews’ do NOT observe the 613 ‘Mosaic’ laws, let alone care about any of the ‘rulings’ and ‘interpretations’ in any of the 36 volumes of the ‘Talmud’. So they are ‘Jewish’ in a very limited sense. They are not ‘fully fledged Cult of Judaism’ members. They exist on the fringes of that community. They are ‘Jewish’ in name only, and based on a very few, superificial, shared traditional observances and vague beliefs. Just like most ‘Catholics’ and ‘Christians’ and ‘Muslims’ and ‘Buddhists’. Any ‘religious’ beliefs they do have have very little impact on their lives. They were born into a culture, and adopted the cultural practices, just like a baby duck will be ‘imprinted’ by the first thing it sees, to define it as ‘mother’. That is the only difference between most ‘Jews’ and ‘others’. In most cases it is not in any way a threat to anyone’s security, safety, wellbeing, freedom, or liberty.

The only ‘danger’ and ‘threat’ and ‘damage’ these people pose and do is to grant respectability and acceptance to the Cult of Judaism in general. They often, out of misplaced loyalty to their ‘race’, aid and abet the Cult of Judaism in its nefarious ambitions, as ‘Sayanim’. But even where they refuse to assist MOSSAD in carrying out criminal actions around the world, simply by ‘identifying’ as ‘Jewish’, they grant respectability to the Cult of Judaism. The Cult abuse their members to their own narrow ends. The Cult abuse the ‘Jewish people’ as a shield, even if they don’t employ all of them as actual ‘weapons’.

I baulk at the mammoth task ahead of me, in trying to express everything I understand, in ways that will be accessible to you. The Cult of Judaism encourages all sorts of organisations, even other religions, to centralise power in a few hands. Why? Because it is so easy to corrupt a few ‘leaders’, and to get their own ‘people’ into the leading positions of power within these organisations.

Most of us could never ‘see’ how it could even be possible for a few people to gain the power needed to successfully conspire to overthrow a nation, let alone the entire world.

Anyone who is ignorant of how the ‘Jews’ overthrew the governments of Russia, and then the rest of the ‘Jew. S.S.R’ can inform themselves easily by watching a few of my videos, and reading my books. I won’t repeat the facts here. Even Putin, himself part of the ‘Jew’ World Order, admitted recently that 85% of the leading Bolsheviks, who carried out the massacres of the Royal family, then the ‘Revolution’, then the ‘Civil War’, then ‘World War Two’, then created the Gulags and ‘reign of terror’, then violently squashed all the ‘uprisings’ throughout the ‘occupied’ territories after WWII, the people who ordered that German women and children be raped and murdered, who starved tens of millions of Ukrainians and others to death, and who worked millions of Russians, Estonians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Germans, Ukrainians, and others, to death in the slave labor camps, were JEWISH.

All you need to do is encourage centralised power in every nation, and then to co-opt the top leaders of these nations. Or ‘groom’ leaders to fill these positions. Telll them whatever they need to hear, to get them to work with you. Corrupt them. Give them all the drugs, sex, and money they want. Appeal to their idealistic natures, if they are idealists. Offer them whatever they seek. Pretend to be whatever they need you to be. Then once they are in power, get them to do your biddinng. They will have no choice. The corrupted ones can be blackmailed. The idealistic ones threatened with a loss of power. You make them think that they are doing ‘gods work’, or at least ‘good things’. In fact everything you advise them to do is part of the Cult’s plans for world domination. Most of these ‘Golems’ may never release, until it is too late, that they have sold their soul to a literal ‘devil’. The ‘adversary’ of freedom, justice, and truth. If they resist, they will be thrown aside, and replaced by the next best option the Cult have been grooming. They corrupt EVERY organisation and EVERY political party, so whoevever ends up in power, THEY will be the ones pulling the strings, behind the scenes.

But before we get so sophisticated, I challenge any reader to honestly answer this question. ‘What would YOU be willing to sacrifice to ‘blow the whistle’ on corruption, criminal activity, unethical behavior, and so on, in your own organisation?’ Would you be willing to lose your career prospects? Your job? Your public reputation? Your friends? Your family? Your freedom? Would you be willing to risk jail time? Huge fines? A future where you will never again have the chance to work in your profession?

Now everyone says, ‘SURELY if this was going on, someone would have ‘blown the whistle’ on it by now? Really? And if a whistle is blown in the forest, and no-one listens, does it make a sound? How far do you think you would get if you tried to ‘altert’ the public to something YOU noticed? Will the mass media, owned by the Cult, report it for you? Will the Jewdiciary, occupied by the Cult, prosecute YOU or the people you are reporting on? Will your BOSS risk THEIR career prospects by supporting you and investigating your claims? Will your friends at work stand by you?

I have experienced workplace victimisation and mobbing in different organisations, on different continents, and have learned the hard way that people are NOT going to report things they ‘see’ or ‘hear’ or ‘know’, if there is the slightest chance of doing so negatively impacting on their own lives.

And over the decades I have stumbled across all manner of ‘whistle-blowers’ who DID blow the whistle, and DID pay the highest price for doing so. And despite doing this, WE never heard what they had to say because the mass media ‘squashed’ any real reporting. In fact the mass media DEMONISED these whistleblowers as either insane, criminal, or maliciously motivated.

A very few people ‘blew the whistle’ on something and got anywhere. Most suffered beyond endurance, for ‘doing the right thing’. And they were reporting on ‘local’ issues of corruption and criminality.

Imagine your chances at getting a report on a world wide conspiracy that has been operating for thousands of years, into the public’s attention? Zero.

In fact I argue that the simplest, surest sign that ‘there is a problem’ is that ‘no problems have been reported’. You see it is human nature to do ‘naughty’ things. The more power you have, the greater the temptations that are going to present themselves to you, the more opportunities you will have to ‘err’. So if an organisation claims it has NO problems with anyone abusing their power, it it claims there is NO mobbing, or bullying, or workplace victimisation, inefficiency, corruption, or so on, then clearly it is NOT looking and NOT investigating, and NOT encouraging people to report these. Imagine an organisation with millions of employees, but ‘no problems’ with what are inherently ‘human’ frailties. The odds are in favor of us assuming that the problems exist, but are not being investigated, not being reported, not being ‘dealt with’. You cannot put millions of people into one organisation and have ‘no problems’.

So back to our ’16 million’ strong ‘Community’ of ‘Jews’. Most ‘Jews’ are like most ‘Catholics’. They are ‘lapsed’ or ‘non-practising’. They claim to be ‘Jewish’ like most people claim to be ‘Buddhist’ or ‘Catholic’. They really exist on the very periphery of the Cult they are ‘affiliated’ with. They may observe a few holidays and other rituals associated with the ‘religion’, and maybe have their ‘weddings’ according to the customs of their ‘affiliated’ cult. They may go to Temple or Church occasionally, for ‘special events’. They may celebrate ‘Christ-mas’ (without realising it is a Mass for Christ), Yom Kippur, Hannuka, or make an offering at a temple to Buddha. These have become more ‘cultural’ and ‘ethnic’ activities rather than ‘religious’ actions per se. The people participating don’t really believe in the dogma that the Priests claim to believe. The people do not submit to the ‘authority’ of the Priests of their ‘affiliated’ religion. The people break most of the ‘laws’ that an ‘orthodox’ member of their ‘faith’ would honor. The people don’t fear that their priests have any special ‘power’. Their priests could not have them tortured, for example. And they certainly are not ascribed the power to send them to some ‘Hell’, for failing to submit to their will, to the ‘laws’ of their ‘faith’.

There are over 16 million ‘Jews’. And if you read the Old Testament alone, you will find very disturbing ‘attitudes’ among the Cult of Judaism. We will cover them shortly. But my question here is, ‘with 16 million people, all ‘affiliated’ with a ‘religion’ with an origin story of genocide, slavery, sex-slavery, and ‘ripping up pregnant women’ and ‘killing everything that breatheth’, and defining as ‘Amalek’ any person or group that opposes the will of the Cult of Judaism, and thus defining as ‘evil’ and ‘the enemy worthy of being murdered, man, woman, child, unborn fetus, along with all their animals’…with at least 16 million people all ‘affiliated’ with this ‘ideology of Semitism’, in some way, superficially to extremely publicly committed to the ‘orthodox’ ‘Mosaic’ and ‘Talmudic’ laws, which require that they one day rule over the entire planet, killing everything and everyone even associated with opposition to this planet-wide cult hegemony, and enslaving the rest … with so many likely ‘motives’ to carry out future genocides, using their ‘holy books’ as the ‘role models’ for their actions … are you going to tell me that there is not at least ONE clear, prosecuted case of racial vilification, and incitement on the records? When I have just posted a video of a Rabbi inciting all ‘Jews’ to genocide against all Germans, Amercans, Italians, and so on?

If calling for an investigation into how widespread that Rabbi’s views are among the ‘Jewish’ community is ‘anti-semitic’, then clearly the use of ‘anti-semitic’ as a perjorative must be abandoned. For clearly it is nothing more than reasonable, rational, commendanble public interest and a natural instinct to self-preservation.

THAT is what ANTI-SEMITISM is when ‘operationalised’. Any attempt to challenge the self-assumed right of the Cult of Judaism, the ‘Jew’ World Order, to rule this world, to enslave all who will submit to it, and to murder all those who will not.

The ‘legal’ definition of ‘Anti-Semitism’ is just a game. A ploy. A device. A strategy. To prevent people expressing themselves. From protecting themselves. From investigating criminal activities and criminal conspiracies. This legal definition of ‘irrational hatred for all ‘jews’ is totally inappropriate in most cases where it has been used.

Most people labelled as ‘Anti-Semitic’ did NOT have an irrational hatred of all Jews. They simply stated the facts about what SOME members of the Cult of Judaism, some self-defined ‘Jews’ are doing, or have done, or plan to do.

We have perfectly sane, rational, reasonable, ethical, moral, legal, self-preservation grounds to blow the whistle on the plans and actions and organisations of the Cult of Judaism, and their ‘Jew’ World Order.

But I cannot even publish this book as it will be ‘demonised’ as ‘anti-semitism’. Even though my intent is to save the ‘Jews’ who have been tricked into this Cult of Judaism, as much as it is to save myself, and everyone else in the worlds.

How can someone seeking to help ‘Jews’ be anti-semitic? THAT is what you will have to digest and respond to. If you will not even stand up for freedom of speech, you surely will never stand up for ANY freedom. Because you won’t have the chance? How are you going to fight for your freedom against a police state with absolute control of your every move, thought, action? With drones, and the ability to assassinate you from kilometers in the air? With the ability to ‘shut down’ your bank accounts, in a moment. The ability to put you in a prison or FEMA camp, with the military to arrest you, with no warrant, and no chance of a trial, indefinitely?

If people would not even risk losing a job they hate, how could we expect them to risk real violence and real suffering?

Remember, those of you who say ‘People would surely report something if it was happening, everywhere, to everyone, wouldn’t they? A conspiracy of this magnitude would have to be ‘reported’ somewhere, by someone? … Remember what Solzhenitzyn reported during the ‘reign of terror’ of the ‘Jewish’ lead Bolsheviks in the Jew.S.S.R (the revolution was certainly NOT ‘Russian, and the ‘Unions’ were forced, never voluntary) … That all it took to ‘quiet’ most people was the threat that they would lose their job, if they reported anything, or complained. This is why the reign of terror succeeded. They could NOT have imprisoned EVERYONE in a gulag. They didn’t have to torture that many people. Very few people resist ANYTHING, if there is even the slightest risk or cost to themselves or their families. Just threatening people with job loss is enough to silence most people. I know. ‘Friends’ failed to help me many times when I was mobbed, bullied, and victimized in the workplace, from the ABS to the military, to government financed training centers. I lost the right to work in my profession. I wrote up everything that happened. And my ‘friends’ and ‘colleagues’ had almost NOTHING to lose. At worst it would have been a ‘career limiting move’. They all had tenure. They couldn’t even be fired. And yet they all claimed that I would surely understand why they COULDN’T simply stand up for me and speak the truth.

Right now all you will risk is a bit of ‘shaming’ at the start, for being ‘politically incorrect’. Maybe you might have problems with your employment. So I guess we are already doomed. The Cult of Judaism was guaranteed victory from the start. By appealing to the very worst in human nature. And then accumulating power to corrupt the few people in positions of centralised power, to do their bidding.

It is up to you. The Russians could have resisted the reign of terror at the start, before it gained total control. They didn’t want to ‘risk losing their jobs’. So they ALL got ‘life sentences’, doomed to living in a prison state. Only their ‘sentences’ were commuted, at least temporarily, so the ‘Jew’ World Order could expand West. Soon they will be imposing the full brunt of their prison state, on a planet-wide scale. With NO hope of ever being free, ever again.

But now back to the origins of the Cult that now rules this world, De Facto, from the shadows, and which will soon openly declare a one world government. The Cult’s ‘Holy Books’ are role models for future ‘Jewish’ action. It does not matter if the events actually occurred as depicted. What is important is the intent with which these accounts were written. To provide ‘legal precedents’ that would be invoked to justify future genocides. Genocides that have happened recently, and have been documented, as we shall see. The ‘origin’ story of ‘The Jews’ may never have happened. But what it is is a ‘role model’ for future action. For it has happened recently, and is happening, and if you don’t do something right now, will culminate in the largest genocide this planet has ever known, and the most vicious and malicious and enduring prison state, planet wide, the earth has ever known.

Before Priests realised you could ‘invent’ threats that only ever existed in people’s imaginations, to gain control over people, to enslave them, you had to use actual physical violence, and then the threat of such violence. The power of all cults, throughout history, has been based mostly on terrorism. On FEAR. On threats of carrying out various acts of painful violence. Threats the cult leader’s never hesitated to carry out. Just look at the very first acts committed by the biblical Moses, immediately after coming down from the mountain and proclaiming ‘Thou Shallt Not Kill’. What did he do? I bet even most ‘Christians’ do not know. The ‘protection racket’ that is the basis of most cults works on imaginary ‘threats’ that the priests promise to protect you from. Too easy. All you need to do is get people to believe in imaginary threats, and then to believe in your equally imaginary ‘powers of protection’. This is the basis of ‘transferred authority’ and ‘transferred power’. You get people to ‘believe’ in some God, and then to believe that this God granted YOU the power to speak for, usually, HIM, and to act in his name, with his authority. And thus by mere magic of words, what we’d today call Neuro Linguistic Programming, you ‘earn’ the faith of the people. You gain the same absolute power that a real god, with real power, would have. How is THAT for genius?

Of course when you are suffering under some law or violence imposed upon you by some ‘Jews’, it is challenging to feel empathy for your persecutor, your prison warder, your jailor, your censor, your victimizer, your bully, your mobber, your slave master, your banker, your general, your attacker, your bomber, your torturer, your brainwasher, your propagandist, your Marxist, your ‘Jewish’ pepetrator.

However it is a fact that the ‘Jews’ are as much a victim of the Cult of Judaism as the rest of us. While working with the Australian Bureau of Statistics in Canberra, I was responsbile for determining a ‘working’ definition for the concept ‘Religion’. In statistical collections you are required to ‘operationalise’ a concept, in order to collect data relating to it. Ultimately I reccommeded that our survey questionnaires seek data on survey respondent’s ‘Religious Affiliation’.

The term ‘affiliation’makes no assumptions about the ‘intensity’ of ‘belief’ in the ‘core tenets’ of a religious system.

And this is key to surviving the Labrynthine system of traps that have been put in place to stifle genuine, authentic, rigorous, transparent, public scrutiny of the Cult of Judaism that have been put in place by this cult’s extremely wealthy, powerful and persuasive, leadership.

This cult has been in the business of seeking absolute world hegemony for at least 3000 years, as I am about to show.

Most of the members of this cult, like all cults, were born into it. They never actively chose membership. Their informed consent was never sought nor obtained. Their parents were themselves born into it. There are very few cases where individuals gave their informed consent, and were ‘recruited’ from outside the cult. However there were several ‘mass conversions’ to this cult, enforced by other community’s own leadership.

Please keep in mind, when my arguments become too challenging for you, to ‘uncomfortable’ given your life of conditioning by the ‘Jewish’ mass media, ‘history’ books, and so on, that all the work I do is motivated by goodwill, beneficience, and compassion towards all sentient beings. I act in good faith, according to my own ‘Optimal Ethics Generator’, an evolution of Rawls’ ‘Veil of Ignorance’, Obadiahs’ ‘For as you do unto others, so shall be done unto you’, and the universal ‘Golden Rule’ to ‘Do unto others, as you wish others to do unto you’.

So as I always say, correct me if I am wrong, with words, with arguments, with facts, and help me if I am right. There may be some cost attached to helping me. But it is for sure that that cost will increase exponentially over the next few years. If you fail to act now, and risk that relatively low cost, any future action will demand a massive cost of you, and very soon any action will become futile. Soon it really will be a decision of ‘Serve the Cult of Judaism, the ‘Jew’ World Order’, or watch your children be tortured before your eyes, before you all die, as a ‘communication’ to the rest of the world that might even consider for one moment becoming ‘Amalek’ or ‘Edom’, and merely suggesting anyone resist the ‘Jew’ World Order.

To repeat, the logical operationalization of the concept ‘Anti-Semitic’ is ‘any resistance to the cult of Judaism, and it’s ‘Jew’ world order.

Freeing / emancipating a ‘Jew’ from the Cult of Judaism is thus clearly anti-semitic behavior.

And acting to prevent the Cult of Judaism from having ‘Its will be done’, in the form of the Jew World Order’s plans to sacrifice the six million ‘Jews’ living in Palestine as a ‘burned offering of a sweet savour unto their lord (power)’, is also anti-semitic, by operational definition. For it defies the Jew World Orders whims and fancies.

So please stop and compare the ‘operational’, that is, REAL, definition of ‘
Anti-Semitism’ with the ‘official’ definition of ‘anti-semitism’, if you are yourself ‘Jewish’. I think you will find anti-semitism becoming all the more appealing the more you reflect on what it REALLY means.

So I am calling upon all ‘Jews’ to free themselves, and their fellow ‘Jews’ from the Cult of Judaism. ‘Jews’ must become anti-semitic. There is no alternative.

‘Jews’ must publicly renounce and denounce the Old Testament genocides, and the beliefs and values expressed by that Rabbi in the video. They must stand up for freedom of speech. And freedom of historical investigation and reporting. They must abandon ‘The Holocaust’ propaganda. They must honor their obligations to the Palestinian people, and grant ‘right of return’ to all Palestinians, and come to the peace table as equals with the Palestinians, and find a just, fair, equitable, peaceful settlement to the Middle East conflict.

If you think it ‘Pays’ to be a ‘Jew’ and to ‘go along with the ‘jew’ world order, to go along with censorship and ‘The Holocaust’ and ‘Holocaust denial’ laws, then I can’t help you. But you will be sowing the seeds of your own doom. You will be sowing seeds that you will soon be reaping the harvest of. Anything you do to me to ‘punish’ me for trying to ‘save’ you from your cult prison will be repaid upon you, by your own cult masters. If you chose to demonise me, remember that I am only the ‘adversary’ of your cult masters. Your cult prison wardens. Your cult of Judaism. I am your ally.

Given time I could write such a sophisticated treatise on cults that it would do justice to anyone who had ever believed in my abilities. It would be very satisfying. I will complete the intended work, as an extension of my previous works, if I get the chance. To show you all how absurd most of your ‘beliefs’ really are. And how ALL religion as we know it is intended as a mental prison. But right now I need to focus on the key facts regarding this particular cult, the Cult of Judaism. So let’s get to them.

The history of the Cult of Judaism from before it’s official inception by a Sumerian Priest

The story of the Cult of Judaism probably extends back to an ancient Sumeria ruled by ‘Annunaki’, space men, who insisted we worship them as gods. Many of the oldest historical documents, the very oldest Sumerian clay tablets, literally describe ‘Those who came down from Heaven’ as giants with hi-tech ‘celestial’ weapons, and flying ships. These alien visitors had come to earth during a ‘fly by’ of their home planet ‘Nibiru’, in order to mine gold, which they apparently converted to monoatomic gold, along with other elements, to form various monoatomic elements needed to repair their own planet’s atmosphere, and possibly as the source of their extreme life spans reported to extend over many hundreds of thousands of years. The true ‘tree of life’ and ‘philosophers’ stone’ is considered by many ‘experts’ to be some form of monoatomic gold or other monoatomic element, along with resonance therapies in which DNA strands are ‘broken apart’ using ‘resonance’ (sound waves or other forms of vibration) and then re-connnected in their pristine, original state, thus renewing the DNA regulary, to its optimal state, say that of a 21 year old. Remember that many animals such as alligators, crocodiles, some fish, and so on, never actually experience ‘old age’. They do not age. They do not suffer any of the debilitating health problems we humans associate with ageing, and old age. As far as anyone can know, they could live forever, never ‘ageing’, merely growing stonger and bigger, until some disease or predator ends their otherwise eternal lives.

These ‘gods’ either returned to Nibiru, after having made war with one another, using ‘celestial weapons’ we would identify as ‘nuclear missiles’ in the Middle East, and Indus Valley of modern day India (and it’s coastal waters), or still live among us. Different tablets and interpretations offer different versions. So keep in mind that the ‘Jew’ world order may actually have been co-opted, or even originally founded by, the Annunaki, the ‘aliens’ from Nibiru.

EDITED / WRITTEN TO HERE

THIS IS A WORK ABOUT A CULT, AND HOW IT, AND ALL CULTS, GAIN POWER…SO IT IS ABOUT TRANCE STATES, ABOUT INTERPOLATING ‘MANUFACTURED BELIEFS’ WITH ‘ORGANIC BELIEFS I.E SENSE IMPRESSION S WITH ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCTS … FALSE COLLECTIVE MEMORIES AS WELL AS INDIVIDUAL ‘EXPERIENCES’…ALL INTERPOLATED SO THAT ‘REALITY’ AND ‘SOCIAL REALITY’ APPEAR TO REINFORCE EACH OTHER, AND WHERE THE ‘SOCIAL REALITY’ CONTRADICTS THE ‘PERSONAL SENSE IMPRESSION BASED REALITY, THE OVERRIDING EMOTIONAL AUTHORITY WILL BE LENT TO THE FAKED SOCIAL REALITY, SO THAT THE SENSE IMPRESSION REALITY HAS NO CHANCE…FILTERS ARE PLACED OVER IT, SO IT ‘SEEMS’ TO CORRESPOND TO THE SOCIAL REALITY…BECAUSE CONFORMING IS COMFORT, SUCCESS, ACCEPTANCE, APPROVAL, STATUS, RECOGNISITION, LOVE, SATISFACTION…THE ORTHODOXY REWARDS CONFORMITY AND PUNISHEDS, EVEN KILLS, TORTURES, EXCOMMUNICATES NON-CONFORMITY….SO THE SUB CONSCIOUS IS DOOMED TO CENSORSHIP…TO SELF-CENSORSHIP…THUS THE SOCIAL REALITY ENGINEERS / IMPRESSION MANAGERS / PUBLIC OPINION MANUFACTURERS / EMOTION IMPLANTERS ETC CAN IMPLANT / SUGGEST / IMPOSE THEIR DESIRED ‘SOCIAL REALITY’ UPON EACH INDIVIDUAL…THOSE TOO STRONG WHO RESIST ARE PUNISHED/ TORTURED / IMPRISONED / EXCOMMUNICATED…OFTEN THEIR FAMILIES TORTURED BEFORE THEIR EYES…AND YOU WONDER HOW A FEW PEOPLE CAN RULE THE ENTIRE PLANET?

the Khazars (the Turkic group which seems to have formed the original basis of Ashkenazi Jewry

MHR TRANCE WITHIN TRANCE ‘INTERPOLATED’ I.E LIKE ALL ‘RELIGIOUS’ TEXTS … PRIESTS ADD STUFF THEY WANT TO BE GRANTED THE SAME ‘AUTHORITY’ AS THE ‘ORIGINAL’ TEXT / STORY …. TORTURE ANYONE WHO ‘REMEMBERS’ ‘HEY, THE S TORY DIDN’T GO LIKE THAT / THAT WASN’T PART OF THE STORY ETC UNTIL KILLED ANYONE WHO ‘REMEMBERS’ AND THUS ‘CHALLENGES’ THE ‘ORTHODOXY’ OF THE CURRENT PRIESTHOOD / CONTROLLERS OF THE CULT / CO-OPTERS OF THE CULT…N.B THAT THE CULT OF JUDAISM CONTROLLERS LOVE TO TAKE ANY ‘OFFSHOOTS’ AND ‘NEW RELIGIONS’ AND INFILTRATE THEM, AND BUILD UP ANY SORT OF CENTRALISED ORGANISATIONS…THE MORE CENTRALISED THE BETTER…SO LATER THEY CAN MORE EASILY BE CO-OPTED AND MERGED INTO THEIR ONE JUDAIC CULT WORLD DICTATORSHIP…TO THEM IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHAT THE C ONTENT OF THE CENTRALISED POWERFUL RELIGION / CULT / SECT / NATION IS…ALL THEY VALUE IS THAT IT DOES THE WORK FOR THEM, OF CENTRALISING POWER IN A FEW HANDS…THEN THEY ONLY NEED TO CORRUPT THOSE ‘FEW HANDS’ …MUCH TOO EASY…. THAT IS HOW THE JEW WORLD ORDER, WITH A RELATIVELY FEW PEOPLE, AND RELATIVELY LITTLE POWER, CAN RULE THE WORLD…BUT CO-OPTING ANY EXISTING / SPONTANEOUS ‘CENTRALISED AUTHORITIES / ORGANISATIONS / STATES’…THUS THE DRIVE FOR KEEPING THE U.S. A ONE STATE IN THE CIVIL WAR, AND FOR THE E.U, THE JEW.S.S.R, AND FOR DESTROYING ALL STATES POWER E.G CATALONIA, AND THE FEDERAL SUPREME COURT RULING THAT U.S STATES COULD NOT FIGHT SEDITION THEMSELVES I.E CONSTANT EROSION OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES, STATE LIBERTIES, AND CONSTANT GROWTH OF CENTRALISED AUTHORITIES E.G ‘THE F ED’, ‘FEDERAL GOVT. AT EXPENSE OF STATE AND LOCAL’, AND ‘FEDERATIONS OVER STATES, AND E.U OVER MEMBER STATES…

The first trance has the effect of dissociating the patient away from the surrounding reality into her internal environment. When you then interpolate a second trance into the first, it effects an even deeper regression into herself. The basic purpose of the interpolated trance is to get the patient further removed from outer consensual reality MHR CULTS ARE ALL NLP, TRANCE, HYPNOSIS, ‘I DID HIM A FAVOR SO I LIKE HIM’, ‘I HARMED HIM SO I HATE HIM’…CONSIDER THE ‘LOGIC’ OF THIS…WHY WOULD YOU HELP / HARM SOMEONE UNLESS YOU LIKED / HATED THEM? AND WHY WOULD YOU HATE OR LIKE THEM WITH NO REASON? SO SURELY YOU HAVE A REASON, EVEN IF YOU CAN’T QUITE REMEMBER (IN FACT IT WAS SUGGESTED, AS WERE THE ACTS OF MALICE / BENEFICIENCE, BY YOUR CULT LEADERS/THEIR AGENTS/YOUR PEERS/SIGNIFICANT OTHERS) … IF YOU CAN GET ACCEPTANCE OF ANY AUTHORITY, THEN INTERGENERATIONALLY YOU CAN BUILD ON IT / ADD STUFF TO THE ORIGINAL ‘NOBLE’ LIES…AND TORTURE / EXCOMMUNICATE ANYONE WHO CHALLENGES YOUR INTERPOLATIONS…THE ORIGINAL STORY IS EASIER TO ‘DEFEND’ AS IT ‘HAPPENED SO LONG AGO’ AND ‘EVERYONE KNOWS IT HAPPENED’…I.E AUTHORITY OF TRADITION,…HOW COULD A LIE SURVIVE SO LONG IF IT WAS A LIE? AS IF DISTANCE BETWEEN EVENTS AND DESCRIPTIONS DOES NOT MAKE IT EASIER… IDEALLY YOU FIND AN EXISTING TRADITION / STORY / CULT CONCEPT, AND INTERPOLATE YOUR OWN ‘SUGGESTIONS’ AND ‘AUTHORITY’ FOR YOUR OWN POWER / AND THE STORIES THAT REINORCE / LEGITIMATE THAT POWER…IT IS TOO EASY TO INFILTRATE AND CORRUPT A FEW PEOPLE…SO ENCOURAGE CENTRALISATION OF POWER… EVEN IF AT START THE ORGANISATION IS CLEARLY YOUR ADVERSARY, LET IT THRIVE, THEN WAIT FOR THE RIGHT MOMENT TO CORRUPT IT… LIKE THE KGB JEW WORLD ORDER AND THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH,… ETC ETC E: Yes, I don’t have to help her withdraw from the outer environment with the interpolated trance. When she gets back to reality, it will be much more difficult for her to recover that interpolated trance for which she has an amnesia even in the trance state.

SADLY ALL MY EFFORTS ARE PROBABLY ONLY BENEFITING THE ENEMY OF FREEDOM AND TRUTH…THE JEW WORLD ORDER OPERATIVES ARE THE ONLY ONES READING MY BOOKS…USING THEM TO PLAN AHEAD FOR THE POTENTIAL ‘ESCAPEES’ LIKE MYSELF…IF I COULD WORK THINGS OUT, SO CAN OTHERS…BUT PROBABLY ONLY A FEW PIECES OF THIS PUZZLE…SO BY ME SHOWING WHAT PIECES CAN BE PUT TOGETHER, I AM REALLY HELPING THE ENEMY PREPARE FOR THE ODD CASE WHERE ANOTHER PERSON ‘WAKES UP’…THEY WILL PREVENT SUCH THINGS, AND HAVE THEIR SPECIIOUS, SPURIOUS ARGUMENTS READY TO COUNTER THEM, AND THEIR MOSSAD AGENTS READY TO KILL / TORTURE/ IMPRISON…THEIR ‘TEACHERS’ AND ‘PYSHCIATTRISTS’ READY WITH ‘DEFINTIONS OF MENTAL ILLNESS TO ATTACH TO THE ‘ESCAPEES’ AWAKENED REALISATIONS / ARGUMENTS….WILL BE ABLE TO ‘PRUNE’ SOCIETY OF ANY YOUNG NON-CONFORMISTS, BEFORE THEY GET A CHANCE TO MATURE…AND DO ANY ‘DAMAGE’ TO THE SOCIAL REALITY…WAKE ANYONE UP…EVEN FULLY AWAKEN THEMSELVES…BUT I WILL WRITE THIS IN THE VAIN HOPE THAT THE FEW PEOPLE INTERESTED IN FREEDOM, TRUTH, JUSTICE, MIGGHT BENEFIT…AND AT LEAST GAIN CLARITY FOR MYSELF…MAYBE RAISE MY RESONANT FREQUENCIES HIGH ENOUGH TO ESCAPE THIS PRISON….AND AVOID BEING REIMPRISONED…

I WONDER HOW DEEP IT GOES…NOT JUST ON THIS PATHETIC PLANET, BUT BEFORE AND AFTER…HOW WAS I TRICKED INTO PARTICIPATING AT ALL, IN SOMETHING I CLEARLY DO NOT WANT TO BE A PART OF, ONCE I REALISE ITS TRUE NATURE, AS BUDDHA OR SCHOPENHAUER…OR HUME…??? SO THIS BOOK AND MY MASSIVE MAMMOTH PROJECT ON ‘MIND CONTROL’ I.E MY DESIRE FOR US ALL TO GAIN CONTROL OF OUR OWN MINDS, NOT TO ENSLAVE OTHERS, BUT TO FREE OTHERS…ARE ONE…MAKING MY TASK ALL THE MORE OVERWHELMING…GIVEN I HAVE ZERO SUPPORT FOR THE TASK…AT BEST A FEW WORDS OF ENCOURAGEMENT AND THANKS FROM STRANGERS, WHO FOR ALL I KNOW ARE WORKING FOR THE ENEMY OF FREEDOM, TRUTH, AND JUSTICE…???

R: So an interpolated trance is another way of effecting a deeper hypnotic amnesia.

E: In future trances she’s going to have an amnesia for the interpolated trance, but she would have to go through it to get a complete memory of the first trance in which it took place. I gave her many positive supportive suggestions during the interpolated trance. This served to reinforce all the positive values of that initial interview.

R: It’s like a feedback loop, where what conies later reinforces the positive values of what occurred earlier.

E: Yes, and it’s reinforcing what happens now by virtue of the past that I’ve transplanted into the initial interview. I work in all directions. In everyday life when strangers meet they may speak casually in a general way until they discover something common in their past: They might have vacationed in the same place or come from the same state or town or gone to the same school. Sometimes they discover to their delight that they have a few acquaintances in common and can now share more intimate details of their lives. They have now created a strong rapport in the present based entirely on experiences from the past.

R: They have created a shared phenomenal world in common (Rossi, 1972a). They have built associative bridges that now bind them together in friendship. This is a common everyday process of social relating that you are now utilizing to enhance your rapport with this patient. The interpolated trance is a way of rapidly creating a positive history that enhances current relations.

ordinary Jews – the great mass of decent Jewish people who were themselves being manipulated – could find themselves in danger if public opinion turned against all Jews as an enemy of the human race.

Reed dismissed the Nazis’ persecution of German Jews, and even the pogroms, as just “propaganda.” Reed cited a story in the Daily Herald about Germans in football clothes playing football with 500 Jewish babies in a football stadium near Kiev “bouncing and kicking them around the arena.” This story had also been dismissed in the New Statesman as “complete fabrication” and “nonsense.”Reed believed in a long-term Zionist conspiracy to impose a world government on an enslaved humanity.[3] He was also staunchly anti-Communist, and once wrote that National Socialism was a “stooge or stalking horse” meant to further the aims of the “Communist Empire.At the outbreak of the First World War he enlisted in the British Army. He transferred to the Royal Flying Corps, gaining a single kill in aerial combat and severely burning his face in a flying accident. (Insanity Fair, 1938) Around 1921 he began working as a telephonist and clerk for The Times. At the age of 30, he became a sub-editor. In 1927 he became assistant correspondent in Berlin, later transferring to Vienna as chief central European correspondent. He went on to report from various European centres including Warsaw, Moscow, Prague, Athens, Sofia, Bucharest and Budapest.Douglas Launcelot Reed (11 March 1895 – 26 August 1976) was a British journalist, playwright, novelist and author of a number of books of political analysis.

NOTE FROM Reed The Controversy of Zion TO COMPILE WITH ALL OTHER BOOKS I’VE WRITTEN, POST ‘OCCUPIED’ ESSAYS, NOTES FROM BRENDON O’CONNELLS TRIAL, AND TRANSCRIPTS YET TO BE MADE FROM ALL MY VIDEOS …

MHR

the Torah PROMISES world dominion over “the heathen”, wielded from an empire stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates MHR SO ANY TIME ISRAEL EXPANDS, WE ARE ONE STEP CLOSER TO TOTAL SLAVERY…OR WILL THEY ENSLAVE US FIRST, TO GAIN THE TERRORITORY OF ‘GREATER ISRAEL’ THEIR CULT LEADERS PROMISED THEM, CLAIMING TO SPEAK FOR ‘JEHOVA’ YHWH…the unqualified “fulfilment of Zionist aspirations”, that could only mean a greater war than the West had yet endured, in which its armies would play the parts of pawns in a ruinous game, for the purpose of dividing the Christian peoples, crushing the Muslim ones, setting up the Zionist empire, and thereafter acting as its janissaries… In this great gamble, Jews everywhere in the world, on whatever side of the apparent fighting line, would be expected under the “law of the return” to act in the overriding interest of Zion MHR CUE BRENDON O’CONNELL, OPERATION TALPIOT, THE ‘OLD CANARD’/LIE THAT JUDAISM REPRESENTS THREAT TO ANY NATION THAT HOSTS IT I.E ALWAYS LOYAL TO ‘ISRAEL’, EVEN WHEN IT DIDN’T EXIST…AND ISRAEL MUST DEFEAT ISLAM / CANAAN ONCE AGAIN…WITH ‘GODS’ HELP I.E THE ILLUSION OF GOD PUSHING THE ‘WEST’ TO FIGHT FOR ISRAEL…AND FOR ITS OWN SLAVERY TO ISRAEL…

Menachem Beigin, chief of the “activist”, or killer, group which had carried out the massacre at Deir Yasin. IN THE SPIRIT OF THE MOSAIC LAW AND TALMUDIC CULT MENTALITY I.E GENOCIDE…MEN WOMEN CHILDREN AND ANIMALS… WHICH DROVE THE ARABS OUT OF THAT AREA… Therefore the Arabs knew exactly with what they were menaced when Mr. Beigin spoke to them. WHEN HE WAS PRIME MINISTER OF ISRAEL…AND TO THINK JEWS KEEP GOING ON ABOUT HOW ARABS WON’T ACCEPT THE ISRAELI STATE, KNOWING EXACTLY WHAT IT MEANS FOR THEM, TO ACCEPT A NEW CANAANITE GENOCIDE, ON THE MODEL OF DEIR YASIN, ITSELF MODELLED ON THE REAL OR ‘MODEL’ GENOCIDES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, THE ‘MOSAIC LAW’, THE BASIS OF ‘JUDAISM’, EVEN FOR THOSE WHO REJECT THE TALMUD PER SE….

MHR, WHEN THE TALMUDIC CULT LEADERS ARE READY, THEY WILL ‘REVEAL’ THAT 911 WAS ‘JEWS’…TO PROMOTE ‘ANTI-SEMTISM’ I.E LEGITIMATE ANGER AT THE JEWS INVOLVED, WHICH WILL BE DEFINED AS IRRATIONAL HATRED OF AMALEK FOR THE CHOSEN PEOPLE…HAVE TO WORK OUT HOW THEY INTEND USING THIS…WHAT SIGNS TO LOOK FOR…PROBABLY ‘LEAK’ ENOUGH INFO TO MAKE IT OBVIOUS, WHILE OFFICIALLY DENYING IT, SO WHEN THE PEOPLE SEEK JUSTICE AGAINST THE PERPETRATORS, OF 911 OR WHATEVER ELSE THEY HAVE PLANNED TO FOLLOW, IT CAN BE ‘DEFINED’ AS ‘ANTI-SEMITISM’, PROVING U.S.A IS ‘AMALEK’ / ‘HIS SON WHAT HIS NAME?’…AND ‘JUSTIFYING THE PLANNED DESTRUCTION OF ALL POTENTIAL RESISTANCE TO THE TALMUDIC CULT…

This book, first written between 1949 and 1952, was rewritten in the years 1953-1956, and its concluding chapter in October and November of 1956… one-half of “the Jewish century”

the 20th century its distinctive character; it is the age of Talmudic chauvinism and Talmudic imperialism. Our present situation was foretold nearly a hundred years ago by a German, Wilhelm Marr.

Marr was a revolutionary and conspirator who helped the Jewish-led “secret societies” (Disraeli) prepare the abortive outbreaks of 1848. His writings of that period are recognizably Talmudic (he was not a Jew); they are violently anti-Christian, atheist and anarchist. Later, like Bakunin (Marr was a similar man) he became aware of the true nature of the revolutionary hierarchy, and in 1879 he wrote:

“The advent of Jewish imperialism, I am firmly convinced, is only a question of time. . . The empire of the world belongs to the Jews. . . Woe to the conquered! . . . I am quite certain that before four generations have passed there will not be a single function in the State, the highest included, which will not be in the hands of the Jews . . . At the present moment, alone among European states, Russia still holds out against the official recognition of the invading foreigners. Russia is the last rampart and against her the Jews have constructed their final trench. To judge by the course of events, the capitulation of Russia is only a question of time . . . In that vast empire. . . Judaism will find the fulcrum of Archimedes which will enable it to drag the whole of Western Europe off its hinges once for all. The Jewish spirit of intrigue will bring about a revolution in Russia such as the world has never yet seen . . . The present situation of Judaism in Russia is such that it has still to fear expulsion. But when it has laid Russia prostrate it will no longer have any attacks to fear. When the Jews have got control of the Russian state. . . they will set about the destruction of the social organization of Western Europe. This last hour of Europe will arrive at latest in a hundred or a hundred and fifty years”.

The present state of Europe, as it has been left by the Second War, shows this forecast to have been largely fulfilled. Indeed, only the full denouement remains, [486] for its complete fulfilment.

the West alone enabled the new state to survive. It was kept alive by infusions of money from America. Commentary (above quoted) stated that by June 1953 total United States Government assistance to Israel amounted to $293,000,000, with a further $200,000,000 in such forms as Export-Import bank loans…President Truman’s “technical aid” programme stated (October, 1952)…but of course via the Jew.S.S.R ROOSEVELT HAD GIVEN ISRAEL NUKES…

The New York Herald-Tribune (March 12, 1953) said the total amount of United States money, including private gifts and loans, amounted to “more than $1,000,000,000 during the first five years of Israel’s existence”, which, it added, had thus been “ensured”. On top of all this came the German tribute, extorted by the American Government, of 520,000,000 Israeli pounds annually.

Assured of this unstinting monetary backing, and of a political support in Washington which could not change, the new state set out on its grandiose ambition: to restore to full force, in the 20th Century of our era, the “New Law” promulgated by the Levites in Deuteronomy in 621 B.C. All that was to come was to be “fulfilment” of it; the Mongolian Chazars were to see that Jehovah kept his compact, as the Levites had published it. And what ensued was in fact an instalment on account of this “fulfilment”; the vision of “the heathen” bringing the treasures of the earth to Jerusalem began to become reality in the form of American money, German tribute and the like.

Germany Must Perish, by a Mr. Theodore N. Kaufmann, proposed the extermination of the German people in the literal sense of the Law of the Talmud-Torah. Mr. Kaufmann proposed that “German extinction” be achieved by sterilizing all Germans of procreation age (males under 60, females under 45) within a period of three years after the war’s end, Germany to be sealed off during the process and its territory then to be shared among other people, so that it should disappear from the map together with its people. Mr. Kaufmann calculated that, with births stopped through sterilization, the normal deathrate would extinguish the German race within fifty or sixty years.

I feel sure that public abhorrence would have deterred any publisher from issuing this work during the First War, and possibly at any previous time since printing was invented. In 1941 it appeared with the commendation of two leading American newspapers (both Jewish-owned or Jewish-controlled). The New York Times described the proposal as “a plan for permanent peace among civilized nations”; the Washington Post called it “a provocative theory, interestingly presented”. I HAVE PHOTOS OF THE COVER AND QUOTES…TOGETHER WITH THE MOST RECENT VIDEO CALLING FOR THE GENOCIDE OF GERMANY, AND U.S ETC…

This proposal was more literally Talmudic than anything else I can find, but the spirit that prompted it breathed in many other books. The hatred evinced was not limited to Germans; it extended to Arabs and for a period to the British; as it [482] had earlier been directed against Spaniards, Russians, Poles and others. It was not a personal thing; being the end-product of Talmudic teaching it ranged impartially over all things non”Judaist, taking first one symbolic enemy and then another from a world where, under the Levitical Law, all were enemies.

As in the case of the Morgenthaus, father and son, one generation saw the change. Mr. Levine’s parents, migrants from a country of alleged “persecution”, were content to have found another where they prospered. The son was not content. Soon he was in Palestine, and developed vengeful feelings towards the Arabs of whom he had never heard in his youth. He tells, as a good jest, of an incident in a Zionist settlement when an Arab, coming across the fields, humbly asked for a drink of water. Mr. Levine and his friends pointed to a barrel, at which the Arab thankfully drank while they laughed; it was the horse-water.

Ten years after that he was in Germany and played his part in the Talmudic vengeance there. He was an American newspaper correspondent and describes how he and another Jewish correspondent roamed about Germany as “conquerors”, armed (illicitly), in a jeep, looting and wrecking as they pleased. He then says that the passive submission of German women to the “conquerors” thwarted the furious desire to rape them and “sometimes the hatred in a man rose so high that he felt the absolute need of violence”. In this mood, his companion and he swore that “the only thing to do was to throw them down, tear them apart”, and they discussed “the ideal conditions for such a scene of violence; there would have to be a wooded stretch of road, little traffic, and a lone girl on foot or a bicycle”. The pair then made “a tentative sally” in search of these “ideal conditions” and at length found a lonely girl and “the conditions, all fulfilled”. (He says the terrified girl was spared at the last and wonders if the reason, in each [485] man, was that the presence of the other embarrassed him).

MHR DO CHAPTER ON BARUCH AS ‘THE UNELECTED MOST POWERFUL MAN IN THE WORLD’…SON OF A KLU KLUX KLAN EASTERN EUROPEAN JEW … STORY OF HOW INSIDE 100 YEARS THE TALMUDIC CULT COULD GRASP TOTAL POWER IN THE JEW.S.A, WHILE REMAINING ALMOST INVISIBLE ‘IN THE TALL GRASS’…

Mr. Henry Morgenthau senior was a notable Jew of America who became an ambassador. He was the product of Jewish emancipation during the last century; he was what the Jews today might have been, but for Talmudic chauvinism. He said:

“Zionism is the most stupendous fallacy in Jewish history. I assert that it is wrong in principle and sterile in its spiritual ideas. Zionism is a betraval, an Eastern European proposal, fathered in this country by American Jews. . . which, if they were to succeed, would cost the Jews of America most of what they have gained of liberty, equality and fraternity, I refuse to allow myself to be called a Zionist. I am an American”.

[480]

In the next generation the name of the son, Mr. Henry Morgenthau junior, became inseparably associated with the founding of the Zionist state (his father’s “stupendous fallacy”) and with the Talmudic vengeance in Europe. In the sequel the son might prove to be one of the men most responsible for bringing about the consequences which the father feared. Dr. Weizmann records the great part played by the junior Mr. Morgenthau in the backstage drama in New York which culminated in the violent establishment of the Zionist state and an American president’s “recognition” of the deed. In Europe he fathered (through the “Morgenthau Plan”) the bisection of the continent and the advance of therevolution to its middle. Some passages in that plan (initialled by Messrs. Roosevelt and Churchill, who both repudiated it when the damage was done) are of especial significance, namely, those which propose that “all industrial plants and equipment not destroyed by military action” (in

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 321 —

Germany) “shall be . . . completely destroyed. . . and the mines wrecked”. The original source of this idea of “utter destruction” apparently can only be the Talmud-Torah, where it is part of the “Law of God”. The Zionist state itself, as I have shown, was founded on a deed of “utter destruction”, and thus of literal “observance” of this Law, at Deir Yasin.

In 1933 Mr. Bernard J. Brown wrote, “Being consciously Jewish is the lowest kind of chauvinism, for it is the only chauvinism that is based an false premises”. The premises are those of the Talmud-Torah; namely, that God promised a certain tribe supremacy over all enslaved others in this world, and exclusive inheritance of the next world in return for strict observance of a law based on blood sacrifice and the destruction or enslavement of the lesser breeds without this Law. Whether Talmudic chauvinism or Zionist chauvinism (I believe either term is more correct than Mr. Brown’s “Jewish chauvinism”) is or is not “the lowest kind” of chauvinism, these fifty years have shown that it is the most violent kind yet known to man.

Mr. Baruch stated that his father”came to’this country a hundred years ago”. The case offers the most signifkant example of the effect on America, and through America on world affairs, of the “new immigration” of the 19th Century. After just that hundred years the son had already for nearly forty years been one of the most powerful men in the world, though he worked “in the long grass. . . out of sight”, and he was to continue this work for at least another ten years.

BARUCH: the United Nations can prescribe individual responsibility and punishment on the principles applied at Nuremberg I CAN’T THINK OF A MORE ELOQUENT WAY TO EXPOUND THE TRUE NATURE OF THE JEW.N…TO DESTROY ANY OPPONENTS OF THE TALMUDIC CULT’S JEW WORLD ORDER…

MHR BARUCH’S INTEREST IN PREVENTING THE SPREAD OF ATOMIC WEAPONS WAS CLEARLY THAT THE TALMUDIC CULT WAS TO BE THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO HAD ACCESS TO THEM, TO ENFORCE THEIR TALMUDIC JEW WORLD ORDER

MHR WE WENT FROM 10 COMMANDMENTS, TO 613, TO 36 VOLUMES OF ‘INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW’ TO TODAY’S MODERN ‘LAW LIBRARIES’… MICROMANAGMENT OF HUMAN AFFAIRS AT EVERY LEVEL…THAT IS TYPICAL OF YOUR NEUROTIC CULT MENTALITY…TOTAL CONTROL…NO NEED TO THINK, JUST LOOK UP IN SOME BOOK / ASK AN EXPERT, WHAT YOU SHOULD DO IN EVERY SITUATION, FROM FARTING TO RETURNING LOST PROPERTY… THE ‘UNITED NATIONS’ REALLY REFERS TO THE ‘GENTILES / GOYS’ TO BE RULED FROM JERUSALEM FROM THE TALMUDIC CULT’S HQ THERE…THE JEW WORLD ORDER…THE JEW.N IS THE TYRANT ORGANISATION FOR ‘THE NATIONS’ I.E ‘GOYS’…I.E ‘GENTILES’ I.E NON-TALMUDIC CULT MEMBERS…LIKE ‘ROUNDING UP THE CATTLE FOR BRANDING THEN LATER SLAUGHTER OR MILKING’…THAT IS YOUR U.N…

during the Second War, “Baruch had agreed with President Roosevelt and other leaders that a world organization should be established at the height of allied unity in the war”. the confusion-period of a great war, when the “advisers” submit their plans, the “premier-dictators” initial them (and later cannot understand how they could have done so), and the great coups are brought off. MHR REFERRING TO ‘THE MORGENTHAU PLAN’ WHICH ROOSEVELT, CHURCHILL, AND STALIN ALL ‘INITIALED’, LATER CLAIMING THEY WERE NOT AWARE OF WHAT THEY HAD SIGNED…BASICALLY AN ORDERR FOR THE TOTAL DESTRUCTION OF GERMANY INTO A ‘GOAT PASTURE’…

MHR THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I PREDICT TO COME SOON…A REAL OR FAKED WORLD WAR, DURING WHICH THE LAST STAGES OF THE JEW WORLD ORDER WILL BE PUT IN PLACE, BY FORCE, AND MAINTAINED BY FORCE, CENSORSHIP, MISINFORMATION, PROPAGANDA ETC…PROBABLY TRUMP WILL CLAIM ‘INSANITY’ (ALEX JONES HIS CO-CONSPIRATOR CONTROLLED TALMUDIC CULT ‘ALT’ ‘CONTROLLED’ OPPOSITION IS ALREADY SUGGESTING THIS) SO THAT WHEN HE SIGNS OVER ALL U.S TO THE JEW.N, HE CAN ACT LIKE CHURCHILL AFTER THE MORGENTHAU PLAN AROUSED HUGE PROTESTS IN BRITAIN AND AMERICA, ONCE IT WAS ‘REVEALED’…THOUGH EISENHOWER HAD ALREADY SET UP HIS DEATH CAMPS FOR GERMANS, AND RETURNED EAST EUROPEANS TO STALIN TO BE BUTCHERED AND ENSLAVED …

U.S RECOGNITION OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL, GAINED LITERALLY BY OLD TESTAMENT MEANS I.E GENOCIDE OF MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN, LITERALLY, WAS GIVEN LITERALLY BY EXECUTIVE ORDER, AGAINST THE EXPRESS INTENTIONS OF THE DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERTS / ADVISORS…Dr. Weizmann then had called “the terror in Palestine” the “old evil in a new and horrible guise”. April 9, 1948 showed what he meant, and in particular why he called it the old evil. On that day the “activists”, the terror-and-assassination group of Zionism, “utterly destroyed” an Arab village in exact and literal fulfilment of “the Law” laid down in Deuteronomy (which, the reader will recall, is the basic Judaic law but was itself an amendment of the original Mosaic law of the Israelites).

This was the most significant day in the entire story of Zionism. To the Arabs (who knew the Torah and “had known for two thousand years what you have fought two world wars to learn”) it meant that the savage Law of Judah, devised by the Levites between 700 and 400 BC., was to be resurrected and imposed on them in full force and violence, with the support of the Christian West and of Communized Russia alike. The symbolic massacre, they knew, was intended to show what would happen to all of them if they stayed. Thereon almost the entire [449] Arab population of Palestine fled into the neighbouring Arab states.

The massacre at Deir Yasin was briefty reported in the West, for instance Time magazine of New York

said:

“Jewish terrorists of the SteRN Gang and Irgun Zvai Leumi stormed the village of Deir Yasin and butchered everyone in sight. The corpses of 250 Arabs, mostly women and small children, were later found tossed into wells”. At the Versailles Peace Conference in 1919 Dr. Weizmann had declared, “The Bible is our mandate”, and the words sounded good to Western ears. This event showed what they meant, and the same words were repeated by the Zionist leaders in Palestine thirty years after Dr. Weizmann used them. The massacre at Deir Yasin was an act of “observance” of the ancient “statutes and commandments”, including the relevant passage in Deuteronomy, “When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and shall cast out. . . seven nations greater and mightier than thou . . . then thou shalt utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them”, and the related passage, “thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth, but thou shalt utterly destroy them”. There are seven Arab states today, and each of them has its share of the fugitives of 1948, who for eight years now have been a living reminder to them of the common future fate with which Zionism threatens them under the ancient Law.

The passive condonation of this deed by Jewry as a whole showed more clearly than anything else the change which Zionism had wrought in the Jewish mind in a few years. Writing in 1933 (only fifteen years before Deir Yasin), Mr. Bernard J. Brown quoted the above passage from Deuteronomy as the reason for Arab fears, and added, “Of course, the uncultured Arabs do not understand that the modem Jew does not take his

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 302 —

bible literally, and that he is a kind and charitable person and would not be so cruel to his fellow-man, but he suspects that if the Jews bottom their claim to Palestine on the strength of the historic rights to that land, they can only do so on the authority of the Bible, and the Arab refuses to reject any part of it”. The Arabs were right and Mr. Brown was wrong; this enlightened Western Jew could not conceive, in 1933, that Zionism meant a full return to the superstition of antiquity in its most barbaric form.

Probably Deir Yasin remained an isolated incident only because its meaning was so clear that the Arabs left the country. Mr. Arthur Koestler is definite about this cause-and-effect. He was in Palestine and says the Arab civilian population, after Deir Yasin, at once fled from Haifa, Tiberia, Jaffa and all other cities and then from the entire country, so that “by May 14 all had gone save for a few thousand”. All impartial authorities agree about the intention and effect of Deir Yasin, and from April 9, 1948 no doubt remained about the governing force of the ancient Judaic Law on all future acts and ambitions of Zion. Deir Yasin explains the fear of the surviving Arab states today as fully as it explains the flight of the Palestinean Arabs.

Mongolian soldiers from the East, as they entered Germany, were incited by the recorded voice of Ilya Ehrenburg, from Moscow, to fall in particular on pregnant women; JUST IN CASE YOUR THOUGHT THE TALMUDIC CULT ‘RIPPING UP PREGNANT WOMEN’ WAS SOME SORT OF TRANSLATION ERROR ON THE PART OF THE OLD TESTAMENT TRANSLATORS !!!

When 1948 ended, thirty-one years after the first triumph of the dual conspiracy (the Balfour Declaration and the Bolshevik revolution) the Zionist state had been set up. Mr. Truman, the pacemaker in “recognition”, had been advised by his responsible officers that the partition forcibly effected at Deir Yasin would lead to a third world war; all leading Western politicians had received the same counsel from their responsible advisers. None of the “top-line politicians” concerned can have been in doubt about the shape which their support of Zionism would give to the future, and their public utterances about it cannot have expressed their private knowledge or belief. The American politicians of the 1940’s and 1950’s, like Mr. Leopold Amery and Mr. Winston Churchill during the earlier decades, evidently were captive to the belief that, for some reason never disclosed, “policy” in this one matter could never “change”. The captivity of the London and Washington governments, and the identity of [466] the captors, even today (1956) is not realized by the American and British masses (though the now apparent danger of a new world war beginning in and spreading outward from Zionised Palestine is for the first time disquietening them). In the rest of the world it has long been understood. As long ago as the 1920’s for instance, the Maharajah of Kashmir asked Sir Arthur Lothian (as that British diplomat relates), “why the British government was establishing a ‘Yehudi ka Raj’ (Rule of the Jews) in India. I demurred to this description, but he insisted that it was true, saying the Viceroy, Lord Reading, was a Jew, the Secretary of State, Mr. Edwin Montague, was a Jew, the High Commissioner, Sir William Meyer, was a Jew, and what more evidence did I want?” Thus a remote Indian Maharajah, thirty years ago, clearly saw the true shape of coming events in the Western world.

I quoted earlier the statement of the Egyptian Prime Minister to Count Bernadotte, that “Jewish economic power controlled the economic system of. . . the United States, England, France, Egypt itself. . .” In the seven years that have passed the leaders of all the Arab states have openly and repeatedly charged that the American government has become merely the instrument of Zionist ambitions and have pointed to their own experience as the proof.

the Israeli Premier at that time, 1955 Mr. Moshe Sharett, commented, “A man is justified in taking any action, even in selling his soul to the devil, in order to save Jews”

This book has shown throughout that the staunchest opposition to Zionism, for instance, came from Jews, but today the “racial bloc” has had Zionism thrust on it like a straitjacket. In my opinion the directing force of the revolution was from 1848 onward demonstrably that of the Talmudic rabbinate in the East, and in that sense “the revolution” was “a Jewish conspiracy”. Research into the events of the three decades 1917 -1945 leads to the conclusion that by 1945 the revolution had for a hundred years been a Jewish-controlled revolution, for that space of time having passed since Disraeli first identified the nature of the leadership. I use the words “Jewish-controlled revolution” to denote a movement under the direction of the Talmudic rabbinate in the East, not a movement generally supported by Jews; as I have repeatedly [416] shown, the staunchest opposition came from those Western Jews who were furthest from the reach of the Talmudic directorate. The distinction is that which the careful student must make between “National Socialism” and “Germans”, between “Communism” and “Russians”. The Jewish nature of the first Bolshevist governments and of their deeds was earlier shown. The same characteristics appeared in the two short-lived offshoot governments which the Bolshevists set up in 1919, in Bavaria and Hungary. In both cases the terrorists were, in the main, imported into these countries in the guise of returning “prisoners of war”, and had been trained as Communist agitators in Russia. In Germany the Communist movement then was headed by the “Spartacus League” (“Spartacus” was Adam Weishaupt’s code-name), the leaders of which were nearly all Jews: Rosa Luxembourg, Leo Jogiches (from Poland), Paul Lévi, Eugene Levine (from Russia), and Karl Liebknecht. Thus the Bolshevist Government of Bavaria (which counted one Adolf Hitler among its soldiers) logically proved to be headed by Jews: Kurt Eisner, Ernst Toller and Eugene Levine. In Moscow in 1935 I came to know some of the Jewish oligarchs. One was the portly Maxim Litvinoff, a most typical figure of the Romanisches Café or the Café Royal, become a grandee of the revolution. Another was Oumansky, a smooth, smiling and deadly young man who came (I think) from Rumania but could not have been more un-Russian if he had been born in Africa. I felt as if I travelled through Russia (like Lenin towards it) in a sealed train.

In 1937 the state of affairs, I believe, had not much changed. Mr. A. Stolypine (whose father, the last of the persevering emancipators, had been assassinated in 1911) wrote that the substitution of Russians or others for Jews “on the highest rungs of the Soviet official ladder” was patently a tactical move and that the Jews “still have in their hands the principle levers of control; the day they are obliged to give them up the Marxist edifice will collapse like a house of cards”. He enumerated the high offices still occupied by Jews and in particular pointed out that the key-positions of real control, through terror, all remained in Jewish hands. These were the concentration and slave-labour camps (controlled by a Jewish triumvirate; they contained perhaps seven million Russians); the prisons (all Soviet prisoners were governed by a Jewish commissar); the entire newspublication-and-distribution machinery, including the censorship; and the essentially Talmudic system of “political commissars”, through which the armed [420] forces were kept under terrorist discipline. What “managers”, then, did the revolution impose on the Eastern European countries thus left prey to it in 1945? Here once more the opportunity offers to test the identity of the directing force behind the revolution. The choice was free; the revolution had no need to impose Jewish governments on the dozen countries abandoned to it unless this was its deliberate policy.

In communized Poland the United States Ambassador, Mr. Arthur Bliss Lane, saw and recorded the prevalence of Jews, many of them alien, in the key-posts of terrorism. Major Tufton Beamish, a Member of the British Parliament, wrote, “Many of the most powerful Communists in Eastern Europe are Jews. . . I have been surprised and shocked to discover the large proportion of Jews to be found in the ranks of the Secret Police forces”.

In 1938 a Mr. Butenko, who held a lower-rank post in the Soviet diplomatic service, fled to Italy rather than obey an order of recall from Bucharest to Moscow. He stated in the Giornale d’ltalia that the new ruling class in his country was almost exclusively Jewish. Particularly in the Ukraine, the entire administration and all industry were in such hands, and this was a policy deliberately followed by Moscow.

Thus the identity of the managers of the revolution did not change substantially between 1917 and 1939; they withdrew from most of the frontal places but retained the true “levers of control”.

In Hungary the chief terrorist leaders were all Jews trained in Russia: Matyas Rakosi, Bela Kun, Erno Geroe and Tibor Szamuely. The ostentatiously anti-Christian acts of this regime again showed its underlying purpose. Of this government the historian of the Communist International, Herr F. Borkenau, says, “Most of the Bolshevik and left Socialist leaders and a considerable percentage of their executive staff had been Jews. . . anti-semitism was therefore the natural form of reaction against Bolshevism”. In this typical passage the reader may see that “reaction against Bolshevism” is classified as “anti-semitism”; clearly the epithet could only be escaped by not “reacting against Bolshevism”.

The following ten years were inactive ones and the matter can next be tested in Spain, where the revolution made its bid in 1931. It was directed by emissaries from Moscow, many of them Jews, and this accounted for the disillusionment of many ardent republicans, Spanish and foreign; for instance, many of the clergy and Catholic laity voted for the republic, then finding that the reforming impulse, once more, was perverted into an attack on the Christian faith, as such. Churches, monasteries and any building carrying the Cross were destroyed, priests and nuns murdered; the specific mark of identification again appeared, seen in similar acts in Bavaria, Hungary, Russia, France and England.

What “managers”, then, did the revolution impose on the Eastern European countries thus left prey to it in 1945? Here once more the opportunity offers to test the identity of the directing force behind the revolution. The choice was free; the revolution had no need to impose Jewish governments on the dozen countries abandoned to it unless this was its deliberate policy.

In communized Poland the United States Ambassador, Mr. Arthur Bliss Lane, saw and recorded the prevalence of Jews, many of them alien, in the key-posts of terrorism. Major Tufton Beamish, a Member of the British Parliament, wrote, “Many of the most powerful Communists in Eastern Europe are Jews. . . I have been surprised and shocked to discover the large proportion of Jews to be found in the ranks of the Secret Police forces”.

The choice was free; the revolution had no need to impose Jewish governments on the dozen countries abandoned to it unless this was its deliberate policy.

In communized Poland the United States Ambassador, Mr. Arthur Bliss Lane, saw and recorded the prevalence of Jews, many of them alien, in the key-posts of terrorism. Major Tufton Beamish, a Member of the British Parliament, wrote, “Many of the most powerful Communists in Eastern Europe are Jews. . . I have been surprised and shocked to discover the large proportion of Jews to be found in the ranks of the Secret Police forces”.

To communized Hungary the terrorist of 1919 Matyas Rakosi (born Roth, in Yugoslavia) returned as Premier in 1945, and on this occasion had the Red Army to keep him in that office. Eight years later (1953) the Associated Press reported that “90 percent of the high officials in the Hungarian Communist regime are Jews, including Premier Matyas Rakosi”; the London Times in that year said [421] Mr. Rakosi’s cabinet was “predominantly Jewish”; Time magazine of New York spoke of “the strongly Jewish (90 percent in the top echelons) government of Communist Premier Matyas Rakosi, who is himself a Jew”. In Hungary, as in the other communized countries, the specific attack on Christianity began at once with the imprisonment of high ecclesiastics. The case which attracted most attention in the outer world was that of the Hungarian Cardinal Mindszenty, imprisoned on charges of treason. The Source of this deed was indicated by a statement addressed to the Jews of the world in 1949 by “the Central Board of Jews in Hungary, the Hungarian Zionist Organizatian and the Hungarian Section of the World Jewish Congress” which said, “It is with great relief that the Hungarian Jews received the news of Cardinal Mindszenty’s arrest. With this action the Hungarian Government has sent the head of a pogrom-clique . . . to his well deserved place”.

Of communized Czechoslovakia the London New Statesman (a trustworthy authority in such questions) wrote seven years after the war’s end, “In Czechoslovakia, as elsewhere in Central and South-Eastern Europe, both the party intellectuals and the key men in the secret police are largely Jewish in origin”. Of Rumania the New York Herald-Tribune reported in 1953, eight years after the war’s end, “Rumania, together with Hungary, has probably the greatest number of Jews in the administratin”.

In Rumania the terror raged under Ana Pauker, a Jewess, whose father, a rabbi, and brother were in Israel. This is an interesting case of the dissension in a Jewish family described by Dr. Weizmann in his account of his boyhood in Russia, where Jewish households were split between “revolutionary” Communism” and “revolutianary-Zionism”, and only in that question. Mrs. Pauker used her office to enable her father to leave Rumania for Israel, although (as her brother said) “it is party policy to keep the Jews in Rumania”.

MHR AGAIN, THE JEWS ARE THE VICTIMS ALONG WITH THE GENTILES, OF THE TALMUDIC CULT COMMUNIST ELITES…

Fatherhood of the attack on Christianity in Spain was formally proclaimed by the official organ of the Komintern: “the flames ascending from the burning churches and monasteries of Spain have shown the true character of the Spanish revolution”; the pedigree was traced through one more generation. Ecclesiastical property was confiscated, but the Spanish masses were not enriched thereby; the [417] gold reserve of the Bank of Spain (about 700 million dollars) was transferred to Moscow by the last Republican premier, one Juan Negrin (as related by General Walter Krivitsky). The revulsion of those Spaniards who had hoped to set up a constitutional republic, and found themselves under an alien, antiChristian tyranny, was inflamed by the murder of the monarchist leader, Calva Sotelo, in 1936, and in the sequence Spain “spewed out” the revolution (as every country has done where the Red Army, with its “political commissars”, could not enter to establish it). In 1920 official Bolshevik statements showed that 545 members of the chief ruling bodies included 447 Jews. In l933 the American Jewish journal Opinion stated that Jews occupied almost all important ambassadorial posts and that in White Russia 61 percent of all officials were Jews; it also stated that the Jewish percentage of the population (then given as 158,400,000) was “less than 2 percent”. If this was true it meant that Russia at that time contained less than 3,000,000 Jews. In 1933 the Jewish Chronicle stated that onethird of the Jews in Russia had become officials. If this was the case, they plainly formed the new governing class.

At that time the nature of the teaching had not been modified at all. The Commissar for Public Instruction, Lunatscharsky, was one of the few Russians in high office but he spoke like a Talmudist: “We hate Christianity and Christians; even the best of them must be looked upon as our worst neighbours. They preach the love of our neighbours and mercy, which is contrary to our principles. Down with the love of our neighbour; what we want is hatred. We must learn how to hate and it is only then that we shall conquer the world”. This is but one specimen of an entire literature of that period, and the only original source for such ideas, known to me, is the Talmud

Truth outs in the strangest ways, though in our age of press-control it does not out very far. MHR IN RESPONSE TO THE CLAIMS THAT ‘CONSPIRACIES OF THIS SCALE ARE IMPOSSIBLE, AS SOMEONE WOULD EXPOSE THEM…WELL, SO THEY DO, BUT HOW ARE THE PUBLIC TO HEAR OF THEIR REPORTS? WHO IS GOING TO TELL YOU WHAT THEY REPORTED / SAID ? IF A WHISTLE IS BLOWN, AND NO-ONE REPORTS IT, HAS IT REALLY BEEN BLOWN AT ALL?

For nothing is secret that shall not be made manifest; Neither anything hid, that shall not be known and come abroad – Luke 8: 17.

“In history” (said Lord Macaulay) “only the interpretation according to doctrinal necessity ever seems to survive, as the inconvenient and contradictory facts are forgotten or ignored.” On that count, this living scribe may be acquitted. I have not ignored anything known to me and I have presented what I know as truly as I am able. I have given the picture of our century as it appeared to a man involved, and as it was withheld from the public masses, who as they went along received only “the interpretation” according to what politicians held to be necessity.

Jeremiah’s lament for the former happiness of Israel (“the kindness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals”) in his rebuke to the heresy of “treacherous Judah”.

Certain symbolic deeds were evidently meant to establish the authorship, or nature, of the vengeance. These crowning acts of symbolism were the reproductions, after nearly thirty years, of the similar acts committed during the revolution in Russia: the Talmudic boast left on the wall of the Romanoffs’ death chamber and the canonization of Judas Iscariot. After the Second World War the Nazi leaders were hanged on the Jewish Day of Judgment in 1946, so that their execution was presented to Jewry in the shape of Mordecai’s vengeance on Haman and his sons. Then in the Bavarian village of Oberammergau, where the world-famous Passion Play had been performed for three centuries, the players of the chief parts were put on trial for “Nazi activities” before a Communist court. Those who appeared as Jesus and the apostles were all declared guilty; the one performer acquitted was he who took the part of Judas.

The Saturday Evening Post of April 11, 1953, said, “With this shameful agreement” (Yalta) “as their authority Soviet MVD agents strode through the displaced-persons camps after the war and put the finger on thousands who had managed to escape the Soviet tyranny. These miserable victims were herded into boxcars and driven back to death, torture or the slow murder of the Siberian mines and forests. Many killed themselves on the way. Also under a Yalta agreement, the Soviet was permitted to use German prisoners in forced labour in ‘reparations account’. For such inhumanities there is no excuse”.

Deuteronomy.

“And the Lord spake unto me, saying. . . This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the nations that are under the whole heaven, who shall hear report of thee, and shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee . . . And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it . . . And because he loved thy fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them. . . to drive out nations from before thee greater and mightier than thou art, to bring thee in, to give thee their land for an inheritance . . . And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee, thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them; neither shalt thou make marriages with them. . . ye shall destroy their altars and break down their images. . . For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God; the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth . . . And thou shalt consume all the people which the Lord thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them. . . But the Lord thy God shall deliver them unto thee, and shall destroy them with a mighty destruction until they be destroyed . . . He shall deliver their kings into thine hand, and thou shalt destroy their name from under heaven, there shall no man be able to stand before thee, until thou have destroyed them . . . Every place whereon the soles of your feet shall tread shall be yours. . . even unto the uttermost sea shall your coast be . . . Of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shall save nothing alive that breatheth . . . thou shalt lend unto many nations and thou shalt not borrow . . . Ye shall utterly destroy all the places wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods. . .”

LONG BEFORE JEWS GOT CONTROL OF ‘THE FED’ THEY HAD ALREADY BEEN GIVEN THE POWER TO PRINT MONEY, LITERALLY…250 MILLLION IN 1945 VALUE…TRILLIONS IN TODAYS VALUE…FACT… In 1944 Mr. Henry Morgenthau junior, Mr. Roosevelt’s Secretary of the Treasury, and his Assistant Secretary, Mr. Harry Dexter White (later shown to have been a Soviet agent) ordered the shipment to the Soviet Government of duplicates of the United States Treasury plates to be used for printing money for the use of the forces occupying Germany after the war. This meant that the money printed by the Soviet Government for the use of its troops was redeemable by the American Government as there was no distinction whatever between the paper printed. By the end of 1946, when public protests caused the American Government to stop paying its own troops with these notes, [366] so that the Soviet Government could make no further use of them, the United States Military Government in Germany found that it had redeemed about $250,000,000 in excess of the total of notes issued by its own Finance Office. (The Soviet Government ignored a request to pay the modest sum of some $18,000 for the plates and materials delivered to it, which had enabled it to draw $250,000,000 straight from the United States Treasury).

the Zionist-drafted “Genocide Convention” of the United Nations, which contains a provision prescribing legal penalties for anything said by some faction to cause “mental harm”; this provision, if enforced during another war, would make the A.D.L. censorship permanent and worldwide.

HOW TO FREE THE ‘JEWS’ (FROM THEIR CULT) AND THUS FREE US ALL FROM THAT CULT

IN ORDER TO FREE OURSELVES FROM OUR PHARISEE CULT OCCUPATIONAL GOVERNMENTS, WHICH HAVE INVOLVED US IN WARS SINCE OUR SUPPOSED ‘CONSTITUTIONS’ FORBADE ‘FOREIGN ENTANGLEMENTS, AND CENTRAL BANKS ‘LEND TO THE NATIONS, AND NEVER BORROW’, DESTROYED OUR RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS ETC, WE HAVE TO GO TO THE ROOT OF THE CULT…AND HELP THOSE WHO PREVIOUSLY ESCAPED IT, ENLIGHT THEIR AID, AND WITH IT REMOVE THE CULT’S POWER…THE MENTAL CONSTRUCTS E.G ‘GODS AUTHORITY’ … EVEN ‘GOD’… AND ALL THE PROPAGANDA E.G ‘THE HOLOCAUST’ AND ‘JEWISH OPPRESSION HISTORY AS VICTIM’…WHEN THE VICTIM HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE AVERAGE ‘JEW’ AND THEIR HOST, AND THE PERPETRATOR HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE CULT LEADERSHIP, AND THOSE IT HAS CORRUPTED / CO-OPTED / ENLISTED AS ITS GOLEMS E.G CHURCHIL, MAYBE EVEN HITLER, MOST OF THE U.S CONGRESS AND PRESIDENTS SINCE SOON AFTER THE U.S WAS FOUNDED…ETC…

HOW TO FREE THE SLAVE WHO WANTS TO ENSLAVE YOU? YOU MUST FREE THEM OF THEIR CULT / CULT MENTALITY, SO THEY SEE WE ALL FACE THE SAME OPPRESSOR….SLAVE MASTER…THE CULT OFF THE PHARISEES…TODAY CALLED ‘ THE JEW WORLD ORDER’… FOR WANT OF A MORE APTLY DESCRIPTIVE, MEANINGFUL, COMPREHENDIBLE IDENTIFIER… AS THEY ARE ‘JEWS’ THAT RULE THE WORLD, THAT RULE THAT CULT…IT IS A CULT OF JUDAISM…. THOUGH MOST ‘JEWS’ EXIST ON THE FRINGES OF IT…AND MANY HAVE ESCAPED IT, OR SEEK TO ESCAPE IT…

IN FACT THE VERY BEST LIBERAL ICONOCLASTIC FREEDOM FIGHTERS THIS WORLD HAS KNOWN EMERGED AS A DIRECTLY REFLEXIVE / DIALECTIAL REACTION TO THE WORST IN THE CULT…IT REPRESENTS THE MOST SAVAGE SLAVERY, AS MENTAL, INVISIBLE CHAINS, CONTROLLING MUCH MORE OF THE LIVES OF THE JEW THAN ANY CONVENTIONAL SLAVE MASTER EVER DID…THE AVERAGE SLAVE MAY HAVE BEEN TOLD WHAT TO DO, AND TOLD THEY WERE INFERIOR, BUT NO CULT OTHER THAN T HE PHARISEE / TALMUDIC CULT OF JUDAISM EVER CONTROLLED THE LIVES OF ITS CULT MEMBERS TO THE DEGREE / MICRO-MANAGEMENT / LEVEL / INTENSITY THAT THE TALMUD DOES…613 LAWS AND VOLUMES OF INTERPRETATIONS COVERING EVERY ASPECT OFF LIFE…MAKING LIFE A RITUAL … A PRISON… EVERY SINGLE MOVE AND ACTION CONTROLLED…BY THE CULT LEADERSHIP…WHICH HAD THE POWER TO CHANGE THESE RULES AT THEIR WHIM, AND CLAIM THE AUTHORITY OF GOD FOR THEIR PRONOUNCEMENTS … THIS IS THE PUREST FORM OF SLAVERY EVER INVENTED / KNOWN / PRACTISED…WHICH MANY SOUGHT ESCAPE FROM, BUT WERE THWARTED BY THE MOST TALENTED CULT LEADERS IN HISTORY…TOTALLY RUTHLESS…AND CLEVER BEYOND ‘DIABOLICAL’… SO FIRST WE MUST HELP THE SLAVES WHO WANT TO BE FREE, AND RECRUIT THEM IN FREEING THOSE WHO DON’T UNDERSTAND THEY HAVE BEEN TRICKED INTO SLAVERY… AND THEN TO DEFEAT THOSE LEADERS OF THE CULT, AND MEMBERS, WHO WANT TO ENSLAVE THE REST OF HUMANITY… ONCE AND FOR ALL…

YES FOLKS, WE ARE TALKING THE ‘END OF DAYS’ OF THE CULT OF THE PHARISEE / JUDAISM … WHOSE SIDE WILL YOU FIGHT ON? RIGHT NOW THE FIGHT CAN BE PEACEFUL USING LEGAL, SOCIAL MEANS…SOON IT WILL COME DOWN TO A VIOLENT STRUGGLE…AND YOU’D BETTER UNDERSTAND WHO YOUR ENEMY IS…FOR THEY WON’T APPEAR TO BE YOUR ENEMY UNTIL YOU TAKE OFF THE ‘FILTERS’ CALLED ‘SOCIAL REALITY’ PUT ON YOU BY YOUR OCCUPATIONAL GOVERNMENT MASS MEDIA, LEGAL SYSTEM, EDUCATION SYSTEM ETC…. LIKE IN THAT MOVIE ‘ THEY LIVE’…

I CALL UPON ALL THE FREED SLAVES WHO ESCAPED THIS CULT PRISON / MENTALITY / CULT OF JUDAISM TO ASSIST ME… I AM NOT ANTI-‘JEW’…I AM ANTI THIS CULT OF JUDAISM, WHAT I’VE CALLED ‘THE IDEOLOOGY OF SEMITISM’…IT IS A CULT MENTALITY…A CULT IDEOLOGY…A CULT MENTAL PRISON…A CULT CONTROL GRID…A CULT OCCUPATIONAL GOVERNMENT…A CULT VIRUS….A CULT INFECTION…

THERE ARE ‘FREE’ ‘JEWS’ AND THOSE STILL UNDER THE THRALL OF THE CULT OF THE PHARISEE / TALMUD … THE ‘FREE’ JEWS ARE NOT BOUND BY THE TALMUDIC LAWS / CULT RULES / CULT LEADERS COMMANDS… THEY THUS ARE DEFINED AS ‘AMALEK’ AND ‘EDOM’ BY THE CULT…LIKE ANY CULT, MEMBERS WHO LEAVE OR ARE EX-COMMUNICATED ARE ‘BANNED’ AND ‘UNDER BAN’ I.E ‘FAIR GAME’ AND DEFINED AS ENEMIES…TRAITORS…AND HATED EVEN MORE THAN THE NEVER CULT-MEMBERS…

WHY THE AUTOR CAME TO WRITE THIS…SHOULD HAVE BEEN FIRST CHAPTER, BUT IS CHAPTER 36…WHICH I INCLUDE LATER IN THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF NOTES FROM THIS BOOK: I knew or met many of the men who appeared to be powerful and to uphold opposing causes, and yet by their acts all brought “the unnecessary war” nearer and nearer. I talked with Hitler, Goering and Goebbels; I lunched quietly by the Geneva lakeside with chubby Maxim Litvinoff, a typical figure of the Café des Exiles, and wondered what he knew of Russia who so little Russia knew, though he was Foreign Minister of that communized land. I saw Mussolini, and Ramsay Macdonald, one of the British prime ministers who passed shadow-like across the blind during these years. I talked for long hours with Edouard Benesh in the old castle at Prague, with Austrian chancellors and Hungarian prime ministers, with Balkan kings and politicians. I went to watch the League of Nations, with high expectations then (for I was still callow) and was repelled by the manner of its proceedings, which was without dignity, by the lobbying and canvassing behind the scenes, and by the throng of hangers-on and intriguers which enfringed it; I think few enthusiasts for the “United Nations” would be found among those who knew the League of Nations. I went to Moscow, in the journalistic bodyguard of a rising young minister named Anthony Eden, and there saw a regime which was the facsimile of the National Socialist one in Germany in every major respect save the status of the Jews, who appeared to me to be predominant in the key-positions of the Soviet state.

The years which followed, 1933-1939, were those of the brewing of the Second World War. “Prussian militarism”, supposed to have been laid low in 1918, rose up more formidable than ever and the spectacle so absorbed men’s minds that they lost interest in the affair in Palestine, which seemed unrelated to the great events in Europe. In fact it was to loom large among those “causes and objects” of the second war which President Wilson had called “obscure” in the first one. The gap left by the collapse, in 1917, of the legend of “Jewish persecution in Russia” was filled by “the Jewish persecution in Germany” and, just when Zionism was “helpless and hopeless”, the Zionists were able with a new cry to affright the Jews and beleaguer the Western politicians. The consequences showed in the outcome of the ensuing war, when revolutionaryZionism and revolutionary-Communism proved to be the sole beneficiaries.

My own experience during those years ultimately produced this book. When they began, in 1933, I had climbed from my clerkship to be a correspondent of The Times in Berlin and was happy in that calling. When they ended, in 1939, I was fully disenchanted with it and had felt compelled to throw up my livelihood. The tale of the years between will show the reason.

From 1927 on I reported the rise of Hitler, and by chance was passing the Reichstag when it burst into flames in 1933. This event (used to set up the secret-police-and-concentration-camp system in Germany, on the Bolshevist model) cemented Hitler in power, but some prescience, that night, told me that it meant much more than that. In fact the present unfinished ordeal of the West dates from that night, not from the later war. Its true meaning was that the area of occupation of the world-revolution spread to the middle of Europe, and the actual transfer to Communist ownership in 1945 merely confirmed an accomplished fact (theretofore disguised from the masses by the bogus antagonism between National Socialism and Communism) which the war, at its outset, was supposed to undo. The only genuine question which the future has yet to answer is whether the world-revolution will be driven back or spread further westward from the position which, in effect, it occupied on the night of February 27, 1933.

From the start of Hitler’s regime (on that night) all professional observers in Berlin, diplomats and journalists, knew that it meant a new war unless this were prevented. Prevention at that time was relatively simple; Mr. Winston Churchill in his memoirs rightly called the Second War “the unnecessary war”. It could have been prevented by firm Western opposition to Hitler’s preliminary warlike forays (into the Rhineland, Austria and Czechoslovakia) at any time up to 1938 when (as Mr. Churchill also confirms) the German generals, about to overthrow Hitler, were themselves undone by the Western capitulation to him at Munich.

The trained observers in Berlin were agreed that he would make war if allowed [308] and so advised their governmental or editorial superiors in London. The Chief Correspondent of The Times in Berlin, Mr. Norman Ebbutt (I was the second correspondent) reported early in 1933 that war must be expected in about five years unless it were forethwarted, and this particular report was printed. He, I and many other reporters during the following years grew alarmed and perplexed by the suppression, “burking” and ignoring of despatches, and by the depictment of Hitler, in Parliament and the newspapers, as an inherently good man who would remain peaceable if his just grievances were met (at others’ expense).

This period has become known as that of “the policy of appeasement” but encouragement is the truer word, and the policy changed the probability of war into certainty. The strain brought Mr. Ebbutt to physical collapse. From 1935 on I was Chief Correspondent in Vienna, which was then but another vantage-point for surveying the German scene. From there, late in 1937, I informed The Times that both Hitler and Goering had said that the war would begin “by the autumn of 1939”; I had this information from the Austrian Chancellor.

I was in Vienna during Hitler’s invasion and then, after brief arrest by Storm Troops on the way out, transferred to Budapest, where I was when the supreme capitulation of Munich followed in September 1938. Realizing then that a faithful reporter could do nothing against “the policy of appeasement”, and that his task was meaningless, I resigned by expostulant letter, and still have the editor’s discursive acknowledgement.

Fourteen years later The Times publicly confessed error, in respect of its “policy of appeasement”, in that curiously candid Official History of 1952. This contains a grudging reference to me: “There were resignations from junior members of the staff” (I was forty-three in 1938, was Chief Correspondent for Central Europe and the Balkans, had worked for The Times for seventeen years, and I believe I was the only correspondent to resign). In this volume The Times also undertook never so to err again: “it is not rash to say that aggression will never again be met at Printing House Square in terms of mere ‘Munich’.” The editorial articles and reports of The Times about such later events as the bisection of Europe in 1945, the Communization of China, the Zionization of Palestine and the Korean war seem to me to show that its policies did not change at all.

Thus my resignation of 1938 was inspired by a motive similar to that of Colonel Repington (of whom I then had not heard) in 1918. There was a major military danger to England and qualified reporters were not allowed to make this plain to the public: the result, in my opinion, was the Second World War. The journalist should not regard himself too seriously, but if his reports are disregarded in the most momentous matters of the day he feels that his calling is a sham and then he had best give it up, at any cost. This is what I did, and I was comforted, many years later, when I read Sir William Robertson’s words to Colonel Repington: “The great thing is to keep on a straight course and then one may be sure that good will eventually come of what may now seem to be evil”.

[309]

When I resigned in 1938 I had a second reason, not present in 1933, for perplexity about the way the press is conducted. In that matter, too, I could only assume that some infatuation worked to distort the truthful picture of events. The outcome of the ensuing war, however, showed that a powerful motive had lain behind this particular misrepresentation.

In the case of “the Jewish persecution” in Germany I found that impartial presentation of the facts gradually gave way to so partisan a depictment that the truth was lost. This transformation was effected in three subtle stages. First the persecution of “political opponents and Jews” was reported; then this was imperceptibly amended to “Jews and political opponents”; and at the end the press in general spoke only of “the persecution of Jews”. By this means a false image was projected on to the public mind and the plight of the overwhelming majority of the victims, by this fixing of the spotlight on one group, was lost to sight. The result showed in 1945, when, on the one hand, the persecution of Jews was made the subject of a formal indictment at Nuremberg, and on the other hand half of Europe and all the people in it were abandoned to the selfsame persecution, in which the Jews had shared in their small proportion to populations everywhere.

At that period I, typical of Englishmen of my generation, had never thought of Jews as different from myself, nor could I have said what might make a Jew, in his opinion, different from me. If I later became aware of any differentiation, or of the desire of a powerful group to assert one, this was not the result of Hitler’s deeds but of the new impediment to impartial reporting which I then began to observe. When the general persecution began I reported it as I saw it. If I learned of a concentration camp containing a thousand captives I reported this; if I learned that the thousand included thirty or fifty Jews I reported that. I saw the first terror, spoke with many of the victims, examined their injuries, and was warned that I incurred Gestapo hostility thereby. The victims were in the great majority, certainly much over ninety percent, Germans, and a few were Jews. This reflected the population-ratio, in Germany and later in the countries overrun by Hitler. But the manner of reporting in the world’s press in time blocked-out the great suffering mass, leaving only the case of the Jews.

I illustrate this by episodes and passages from my own experience and reporting. Rabbi Stephen Wise, writing in 1949, gave the following version of events personally reported by me in 1933, and undoubtedly purveyed the same version in the presidential circle of which he was a familiar during those years: “The measures against the Jews continued to outstrip in systematic cruelty and planned destruction the terror against other groups. On January 29, 1933 Hitler was summoned to be chancellor . . . at once the reign of terror began with beatings and imprisonment of Jews. . . We planned a protest march in New York on May 10, the day of the ordered burning of Jewish books in Germany . . . the brunt of the attack was borne by Jews. . . concentration camps were established [310] and filled with Jews”.

All these statements are false. The measures against the Jews did not outstrip the terror against other groups; the Jews were involved in a much larger number of others. The reign of terror did not begin on January 29, 1933, but in the night of the Reichstag fire, February 27. No “burning of Jewish books” was ordered; I attended and reported that bonfire and have looked up my report published in The Times, to verify my recollection. A mass of “Marxist” books was burned, including the works of many German, English and other non-Jewish writers (my books, had they then been published, would undoubtedly have been among them); the bonfire included some Jewish books. the “brunt” of the terror was not borne by Jews, nor were the concentration camps “filled with Jews”. The number of Jewish victims was in proportion to their ratio of the population.

Nevertheless this false picture, by iteration, came to dominate the public mind during the Second War. At the time of my resignation, which was provoked solely by the “policy of appeasement” and the imminent advent of “the unnecessary war”, this other hindrance to faithful reporting was but a secondary, minor annoyance. Later I discerned that the motive behind it was of major importance in shaping the course and outcome of the Second War”. When I came to study the story of Mr. Robert Wilton I perceived that there was also a strong resemblance between my experience and his. He sought to explain the nature of an event in Russia and thus was inevitably led into “the Jewish question”. Twenty years later I observed that it was in fact impossible to draw public attention to the misreporting of the nature of the persecution of Germany and to explain that the Jews formed only a small fraction of the victims.

That matter had nothing to do with my resignation, but I was becoming aware of it around that time, and this widening perception is reflected in the two books which I published after renouncing journalism. The first, Insanity Fair, was devoted entirely to the menace of war. I thought, somewhat vaingloriously, that one voice might still avert it, and today’s reader may still verify that motive. To account for this excess of zeal in me, the indulgent reader, if he be old enough, might recall the feeling of horror which the thought of another world war caused in those who had known the first one. This feeling can never be fully comprehended by those of later generations, who have become familiar with the thought of a series of wars, but it was overpowering at the time.

The second book, Disgrace Abounding, on the eve of war continued the warning theme, but in it, for the first time, I gave some attention to “the Jewish question”. My experience was widening and I had begun to discern the major part it would play in forming the shape and issue of the Second War which then was clearly at hand. My thought from then on was much given to it; in this way I came in time to write the present book and in that light the remaining chapters on the brewing, course and aftermath of the Second War, are written.

ETC…

the god who promised land to the nation to be gathered-in also promised to set it “above all people that are upon the face of the earth” and to destroy all other nations “with a mighty destruction until they be destroyed”. The world-revolution, which pursued the second of these aims, thus fulfilled the condition set for the first of them

ETC

a three-pronged movement which aimed at the capture of the three vital points of a state’s defences: state policy at the top level, the civil services at the middle level and “public opinion” or the massmind at the base… the capture of the mass-mind in America, through control of published information… Dr. Weizmann “the technique of propaganda and the approach to the masses”…

“B’nai B’rith” … its declared objects were the help of the poor, sick and fatherless and good works in general. The little offshoot of 1913, the “Anti-Defamation League”, had by 1947 become a secret police of formidable power in America. In Doublespeak “anti-defamation” means “defamation” and this body lived by calumny, using such terms as anti-semite, fascist, rabble-rouser, Jew-baiter, Red-baiter, paranoiac, lunatic, madman, reactionary, diehard, bigot. MHR TODAY ‘POLITICAL CORRECTNESS’ BASICALLY LIKE A CHOKER / MUZZLE ON A DOG, PEOPLE SO TERRIFIED OF BEING ACCUSED OF ‘ANTI-SEMITISM’ THEY WON’T SAY ANYTHING THAT JEWS MIGHT BE ABLE TO PRESENT AS THAT…LIKE PRIVATE WORRIED ABOUT THEIR SHOES SHINING, SALUTING OFFICERS, THE WORLDS LEADERS WORRIED ABOUT NOT BEING SEEN AS SYMPATHETIC ENOUGH TO JEWS…LIKE NERVOUS SMALL DOGS… TERRIFIED OF THAT OBSCENELY FAT ADL GUY…THEY ARE IN THRALL TO SOMETHING…AND IT IS NOT HIM…BUT WHAT THEN?…

MHR THE TALMUDIC CULT DOES HAVE DE FACTO POWER TO ARREST / IMPRISON WITHOUT TRIAL OR LEGAL RIGHTS, OR WARRANT…SIMPLY CLAIMING YOU ARE A ‘TERRORIST’, USING THEIR OWN PROPGANDA MACHINERY, CIA, MOSSAD ETC…ASK ANY ‘ALTERNATIVE MEDIA’ THAT GETS STOPPED AT AIRPORTS AS A ‘TERRORIST THREAT’ I.E SUPPORTER OF PALESTINIAN RIGHTS DEFINED AS ‘HAMAS’ TERRORIST…ETC… PATRIOT ACT WAS WRITTEN BY JEWS TO DEFINE PATRIOTS AS TERRORISTS I.E CONSTITUTIONALISTS, GUN RIGHTS PEOPLE ETC…

When the A.D.L. was born in 1913 it had merely desk-room in the parent B’nai B’rith office and a tiny budget. In 1933 Mr. Bernard J. Brown wrote, “Through the intervention of the A.D.L. we have succeeded in muzzling the non-Jewish press to the extent that newspapers in America abstain from pointing out that any person unfavourably referred to is a Jew”. In 1948 the Jewish Menorah Journal of New York wrote, “Should but one phrase in a reprinted literary classic reflect unjustly upon Jews, the A.D.L. will promptly belabour the innocent publisher until he bowdlerizes the offending passage. Let one innocent movie-producer incorporate a Jewish prototype, however inoffensive, in his picture and the hue and cry raised by the A.D.L. will make him wish he’s never heard of Jews. But when Jews are subtly propagandized into accepting Communist doctrine . . . the A.D.L. remains silent. No word, no warning, no hint of caution, much less exposure and condemnation: although there are men high in the councils of the organization who should know by their own experience how the Communists ‘infiltrate’.” (The Menorah Journal spoke for the many Jews who were alarmed because the A.D.L. was attacking anti-Communism as anti-semitism). MHR LITERALLY THE JEW BOASTING HERE CHOSES THE WORD I JUST USED BEFORE READING THIS PASSAGE ‘MUZZLE’…

These quotations show the growth of the A.D.L.’s power in thirty-five years. It has imposed the law of heresy on the public debate in America. No criticism of Zionism or the world-government plan is allowed to pass without virulent attack; criticism of Communism is only tolerated in the tacit understanding that any war with Communism would lead to the communized world-state; and as to that, “Jerusalem is the capital of the world no less than the capital of Israel” (the Zionist mayor of Jerusalem, 1952).

America has today a few surviving writers who fight on for independent debate and comment. They will discuss any public matter, in the light of traditional American policy and interest, save Zionism, which hardly any of them will touch. I have discussed this with four of the leading ones, who all gave the same answer: it could not be done. The employed ones would lose their posts, if they made the attempt. The independent ones would find no publisher for their books because no reviewer would mention these, save with the epithets enumerated above.

MHR AGAIN, PEOPLE WON’T HEAR THAT CENSORSHIP IS REAL, BECAUSE WHO IS GOING TO PUBLISH THE CLAIM, OR THE AUTHOR WHO MAKES THE CLAIM, EVER AGAIN? SO THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY POSSIBLE? SOMEONE WOULD ‘LET THE CAT OUT OF THE BAG’? REALLY? DO YOU KNOW ANYONE WHO WOULD RISK THEIR JOB / LIVELIHOOD / REPUTATION … AND GIVEN THE ASSUMPITON, THEIR PUBLIC REPUTATION I.E IF YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE SPEAKING OUT ,THEN YOU ARE MAD, CRAZY, ALONE, A BIGOT, ANTI-SEMITE…’THE PROBLEM IS, THERE ARE NO PROBLEMS’ AS I EXPLAIN IN TROONATNOOR VOL I.

The AD.L., of such small beginnings in 1913, in 1948 had a budget of three million dollars (it is only one of several Jewish organizations pursuing Zionist aims in America at a similar rate of expenditure). The Menorah Journal, [342] discussing “Anti-Defamation Hysteria”, said, “Fighting anti-semitism has been built up into a big business, with annual budgets running into millions of dollars”. It said the object was “to continue beating the anti-semitic drum” and “to scare the pants off prospective contributors” in order to raise funds. It mentioned some of the methods used (“outright business blackmail; if you can’t afford to give $10,000 to this cause, you can take your business elsewhere”), and said American Jews were being “stampeded into a state of masshysteria by their self-styled defenders”. *

The Menorah Journal also drew attention to the falsification of news by Jewish newsagencies subsidized by the big organizations. It showed that some minor brawl among juveniles in Manhattan had been depicted in “front-page scare headlines which would have led a stranger to believe that a Czarist pogrom was going on” (by these same means the “Czarist pogroms” earlier, and Rabbi Stephen Wise’s “reported pogrom in Berlin” in 1933 reached the world). Out of this particular “scare headline” grew a mass-meeting in Madison Garden, where another politician aspiring to presidential office (a Mr. Wendell Willkie at that moment) declared, “The mounting wave of anti-semitism at home shocks me. . . etc., etc.”

“Mass-hysteria” is not only produced among Jews and band-wagon politicians by this method; it produces another kind of mass-hysteria among earnest but uninformed people of the “Liberal” kind: the mass-hysteria of self-righteousness, which is a tempting form of self-indulgence. The late Mr. George Orwell was of those who helped spread “mass-hysteria” in this way. He was a good man, because he did not merely incite others to succour the weak and avenge injustice, but went himself to fight when the Civil War broke out in Spain, then discovering that Communism, when he saw it, was worse than the thing which (as he thought) he set out to destroy. He died before he could go to Palestine and experience any similar enlightenment, so that what he wrote about “anti-semitism” was but the echo of “anti-defamationist hysteria”. It is so good an example of this that I quote it; here a man of goodwill offered, as his own wisdom, phrases which others poured into his ear.

He explored “anti-semitism in Britain” (1945) and found ” a perceptibly anti-semitic strain in Chaucer”. Mr. Hilaire Belloc and Mr. G.K.Chesterton were “literary Jew-baiters”. He found passages in Shakespeare, Smollett, Thackeray, Shaw, T.S. Eliot, Aldous Huxley and others “which if written now would be stigmatized as anti-semitism” (he was right without knowing it; if written now they would have been stigmatized). Then he suffered what Americans call a pratfall. He said that “offhand, the only English writers I can think of who,

[343] before the days of Hitler, made a definite effort to stick up for Jews are Dickens and Charles Reade”. Thus he extolled one of the A.D.L.’s “Jew-baiters” as a champion of Jews; in America the film of Oliver Twist was banned because of Fagin! This was the work of the A.D.L.; its representative, a Mr. Arnold Forster, announced:

“American movie-distributors refused to become involved in the distribution and exhibition of the motion picture after the A.D.L. and others expressed the fear that the film was harmful; the Rank Organization withdrew the picture in the United States”. Later the picture was released after censorship by the A.D.L.; “seventy two eliminations” were made at its command and a prologue was added assuring beholders that they might accept it as “a filmization of Dickens without anti-semitic intentions”. (In occupied Berlin the A.D.L. ban was final; the British authorities ordered Dickens withdrawn from German eyes).

MHR YOU’D THINK I WAS JOKING IF I SAID THIS, WITHOUT THE FACTS TO PROVE IT…

I was in America at this time and thus saw the fulfilment of a prediction made in a book of 1943, when I wrote that, as the secret censorship was going, Chaucer, Shakespeare and Dickens would one day be defamed as “anti-semites”. I thought to strain probability, to make a point, but it happened in all three cases: a Shakespearean actor-manager visiting New York was ordered not to play The Merchant of Venice, Dickens was banned, and the defamationists put Chaucer on their black-list.

A private organization which can produce such results is obviously powerful; there is nothing comparable in the world. Mr. Vincent Sheehan wrote in 1949, “There is scarcely a voice in the United States that dares raise itself for the rights, any rights, of the Arabs; any slight criticism of the Zionist high command is immediately labelled as anti-semitic”. Miss Dorothy Thompson, whose picture and articles at that time were published everyday in hundreds of newspapers, similarly protested. Mr. Sheehan’s popularity with bookreviewers immediately slumped; Miss Thompson’s portrait and writings are seldom seen in the American press today. MHR SHE IS THE WRITER IN THE VIDEO I POSTED…

The power of money and the prospect of votes have demonstrably been potent lures, but in my judgment by far the strongest weapon is this power to control published information; to lay stress on what a faction wants and to exclude from it all that the faction dislikes, and so to be able to give any selected person a “good” or a “bad” press. This is in fact control of “the mob”. In today’s [344] language it is “the technique of propaganda and the approach to the masses”, as Dr. Weizmann said, but it is an ancient, Asiatic art and was described, on a famous occasion, by Saint Matthew and Saint Mark: “The chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude. . The chief priests moved the people . .”

In forty years the A.D.L. perfected a machine for persuading the multitude. It is a method of thoughtcontrol of which the subject-mass is unconscious and its ability to destroy any who cry out is great. One of the first to be politically destroyed was the head of the Congressional Committee charged to watch over sedition (the Un-American Activities Committee). The Protocols of 1905 foretold that the nation-states would not be allowed to “contend with sedition” by treating it as crime and this “forecast” also was fulfilled. Mr. Martin Dies relates that he was required by the secret inquisition to restrict the definition of “subversion” to “fascism”, and to equate “fascism” with “anti-semitism”. “Subversion”, had these importuners had their way with him, would have been any kind of resistance to “the destructive principle”, not the subverting of the nation-state. He would not yield, but was driven out of political life by defamation. MHR ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE SUPPOSED ‘IMPOSSIBLE’ CONSPIRACY…SOMEONE WOULD BREAK RANKS, AND BLOW THE WHISTLE, RIGHT? SURE, AND WHEN THEY DO, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO HEAR ABOUT IT? WHO IS GOING TO PUBLISH THE STORY? ACCURATELY? AND SO SEEING THE ZERO NET BENEFIT AND THE HUGE SACRIFICE / COST PEOPLE PAY, WHO IS GOING TO BOTHER…ESPECIALLY AS THEY DO NOT REALLY COMPREHEND THE THREAT WE ARE FACING…AND EVEN THEN, HOW MANY PEOPLE RISK PERSONAL HAPPINESS/ SATISFACTION / PLEASURE AND RISK PAIN, FOR THE LONGER TERM BENEFIT OF OTHERS?

The A.D.L. (and the American Jewish Committee) “set out to make the American people aware of antisemitism”. It informed Jews that “25 out of every 100 Americans are infected with anti-semitism”, and that another 50 might develop the disease. By 1945 it was carrying out “a high-powered educational program, geared to reach every man, woman and child” in America through the press, radio, advertising, children’s comic books and school books, lectures, films, “churches” and trade unions. This programme included “219 broadcasts a day”, full-page advertisements in 397 newspapers, poster advertizing in 130 cities, and “persuasions” subtly incorporated in the printed matter on blotters, matchbox covers, and envelopes. The entire national press (“1900 dailies with a 43,000,000 circulation”) and the provincial, Negro, foreign-language and labour newspapers were kept supplied with, “and used”, its material in the form of “news, background material, cartoons and comic strips”. In addition, the A.D.L. in 1945 distributed “more than 330,000 copies of important books carrying our message to libraries and other institutions”, furnished authors with “material and complete ideas”, and circulated nine million pamphlets “all tailored to fit the audiences to which they are directed”. It found “comic books” to be a particularly effective way of reaching the minds of young people, soldiers, sailors and airmen, and circulated “millions of copies” of propaganda in this form. Its organization consisted of the national headquarters, public relations committees in 150 cities, eleven regional offices, and “2,000 key men in 1,000 cities”.

During the 1940’s the system of “syndicated writers” in New York or Washington enveloped the entire American press. One such writer’s [345] column may appear in a thousand newspapers each day; editors like this system, which saves them the cost of employing their own writers, for its cheapness. Through a few dozen such writers the entire stream of information can be tinctured at its source (the method foretold in the Protocols). By all these means a generation has been reared in America (and this applies equally to England) which has been deprived of authentic information about, and independent comment on, the nature of Zionism, its original connection with Communism, the infestation of administrations and capture of “administrators”, and the relationship of all this to the ultimate world-government project.

The opposition to this creeping control was strong at first and was gradually crushed during two decades (I have given examples in England) by various methods, including the purchase of newspapers, but chiefly by unremitting and organized pressure, persuasive or menacing. In America a newspaper which prints reports or comment unacceptable to the A.D.L. may expect to receive a visit from its representatives. Threats to withdraw advertizing are frequently made. The corps of “syndicated” writers joins in the attack on any

individual writer or broadcaster who becomes troublesome; many American commentators have been driven from the publishers’ lists or “off the air” in this way. An illustrative example:

The Chicago Tribune in 1950 reported the view of a senior official of the State Department that the United States was ruled by “a secret government” consisting of three members of the deceased Mr. Roosevelt’s circle: Mr. Henry Morgenthau junior, Justice Felix Frankfurter and Senator Herbert Lehman. The word “Jew” was not used; the article expressed the opinion of a high public servant on a matter held by him to be of great national importance. This article raised much commotion in the Zionist and Jewish press throughout the world (few non-Jewish newspapers paid attention to it, for the obvious reason). I was in South Africa but guessed what would follow and when I next went to America learned that I was right; the Tribune Tower in Chicago was besieged by the A.D.L. with peremptory demands for an apology. On this particular occasion none was made; the newspaper was at that time a lonely survivor from the days of independent reporting and comment. (A piquant detail; the writer of this “anti-semitic” report had interested himself, not long before, in efforts to obtain the release on parole of a Jew serving a life-term for murder, on the ground that expiation might reasonably be held to have been made).

Even the figures for expenditure, staff and activities, above given, convey no true idea of the power and omnipresence of the A.D.L. I myself would not have believed, until I saw it, that a body of such might could almost invisibly operate in a state still nominally governed by president and Congress. Its numerous offices and sub-offices are clearly only the centres of a great network of agents and sub-agents, for its eye is as all-seeing as that of the N.V.D. in captive Russia or of the Gestapo once in Germany, as I found through personal experience:

[346]

I am a fairly obscure person and when I went to America in 1949 was almost unknown to the public there, the publication of most of my books having been prevented by the methods above described. I found that the A.D.L. watched me like a hawk from my arrival and from this first realized its immense spread and vigilance; I had not suspected that it scrutinized every roof for every sparrow. An American acquaintance who had read some of my books introduced me to a colleague who expressed pleasure at meeting their author. This man asked me to dine with him and a friend, whom he presented as “my cousin”. The cousin was an entertaining fellow; I learned a year later that he was head of the A.D.L.’s New York office and the true organizer of the little dinner-party.* This happened a few days after I landed and thereafter the A.D.L. knew my every movement. They knew about the book I was writing and when it was ready for publication the “cousin” approached the American publisher of an earlier book of mine with a pointed request to know if he contemplated issuing this one; a man of descretion, he answered No.

Three years later, in 1952, when this book had appeared in England, the American Legion’s magazine at Hollywood published some five hundred words from it. The A.D.L. at once demanded a retraction from the Hollywood commander of the Legion, who referred to the magazine’s editor. No inaccuracy was alleged; the deputation just called the book “anti-semitic”. The editor refused to retract unless false statement or other valid reason were proved, and resigned when the commander, ignoring him, published the familiar “apology” in face of threats that “all Jews” would boycott the Hollywood Stadium, which was operated by the Legion. The editor, departing, said this proved the truth of what was stated in the book. The apology availed the commander nothing for the nationwide American Broadcasting Company, which had been televising the Legion’s events at the Stadium, at once announced that it would terminate its contract with the Legion and televise rival events; the commander ruefully said that this “comes as a complete shock to me”.

When I next visited America, in 1951, another acquaintance, who thought my books informative and wished me to write for American newspapers, refused to credit what I told him. He said he was sure a certain publication would welcome [347] an article from me on a subject then topical (not Zionism) and wrote to its editor. He was told, to his astonishment, that the publication of anything of mine, was “verboten”, and when he suggested publication without my name was informed that this would not avail: “there is probably a representative of the A.D.L. on our payroll” (I have the letter).

* By this means material for dossiers and for “smearing” attacks is often obtained. In 1956 the A.D.L. published such a “smear” volume called Cross-Currents, described as “the book that tells how anti-semitism is used today as a political weapon”. It was filled with attacks on “anti-semites” and contained numerous extracts from letters and conversations supposed to have passed between the persons named. The reviewer of the book in the New York Times, though sympathetic (writing for that journal he would not be antagonistic) said “the authors do not let the reader in on the secret of how they came into possession of these intriguing papers. . . this reticence about sources is a major weakness and it is particularly serious where statements are quoted from an oral interview”. Who were these interviewers, he asked, and how did they go about their assignment? I could have told him, and the reader of this book has the answer. If my “oral interview” with the “cousin”, who purported to be a strong “anti-semite”, did not provide material for this volume, the reason is of interest. Late in a convivial evening he asked me suddenly how strong I thought “anti-semitism” to be in the United States. Believing him to be what he professed to be, I answered just as I would have answered, had I known his identity. I said that I had travelled in more than thirty of the forty-eight States and had never once heard the word “Jew” mentioned by any of the thousands of people I had met, which was the fact.

Another acquaintance, head of a large bookselling concern, ordered his office to obtain a book of mine from Canada and was told that the Toronto wholesaler reported inability to supply. I made enquiry and learned that no order had reached Toronto. My acquaintance then investigated and could not find out who, in his own office, had intercepted the order, telling me he now realized that my books were “on the index”.

The reader need only multiply these few examples from the personal experience of one man to see the effect on the total sum of information supplied to the public masses. The peoples of the Western nationstates are deprived of information in the matters most vitally affecting their present and future, by a press which (they are constantly told) is “the freest in the world”.

‘THE CULT OF THE PHARISEES’ TITLE FOR BOOK…FOR BEFORE AND ESPECIALLY SINCE JESUS, AND IN TERMS OF THE ‘JEW WORLD ORDER’, AS : Dr. Kastein says, “Jewish life was regulated by the teachings of the Pharisees; the whole history of Judaism was reconstructed from the Pharisaic point of view . . Pharisaism shaped the character of Judaism and the life and the thought of the Jew for all the future . . It makes ‘separatism’ its chief characteristic “.

Resistance to the Law of destruction has been continual in Jewry, as this account has shown. At all times and places the Jews have given out a more embittered protest against this destiny of destruction, forced on them, than the Gentiles have made against the threat of destruction, aimed at them.

The words, “the Jews”, wherever used in this discussion, need always to be read with this qualification.

SO WE SHOULD USE THE TERM ‘PHARISEES’…THEY JUST HAPPEN TO BE THE 10% CORE OF JUDAISM…SO YOU WON’T BE UNFAIRLY ‘TARGETTING’ SOME ‘USEFUL IDIOT SECULAR ETC JEW’ OR SOME VERY LIBERAL JEW WHO IS REALLY ON THE SIDE OF THE BEST THINGS WE COULD HOPE FOR…THE CORE HEART OF THE CULT THAT IS ‘THE JEW WORLD ORDER’ IS THE PHARISEE / THE TALMUDIC JEW / WHICH MAKES A GOD OF ITS CULT … WHICH JESUS DIAMETRRICALLY OPPOSED TO…WHICH GIVES ITSELF THE AUTHORITY TO SPEAK FOR ‘GOD’ AND TO REWRITE ITS OWN ‘VERBAL’ TORAH AS IT SEES FIT…WHICH BEGAN WITH THE AIM OF WORLD DOMINATION, LIVING AMONG POWERFUL HOST NATIONS IT CO-OPTED TO ITS OWN ENDS, ENSLAVING ITS OWN PEOPLE, PERSECUTING ITS OWN PEOPLE, GLORIFYING WHAT i HAVE BEEN CALLING ‘THE IDEOLOGY OF SEMITISM’…THEY INVENTED THIS…THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SUFFERING OF ‘THE JEWS’ AND THE REST OF US IN THE JEW.S.S.R, WORLD WARS, RECESSIONS, 911, AND ‘THE DEATHS IN THE NAZI LABOR CAMPS, AND IN POGROMS IN NAZI OCCUPIED EUROPE, FOR KATYN MASSACRE BY JEW.S.S.R, U.S.S LIBERTY…ETC… DON’T WORRY ABOUT ‘ZIONISTS’ OR ‘JEWS’ AS THESE TERMS DO NOT HELP US DEFINE THE TRUE ENEMY…IT IDENTIFIES THE USEFUL IDIOT AND DUPES AND CULT MEMBERS, THE ‘SAYANIM’ OF THE PHARISEE CULT, BUT NOT THE LEADERSHIP…AND WE WOULD BE UNFAIR TO BLAME THE IDIOT … THOUGH THEY MUST TAKE RESPONSIBILITY AND RENOUNCE AND DENOUNCE THEIR CULT LEADERS…TO AVOID THEIR LEADERS SACRIFICIING THEM ONCE MORE TO THEIR AMBITIONS…WHICH THEY HAVE A CLEAR HISTORY OF DOING…SINCE THE START, AS WE SHALL SOON SEE…THIS BOOK IS AMAZING…BY REED…AND IS CLEAR TESTAMENT TO HTE POWER OF THE PHARISSES AND THEIR USEFUL IDIOT CULT MEMBERS, THE ‘JEWS’ AND ‘ZIONISTS’ (CHRISITAN OR JEWISH), IN CENSORSHIP…IT IS AN AMAZING BOOK…READ IT IN FULL IF YOU CAN…OTHERWISE HERE IS MY SYNOPSIS WITH MY OWN COMMENTS… ‘THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION’ BY REED…

WHY BAD THINGS HAPPEN TO GOOD JEWS : THE CULT LEADERSHIP’S PERSECUTION OF JEWS HIGHLIGHTED:

A great expostulant against the Talmud was Baruch Spinoza, born at Amsterdam in 1632. The ban pronounced on him by the Amsterdam rabbinate derives directly from the “cursings” of Deuteronomy: “By the sentence of the angels, by the decree of the saints, we anathematise, cut [101] off, curse and execrate Baruch Spinoza, in the presence of these sacred books with the six hundred and thirteen precepts which are written therein, with the anathema wherewith Joshua anathematized Jericho; with the cursing wherewith Elisha cursed the children; and with all the cursings which are written in the Torah; cursed be he by day and cursed by night; cursed when he goeth out, and cursed when he cometh in; the Lord pardon him never; the wrath and fury of the Lord burn upon this man; and bring upon him all the curses which are written in the Torah. The Lord blot out his name under the heaven. The Lord set him apart for destruction from all the tribes of Israel, with all the curses of the firmament which are written in the Torah. There shall be no man to speak to him, no man write to him, no man show him any kindness, no man stay under the same roof with him, no man come nigh unto him”.

Spinoza was banished from Amsterdam and exposed to “a persecution which threatened his life”, as one encyclopaedia puts it. In fact it took his life, in the way depicted by Mr. Rodkinson (as previously quoted). Shunned and destitute, he died at forty-four in a Gentile city, far from the centre of Talmudic government but not far enough to save him.

Two hundred years later, during the century of emancipation, Moses Mendelssohn proclaimed the heresy that Jews, while retaining their faith, ought to become integrated with their fellow men. That meant breaking free from the Talmud and returning to the ancient religious idea of which the Israelite remonstrants had glimpses. His guiding thought was, “Oh, my brethren, follow the example of love, as you have till now followed that of hatred”. Mendelssohn had grown up in the study of the Talmud. He prepared for his children a German translation of the Bible, which he then published for general use among Jews.

The Talmudic rabbinate, declaring that “the Jewish youth would learn the German language from Mendelssohn’s translation, more than an understanding of the Torah”, put it under ban: “All true to Judaism are for bidden under penalty of excommunication to use the translation”. They then had the translation publicly burned in Berlin.

he could not have chosen a better moment than the last months of 1956 to review the long history of Talmudic Zionism and re-examine it against the background of what was still happening on the stage of world politics.

For 1956 was the year of another American presidential election in which, once again, the Zionists demonstrated their decisive power to influence Western politics; it was the year in which the nations of the West stood by as helpless spectators as Soviet forces were used to crush a spontaneous revolt and re-install a Jewish-Communist regime in Hungary; and it was the year in which Britain and France, under Zionist pressure, were drawn into the disastrous fiasco of an attempt to capture the Suez Canal, an adventure from which, once again, Israel alone gained any advantage.

Everything that has happened since Reed wrote those last sentences in 1956 has continued to endorse the correctness of his interpretation of more than 2000 years of troubled history.

The Middle East has remained an area of intense political activity and of the maximum falsification of news and suppression of genuine debate, and it was only the few with some knowledge of the role of Talmudic Zionism and Communism who could have had any chance of solving the problem of successive events of major importance, like the so-called Six Day War in 1967 [vi] and the massive Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982.

Those who have read The Controversy of Zion will not be surprised to learn that there were clear signs of collusion between the Soviet Union and Israel in precipitating the Israeli attack on Egypt, for it was only because Colonel Nasser had been warned by the Kremlin bosses that Israel was about to attack Egypt’s ally Syria that he moved nearly all his armed forces to his country’ s northern border, where they fell an easy prey to Israel’s vastly superior army.

It seemed as if nothing had changed when in 1982 Israel launched a massive and most ruthless attack on Southern Lebanon, ostensibly for the purpose of rooting out the Palestine Liberation Organisation, but actually in furtherance of an expansionist policy about which Jewish leaders have always been remarkably frank.

By this time, however, the pro-Zionist mythology generated by Western politicians and media in which Israel was always represented as a tiny and virtuous nation in constant need of help and protection, was obviously beginning to lose much of its plausibility, so that few were surprised when the British Institute of Strategic Studies announced that Israel could now be regarded as fourth in the world as a military power, after the USA, the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China – well ahead of nations like Britain and France.

More deeply significant was the reaction of the Jewish people, both in Israel and abroad, to an apparent triumph of Zionist arms in Lebanon. While Western politicians and media remained timorously restrained in their comment, even after news of the massacre of an estimated 1500 men, women and children in two Beirut refugee camps, 350,000 of the residents of Tel Aviv staged a public demonstration against their government and there were reports in the Jewish press that controversy over the Lebanese war had rocked the Israel army and affected all ranks.

Of this, too, Douglas Reed seems to have had some presentiment, for among the last words in his book are these: “I believe the Jews of the world are equally beginning to see the error of revolutionary Zionism, the twin of the other destructive movement, and, as this century ends, will at last decide to seek involvement in common mankind” .

on a day in 458 BC the petty Palestinian tribe of Judah (earlier disowned by the Israelites) produced a racial creed, the disruptive effect of which on subsequent human affairs may have exceeded that of explosives or epidemics. This was the day on which the theory of the master-race was set up as “the Law”. At the time Judah was a small tribe among the subject-peoples of the Persian king

The creed which a fanatical sect produced that day has shown a great power over the minds of men throughout these twenty-five centuries; hence its destructive achievement …-idea of an exclusive, vengeful deity

Judah-ism was retrogressive even in 458 BC, when men in the known world were beginning to turn their eyes away from idols and tribal gods and to look for a God of all men, of justice and of neighbourliness. Confucius and Buddha had already pointed in that direction and the idea of one-God was known among the neighbouring peoples of Judah.

the idea of the one-God of all men was known long before the tribe of Judah even took shape, and Judaism was above all else the denial of that idea. The Egyptian Book of the Dead (manuscripts of which were found in the tombs of kings of 2,600 BC, over two thousand years before the Judaist “Law” was completed) contains the passage: “Thou art the one, the God from the very beginnings of time, the heir of immortality, self-produced and self-born; thou didst create the earth and make man”. Conversely, the Scripture produced in Judah of the Levites asked, “Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the Gods?” (Exodus).

The sect which attached itself to and mastered the tribe of Judah took this rising concept of one-God of all-peoples and embodied it in its Scripture only to [2] destroy it, and to set up the creed based on its denial. It is denied subtly, but with scorn, and as the creed is based on the theory of the master-race this denial is necessary and inevitable. A master-race, if there be one, must itself be God.

The creed which was given force of daily law in Judah in 458 BC was then and still is unique in the world. It rested on the assertion, attributed to the tribal deity (Jehovah), that “the Israelites” (in fact, the Judahites) were his “chosen people” who, if they did all his “statutes and judgments”, would be set over all other peoples

Non-jews, whether the jew’s conquerors or friendly hosts; their ordained lot was to be destruction or enslavement.

Jehovah revealed himself as the one-God of all-peoples: though he “knew” only the “chosen people”, he would employ the heathen to punish them for their “transgressions”, before meting out the foreordained destruction to these heathen.

The Judahites had this inheritance thrust on them. It was not even theirs, for the “covenant”, according to these Scriptures, had been made between Jehovah and “the children of Israel”, and by 458 BC the Israelites, spurning the non-Israelitish Judahites, had long since been absorbed by other mankind, taking with them the vision of a universal, loving God of all men. The Israelites, from all the evidence, never knew this racial creed which was to come down through the centuries as the Jewish religion, or Judaism. It stands, for all time, as the product of Judah of the Levites.

Before 458 BC, for instance, there were in the main only “oral traditions”; the documentary period begins in the two centuries leading up to 458 BC, when Judah had been disavowed by the Israelites. At this stage, when the word-of-mouth tradition became written Scripture, the perversion occurred. The surviving words of the earlier Israelites show that their tradition was a widening one of neighbourliness under a universal God. This was changed into its opposite by the itinerant priests who segregated the Judahites and established the worship of Jehovah as the god of racialism, hatred and revenge.

The figure of Moses himself, and his Law, both were taken from material already existing. The story of Moses’s discovery in the bulrushes was plainly borrowed from the much earlier legend (with which it is identical) of a king of Babylonia, Sargon the Elder, who lived between one and two thousand years before him; the Commandments much resemble earlier law codes of the Egyptians, Babylonians and Assyrians. The ancient Israelites built on current ideas

The masters of Judah, the Levites, as they drew up their Law also took what they could use from the inheritance of other peoples and worked it into the stuff they were moulding. They began with the one just God of all men, whose voice had been briefly heard from the burning bush (in the oral tradition) and in the course of five books of their written Law turned him into the racial, bargaining Jehovah who promised territory, treasure, blood and power over others in return for a ritual of sacrifice, to be performed at a precise place in a specified land.

Thus they founded the permanent counter-movement to all universal religions and identified the name Judah with the doctrine of self-segregation from mankind, racial hatred, murder in the name of religion, and revenge.

The perversion thus accomplished may be traced in the Old Testament, where Moses first appears as the bearer of the moral commandments and good neighbour, and ends as a racial mass-murderer, the moral commandments having been converted into their opposites between Exodus and Numbers. In the course of this same transmutation the God who begins by commanding the people not to kill or to covet their neighbours’ goods or wives, finishes by ordering a tribal massacre of a neighbouring people, only the virgins to be saved alive!

Thus the achievement of the itinerant priests who mastered the tribe of Judah, so long ago, was to turn one small, captive people away from the rising idea of a God of all men, to reinstate a bloodthirsty tribal deity and racial law, and to send the followers of this creed on their way through the centuries with a destructive mission.

a complete story and theory of the universe from start to finish. The end was to be the triumphant consummation in Jerusalem, when world dominion was to be established on the ruins of the heathen and their kingdoms

Judaist scholars agree that nothing resembling the narrative in Exodus actually occurred.

Whether Moses even lived is in dispute. “They tell you”, said the late Rabbi Emil Hirsch, “that Moses never lived. I acquiesce. If they tell me that the story that came from Egypt is mythology, I shall not protest; it is mythology. They tell me that the book of Isaiah, as we have it today, is composed of writings of at least three and perhaps four different periods; I knew it before they ever told me; before they knew it, it was my conviction”.

Whether Moses lived or not, he cannot have led any mass-exodus from Egypt into Canaan (Palestine). No sharply-defined Israelitish tribes existed (says Rabbi Elmer Berger) at any time when anyone called Moses may have led some small groups out of Egyptian slavery. The Habiru (Hebrews) then were already established in Canaan, having reached it long before from Babylonia on the far side: Their name, Habiru, denoted no racial or tribal identity; it meant “nomads”. Long before any small band led by Moses can have arrived they had overrun large Canaanite areas, and the governor of Jerusalem reported to Pharaoh in Egypt, “The King no longer has any territory, the Habiru have devastated all the King’s territory”.

A most zealous Zionist historian, Dr. Josef Kastein, is equally specific about this. He will often be quoted during this narrative because his book, like this one, covers the entire span of the controversy of Zion (save for the last twenty-two years; it was published in 1933). He says, “Countless other Semitic and Hebrew tribes were already settled in the promised land which, Moses told his followers, was theirs by ancient right of inheritance; what matter that actual conditions in Canaan had long since effaced this right and rendered it illusory”.

Dr. Kastein, a fervent Zionist, holds that the Law laid down in the Old Testament must be fulfilled to the letter, but does not pretend to take the version of history seriously, on which this Law is based. In this he differs from Christian polemicists of the “every word is true” school. He holds that the Old Testament was in fact a political programme, drafted to meet the conditions of a time, and frequently revised to meet changing conditions.

Historically, therefore, the Egyptian captivity, the slaying of “all the firstborn [5] of Egypt”, the exodus toward and conquest of the promised land are myths. The story was invented, but the lesson, of vengeance on the heathen, was implanted in men’s minds and the deep effect continues into our time.

the “Law” of exclusion, hatred and vengeance established. With this as their religion and inheritance, attested by the historical narrative appended to it, a little band of human beings were sent on their way into the future.

By the time of that achievement of 458 BC, many centuries after any possible period when Moses may have lived, much had happened in Canaan. The nomadic Habiru, supplanting the native Canaanites by penetration, intermarriage, settlement or conquest, had thrown off a tribe called the Ben Yisrael, or Children of Israel, which had split into a number of tribes, very loosely confederated and often at war with each other. The main body of these tribes, the Israelites, held the north of Canaan. In the south, isolated and surrounded by native Canaanitish peoples, a tribe called Judah took shape. This was the tribe from which the racial creed and such words as “Judaism”, “Jewish” and “Jew” in the course of centuries emerged.

MHR N/H HABIRU = NOMADS … NABIRU = NOMAD PLANET …

the Jewish Encyclopaedia impartially says that Judah was “in all likelihood a nonIsraelitish tribe”.

this tribe of Judah has a strange look. It was always cut off, and never got on well with its neighbours. Its origins are mysterious. It seems from the beginning, with its ominous name, somehow to have been set apart, rather than to have been “chosen”.

This tribe with the curious air was the one which set out into the future saddled with the doctrine drawn up by the Levites, namely, that it was Jehovah’s “chosen people” and, when it had done “all my statutes and judgments”, would inherit a promised land and dominion over all peoples.

Among these “statutes and judgments” as the Levites finally edited them appeared, repeatedly, the commands, “utterly destroy”, “pull down”, “root out”. Judah was destined to produce a nation dedicated to destruction.

About five hundred years before the event of 458 BC, or nearly three thousand years ago today, the brief and troubled association between Judah and the Israelites (“the children of Israel”) came to an end. Israel rejected the chosen people creed which was beginning to take shape in Judah and went its own way.

The mythological or legendary period of Moses was followed by one in Canaan during which “Israel” was the strong, cohesive and recognizable entity, the northern confederation of the ten tribes. Judah (to which the very small tribe of Benjamin attached itself) was a petty chiefdom in the south.

Judah, from which today’s Zionism comes down, was a tribe of ill repute. Judah sold his brother Joseph, the most beloved son of Jacob-called-Israel, to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver (as Judas, the only Judean among the disciples, much later betrayed Jesus for thirty pieces of silver), and then founded the tribe in incest, (Genesis 37-38). The priestly scribes who wrote this Scriptural account centuries afterwards had made themselves the masters of Judah and as they altered the oral tradition, whenever it suited them, the question prompts itself: why were they at pains to preserve, or possibly even to insert, this attribution of incestuous beginnings and a treacherous nature to the very people who, they said, were the chosen of God?

Scriptures and today’s authorities agree about the separateness of “Israel” and “Judah”. In the Old Testament Israel is often called “the house of Joseph”, in pointed distinction from “the house of Judah”. The Jewish Encyclopaedia says, ”Joseph and Judah typify two distinct lines of descent” and adds (as already cited) that Judah was “in all likelihood a non-Israelitish tribe”. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says that Judaism developed long after the Israelites had merged themselves with mankind, and that the true relationship of the two peoples is best expressed in the phrase, “The Israelites were not Jews”. Historically, Judah was to survive for a little while and to bring forth Judaism, which begat Zionism. Israel was to disappear as an entity, and it all came about in this way:

The little tribe in the south, Judah, became identified with the landless tribe, that of the Levites. These hereditary priests, who claimed that their office had been bestowed on them by Jehovah on Mount Sinai, were the true fathers of Judaism. They wandered among the tribes, preaching that the war of one was the war of all, and Jehovah’s war. Their aim was power and they strove for a theocracy, a state in which God is the sovereign and religion the law. During the period of the Judges they achieved their aim to some extent, for they naturally [7] were the Judges. What they, and isolated Judah, most needed was union with Israel. Israel, which distrusted this lawgiving priesthood, would not hear of unification unless it were under a king; all the surrounding peoples had kings.

The Levites grasped this opportunity. They saw that if a king were appointed the ruling class would supply the nominee, and they were the ruling class. Samuel, at their head, set up a puppet monarchy, behind which the priesthood wielded true power; this was achieved through the stipulation that the king should reign only for life, which meant that he would not be able to found a dynasty. Samuel chose a young Benjaminite peasant, Saul, who had made some name in tribal warfare and, presumably, was thought likely to be tractable (the choice of a Benjaminite suggests that Israel would not consider any man of Judah for the kingship). The unified kingdom of Israel then began; in truth it survived but this one reign, Saul’s.

In Saul’s fate (or in the account given of it in the later Scriptures) the ominous nature of Judaism, as it was to be given shape, may be discerned. He was commanded to begin the holy war by attacking the Amalekites “and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass”. He destroyed “man and woman, infant and suckling”, but spared King-Agag and the best of the sheep, oxen, yearlings and lambs. For this he was excommunicated by Samuel, who secretly chose one David, of Judah, to be Saul’s successor. Thereafter Saul vainly strove by zeal in “utter destruction” to appease the Levites, and then by attempting David’s life to save his throne. At last he killed himself.

Possibly none of this happened; it is the account given in the Book of Samuel, which the Levites produced centuries later. Whether it is true or allegorical, the importance lies in the plain implication: Jehovah demanded literal obedience when he commanded “utter destruction”, and mercy or pity were capital offences. This lesson is driven home in many other depictments of events which were possibly historical and possibly imaginary.

This was really the end, three thousand years ago, of the united kingdom, for Israel would not accept the man of Judah, David, as king. Dr. Kastein says that “the rest of Israel ignored him” and proclaimed Saul’s son, Ishbosheth, king, whereon the re-division into Israel and Judah “really took place”. According to Samuel, Ishbosheth was killed and his head was sent to David, who thereon restored a nominal union and made Jerusalem his capital. He never again truly united the kingdom or the tribes; he founded a dynasty which survived one more reign.

Formal Judaism holds to this day that the Messianic consummation will come about under a worldly king of “the house of David”; and racial exclusion is the first tenet of formal Judaism (and the law of the land in the Zionist state). The origins of the dynasty founded by David are thus of direct relevance to this narrative.

the Old Testament says that David, the Judahite, from his roof, saw “a very beautiful woman” bathing, commanded her to him and made her with child, and then had her husband, a Hittite, sent into the front battle-line with orders that he be killed. When he was dead David added the woman, Bathsheba, to his wives, and her second son by him became the next king, Solomon

according to the Levitical scribes. He began his reign with three murders, including that of his brother, and vainly sought to save his dynasty by the Habsburg method, marriage, though on grander scale. He married princesses from Egypt and many neighbouring tribes and had hundreds of lesser wives, so that in his day, too, racial segregation must have been unknown. He built the temple and established a hereditary high priesthood.

That was the story, concluded in 937 BC, of the short association between Israel and Judah. When Solomon died the incompatible associates finally split, and in the north Israel resumed its independent life. Dr Kastein says:

“The two states had no more in common, for good or evil, than any other two countries with a common frontier. From time to time they waged war against each other or made treaties, but they were entirely separate. The Israelites ceased to believe that they had a destiny apart from their neighbours and King Jeroboam made separation from Judah as complete in the religious as in the political sense”. Then, of the Judahites, Dr. Kastein adds, “they decided that they were destined to develop as a race apart. . . they demanded an order of existence fundamentally different from that of the people about them. These were differences which allowed of no process of assimilation to others. They demanded separation, absolute differentiation. ”

It was the Levites, with their racial creed, that Israel rejected. The next two hundred years, during which Israel and Judah existed separately, and often in enmity, but side by side, are filled with the voices of the Hebrew “prophets”, arraigning the Levites and the creed which they were constructing.

They rebuked the priestly doctrine of slaying and enslaving “the heathen”. God, they cried, desired moral behaviour, neighbourly conduct and justice towards the poor, the fatherless, the widow and the oppressed, not blood sacrifices and hatred of the heathen.

These protests provide the first forelight of the dawn which came some eight hundred years later. They find themselves in strange company among the injunctions to massacre in which the Old Testament abounds. The strange thing is that these remonstrances survived the compilation, when Israel was gone and the Levites, supreme in Judah, wrote down the Scriptures.

benevolent and enlightened passages are often followed by fanatical ones, attributed to the same man, which cancel them, or put the opposite in their place. The only reasonable explanation is that these are interpolations later made, to bring the heretics into line with Levitical dogma.

Hosea, another Israelite, says, “I desired mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings”. Hosea exhorts to the practice of “justice and righteousness”, “loving kindness and compassion and faithfulness”, not discrimination and contempt.

In Micah’s time the Levites apparently still demanded the sacrifice of all the firstborn to Jehovah:

“Wherewith shall I come before the Lord and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams or with ten thousands of rivers of oil. Shall I give my firstborn for my transgressions, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? It hath been told to thee, O man, what is good and what the Lord doth require of thee: only to do justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God” .

These men contended for the soul of the tribespeople during the two centuries when Israel and Judah existed side by side, and sometimes at daggers drawn. During this period the Levites, earlier distributed among the twelve tribes, were driven more and more to congregate in tiny Judah and in Jerusalem, and to concentrate their energies on the Judahites.

Then, in 721 BC, Israel was attacked and conquered by Assyria and the Israelites were carried into captivity. Judah was spared for that moment and for another century remained an insignificant vassal, first of Assyria and then of Egypt, and the stronghold of the Levitical sect.

At that point “the children of Israel” disappear from history

“The ten northern tribes, with their separate development, had drifted so far from their kindred in the south that the chronicle of their fall takes the form of a brief bald statement of fact unrelieved by any expression of grief. No epic poem, no dirge, no sympathy marked the hour of their downfall”.

The Levites of that ancient time did not, and today’s Zionists do not believe that the Israelites “vanished without leaving a trace” (as Dr. Kastein says). They were pronounced “dead”, in the way that a Jew marrying out of the fold today is pronounced dead (for instance, Dr. John Goldstein); they were excommunicated and only in that sense “vanished”.

MHR THIS IS CULT MENTALITY…YOU ARE DEAD TO ME…IF YOU LEAVE THE CULT / QUESTION ITS BELIEFS ETC I.E EX-COMMUNICATION MEANS YOU ARE NO LONGER PART OF THE CULT…AND THUS DEAD TO ALL ITS MEMBERS…OF NO ACCOUNT…IRRELEVANT…AMALEK…

Israel remained separate from Judah of its own will, and for the very reasons which ever since have aroused the mistrust and misgiving of other peoples. The Israelites “were not Jews”; the Judahites were “in all likelihood non-Israelitish”.

The true meaning of the assertion that Israel “disappeared” is to be found in the later Talmud, which says: “The ten tribes have no share in the world to come”. Thus, “the children of Israel” are banned from heaven by the ruling sect of Judah because they refused to exclude themselves from mankind on earth.

The Chief Rabbi of the British Empire in 1918, the Very Rev. J.H. Hertz, in answer to an enquiry on this point said explicitly, “The people known at present as Jews are descendants of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin with a certain number of descendants of the tribe of Levi”. This statement makes perfectly clear that “Israel” had no part in what has become Judaism (no authority, Judaist or other, would support the claim made to blood-descent from Judah, for the Jews of today, but this is of little account).

Therefore the use of the name “Israel” by the Zionist state which was created in Palestine in this century is in the nature of a forgery. Some strong reason must have dictated the use of the name of a people who were not Jews and would have none of the creed which has become Judaism. One tenable theory suggests itself. The Zionist state was set up with the connivance of the great nations of the West, which is also the area of Christendom. The calculation may have been that these peoples would be comforted in their consciences if they could be led to believe that they were fulfilling Biblical prophecy and God’s promise to “Israel”, at whatever cost in the “destruction” of innocent peoples.

If the Zionist state of 1948 could lay claim to any name whatever taken from far antiquity, this could only be “Judah

During the hundred years that followed the Assyrian conquest of Israel, the Levites in Judah began to compile the written Law. In 621 BC they produced Deuteronomy and read it to the people in the temple at Jerusalem.

This was the birth of “the Mosaic law”, which Moses, if he ever lived, never knew. It is called the Mosaic law because it is attributed to him, but the authorities agree that it was the product of the Levites, who then and later repeatedly made Moses (and for that matter, Jehovah) say what suited them. Its correct description would be “the Levitical law” or “the Judaic law”.

Deuteronomy is to formal Judaism and Zionism what the Communist Manifesto was to the destructive revolution of our century. It is the basis of the Torah (“the Law”) contained in the Pentateuch, which itself forms the raw material of the Talmud, which again gave birth to those “commentaries” and commentarieson-commentaries which together constitute the Judaic “law”.

Therefore Deuteronomy is also the basis of the political programme, of worldly dominion over nations despoiled and enslaved, which has been largely realized in the West

It was read, in 621 BC, to so small an audience in so small a place

Before Deuteronomy was compiled only the “oral tradition” of what God said to Moses existed. The Levites claimed to be the consecrated guardians of this tradition and the tribespeople had to take their word for it (their pretensions in this respect chiefly caused the anger of the Israelite “prophets”). If anything had been written down before Deuteronomy was read, such manuscripts were fragmentary and in priestly keeping, and as little known to the primitive tribesmen

its name, which means “Second Law”. Deuteronomy, in fact, was Levitical Judaism, first revealed; the Israelites (as already shown) “were not Jews” and had never known this “Law”.

Deuteronomy which appears as the fifth book of today’s Bible, with an air of growing naturally out of the previous ones, was the first book to be completed as a whole. Though Genesis and Exodus provide the historical background and mount for it, they were later produced by the Levites, and Leviticus and Numbers, the other books of the Torah, were compiled even later.

Deuteronomy stood the earlier tradition on its head, if it was in harmony with the moral commandments. However, the Levites were within their self-granted right in making any changes they chose, for they held that they were divinely [14] authorized to amend the Law, as orally revealed by God to Moses, in order to meet “the constantly changing conditions of existence in the spirit of traditional teaching” (Dr. Kastein).

they also claimed that Moses had received at Sinai a secret oral Torah, which must never be committed to writing. In view of the later inclusion of the Old Testament in one volume with the Christian New Testament, and the average Gentile’s assumption that he thus has before his eyes the whole of “the Mosaic Law”, this qualification is of permanent interest.

The Talmud, as quoted by Dr. Funk, says, “God foresaw that one day a time would come when the Heathen would possess themselves of the Torah and would say to Israel, ‘We, too, are sons of God’. Then will the Lord say: ‘Only he who knows my secrets is my son’. And what are the secrets of God? The oral teachings” .

The few people who heard Deuteronomy read in 621 BC, and then first learned what “the Mosaic Law” was to be, were told that the manuscripts had been “discovered”. Today’s Judaist authorities dismiss this and agree that Deuteronomy was the independent work of the Levites in isolated Judah after Judah’s rejection by the Israelites and the conquest of Israel. Dr. Kastein puts the matter like this:

“In 621 BC, a manuscript hoary with the dust of ages was discovered among the archives. It contained a curious version of the laws which had been codified up to that time, a sort of repetition and variation of them, giving a host of instructions regarding man’s duty to God and to his neighbour. It was couched in the form of speeches supposed to have been delivered by Moses just before his death on the farther side of Jordan. Who the author was it is impossible to say”.

Thus Dr. Kastein, a zealot who awaits the literal fulfilment of “the Mosaic Law” in every detail, does not believe that its author was either Jehovah or Moses. It is enough for him that it was produced by the lawgiving priesthood, which for him is divine authority.

None can now tell how closely Deuteronomy, as we know it, resembles Deuteronomy as it was read in 621 BC, for the books of the Old Testament were repeatedly revised up to the time of the first translation, when various other modifications were made, presumably to avoid excessive perturbation among the Gentiles. No doubt something was then excised, so that Deuteronomy in its original form may have been ferocious indeed, for what remains is savage enough.

Religious intolerance is the basis of this “Second Law” (racial intolerance was to follow later, in another “New Law”) and murder in the name of religion is its distinctive tenet. This necessitates the destruction of the moral Commandments, which in fact are set up to be knocked down. Only those of them which relate to the exclusive worship of the “jealous” Jehovah are left intact. The others are buried beneath a great mound of “statutes and judgments” (regulations issued [l5] under a governing Law, as it were) which in effect cancel them.

Thus the moral commandments against murder, stealing, adultery, coveting, bad neighbourliness, and the like are vitiated by a mass of “statutes” expressly enjoining the massacre of other peoples, the murder of apostates individually or in communities, the taking of concubines from among women captives, “utter destruction” that leaves “nothing alive”, the exclusion of “the stranger” from debt-remission and the like.

By the time the end of Deuteronomy is reached the moral commandments have been nullified in this way, for the purpose of setting up, in the guise of a religion, the grandiose political idea of a people especially sent into the world to destroy and “possess” other peoples and to rule the earth. The idea of destruction is essential to Deuteronomy. If it be taken away no Deuteronomy, or Mosaic Law, remains.

This concept of destruction as an article of faith is unique, and where it occurs in political thought (for instance, in the Communist philosophy) may also derive originally from the teaching of Deuteronomy, for there is no other discoverable source.

Deuteronomy is above all a complete political programme: the story of the planet, created by Jehovah for this “special people”, is to be completed by their triumph and the ruination of all others. The rewards offered to the faithful are exclusively material: slaughter, slaves, women, booty, territory, empire. The only condition laid down for these rewards is observance of “the statutes and judgments”, which primarily command the destruction of others. The only guilt defined lies is non-observance of these laws. Intolerance is specified as observance; tolerance as non-observance, and therefore as guilt. The punishments prescribed are of this world and of the flesh, not of the spirit. Moral behaviour, if ever demanded, is required only towards co-religionists and “strangers” are excluded from it.

This unique form of nationalism was first presented to the Judahites in Deuteronomy as “the Law” of Jehovah and as his literal word, spoken to Moses. The notion of world domination through destruction is introduced at the start (chapter 2) of these “speeches supposed to have been delivered” by the dying Moses:

“The Lord spake unto me, saying. . . This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the nations that are under the whole heaven, who shall hear report of thee, and shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee”. In token of this, the fate of two nations is at once shown. The King of Sihon and the King of Bashan “came out against us, he and all his people”, whereon they were “utterly destroyed, the men, and the women, and the little ones”, only the cattle being spared and “the spoil” being taken “for a prey unto ourselves”. (The insistence on utter destruction is a recurrent and significant feature of these illustrative anecdotes).

“Seven nations greater and mightier than thou” are to be delivered into the Judahites’ hands, and: “Thou shalt utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them. . . ye shall destroy their alters . . . for thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God; the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are on the face of the earth . . . Thou shalt be blessed above all people . . . And thou shalt consume all the people which the Lord thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them. . . the Lord thy God will send the hornet among them, until they that are left, and hide themselves from thee, be destroyed. . . And the Lord thy God will put out these nations before thee by little and little. . . But the Lord thy God shall deliver them unto thee, and shall destroy them with a mighty destruction until they be destroyed. And he shall deliver their kings into thine hand, and thou shalt destroy their name from under heaven; there shall no man be able to stand before thee, until thou have destroyed them. . .”

By the Twentieth Century AD the peoples of the West, as a whole, had ceased to attach any present meaning to these incitements, but the peoples directly concerned thought differently. For instance, the Arab population of Palestine fled en masse from its native land after the massacre at Deir Yasin in 1948 because this event meant for them (as its perpetrators intended it to mean) that if they stayed they would be “utterly destroyed”.

They knew that the Zionist leaders, in the palavers with British and American politicians of the distant West, repeatedly had stated that “the Bible is our Mandate” (Dr. Chaim Weizmann), and they knew (if the Western peoples did not realize) that the allusion was to such passages as that commanding the “utter destruction” of the Arab peoples. They knew that the leaders of the West had supported and would continue to support the invaders and thus they had no hope of even bare survival, save by flight. This massacre of 1948 AD relates directly to the “statute and judgment” laid down in chapter 7 of the book of The Law which the Levites completed and read in 621 BC.

Deuteronomy continue: “. . . Go in to possess nations greater and mightier than thyself . . . the Lord thy God is he which goeth over before thee; as a consuming fire he shall destroy them, and he shall bring them down before thy face; so shalt thou drive them out, and destroy them quickly, as the Lord hath said unto thee. . . For if ye shall diligently keep all these commandments which I command you . . . then will the Lord drive out all these nations from before you, and ye shall possess greater nations and mightier [17] than yourselves . . . even unto the uttermost sea shall your coast be. There shall no man be able to stand before you: for the Lord your God shall lay the fear of you and the dread of you upon all the land that ye shall tread upon . . .”

Then Moses, in this account, enumerates the “statutes and judgments” which must be “observed” if all these rewards are to be gained, and again “the Law” is to destroy:

“These are the statutes and judgments, which ye shall observe to do . . . Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods. . . When the Lord thy God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest to possess them, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their land: Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them. . . and that thou inquire not after their gods.

This tenet of “the Law” requires the faithful to destroy other religions. It was impartial when enacted but gained a specific application in later centuries from the fact that the Christian faith grew up in, and the mass of Jews then moved into, the same geographical area: the West. (This made Christianity the primary object of the command to “utterly destroy the places. . .”, and the dynamiting of Russian cathedrals, the opening of “anti-God museums”, the canonization of Judas and other acts of early Bolshevist governments, which were to nine-tenths comprized of Eastern Jews, were evidently deeds of “observance” under this “statute” of Deuteronomy).

The ideas of the inquisition of heretics and of the informer, which the West has used in its retrogressive periods and repudiated in its enlightened ones, also find their original source (unless any can locate an earlier one) in Deuteronomy. Lest any such heretic should call in question the Law of destruction, summarized in the preceding paragraphs, Deuteronomy next provides that “if there arise among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams . . . (he) shall be put to death”; the crucifixion of Jesus (and the deaths of numerous expostulants against literal Judaism) fall under this “statute”.

The denunciation of kinsfolk who incur suspicion of heresy is required. This is the terrorist device introduced in Russia by the Bolshevists in 1917 . The Christian world at the time professed horror at these barbarbous innovations, but the method is plainly laid down in Deuteronomy, which requires that any who say, “Let us go and serve other gods”, be denounced by their brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, wives and so on, and be stoned to death.

Deuteronomy prescribes that the hand of the bloodkinsman or spouse shall be “first upon” the victim of denunciation at the killing, and only afterwards “the hand of all the people”. This “statute of the Law” is still observed today, in a measure dictated by local conditions and other circumstances. Apostates cannot be publicly stoned to death in the environment of foreign communities, where the law of “the stranger” might hold this to be [18] murder, so that a formal pronunciation of “death” and ceremony of mourning symbolically takes the place of the legal penalty; see Dr. John Goldstein’s account both of the symbolic rite and of a recent attempt to exact the literal penalty, which during the centuries was often inflicted in closed Jewish communities where the law of “the stranger” could not reach.

When a “far off city” has been captured, “thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword, but the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself. . .” This incitement in respect of captured women is a recurrent theme and Deuteronomy lays down the law that a Judahite captor who sees among captives “a beautiful woman” may take her home, but if he had “no delight in her” may turn her out again.

The case of a near city is different; the law of utter destruction (against which Saul transgressed) then rules. “But of the cities of these people which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth; But thou shalt utterly destroy them. . . as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee”. (This verse 16 of chapter 20, again, explains the mass flight of the Palestinian Arabs after Deir Yasin, where nothing that breathed was saved alive. They saw that literal fulfilment of the Law of 62l BC was the order of the day in 1948 AD, and that the might of the West was behind this fulfilment of the Law of “utter destruction”.)

Every seven years a creditor shall remit his “neighbour’s” debt, but “of a foreigner thou mayest exact it again”. Chapter 10 (surprisingly in this context) says, “Love ye therefore the stranger; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt”, but chapter 23 brings the familiar cancellation: “Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother . . . unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury” (and graver examples of this legal discrimination between the “neighbour” and “the “stranger” appear in later books, as will be seen).

Deuteronomy ends with the long-drawn-out, rolling, thunderous curse-or-blessing theme. Moses, about to die, once more exhorts “the people” to choose between blessings and cursings, and these are enumerated.

The blessings are exclusively material: prosperity through the increase of kith,

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 21 —

[19] crop and kine; the defeat of enemies; and world dominion. “The Lord thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth . . . The Lord shall establish thee an holy people unto himself . . . And all people of the earth shall see that thou art called by the name of the Lord; and they shall be afraid of thee. . . thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou shalt not borrow. And the Lord shall make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath . . .”

DEUTERONOMY (THE SECOND LAWS) ARE THE BASIS OF JEW WORLD ORDER FINANCIAL POWER AND THUS POLITICAL POWER, MASS MEDIA POWER, LEGAL POWER…’THOU SHALT LEND UNTO MANY NATIONS, AND THOUGH SHALT NOT BORROW’…WHAT SORT OF ‘DIVINITY’ CONCERNS ITSELF WITH URSURY AND WORLD FINANCE?

Literal Judaism is ultimately based on terror and fear and the list of curses set out in chapter 28 of The Second Law shows the importance which the priesthood attached to this practice of cursing (which literal Judaists to this day hold to be effective in use). These curses, be it remembered, are the penalties for nonobservance, not for moral transgressions! “If thou will not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and statutes. . . all these curses shall come upon thee . . .”

The city and the dwelling, the children, crops and cattle, are to be cursed “until thou be destroyed and until thou perish utterly”. Plague, wasting, inflammation, mildew, botch, emerods, scab, itch, madness, blindness, famine, cannibalism and drought are specified. Men’s wives are to lie with other men; their children are to be lost into slavery; any that remain at home are to be eaten by their parents, the father and mother contesting for the flesh and denying any to the children still alive. (These curses were included in the Great Ban when it was pronounced on apostates down to relatively recent times, and in the fastnesses of Talmudic Jewry are probably in use today).

The diseases and disasters were to be visited on the people “if thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, the Lord Thy God: . . I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live for ever”.

Such was the life and the blessing which the Judahites, gathered in the Temple in 621 BC, were exhorted in the name of Jehovah and Moses to choose by their tribal chieftain Josiah, the mouthpiece of the priesthood. The purpose and meaning of existence, under this “Mosaic Law”, was the destruction and enslavement of others for the sake of plunder and power. Israel might from that moment have counted itself happy to have been pronounced dead and to have been excluded from such a world to come. The Israelites had mingled in the living bloodstream of mankind; on its banks the Judahites were left stranded in the power of a fanatical priesthood which commanded them, on pain of “all these curses”, to destroy. [20] To the terror inspired by “all these curses” the Levites added also an allurement. If “the people” should “return and obey the voice of the Lord, and do all his commandments. . .”, then “all these curses” would be transferred to their “enemies” (not because these had sinned, but simply to swell the measure of the blessing conferred on the rehabilitated Judahites!)

In this tenet Deuteronomy most clearly revealed the status allotted to the heathen by The Second Law. In the last analysis, “the heathen” have no legal existence under this Law; how could they have, when Jehovah only “knows” his “holy people”? Insofar as their actual existence is admitted, it is only for such purposes as those stated in verse 65, chapter 28 and verse 7, chapter 30: namely, to receive the Judahites when they are dispersed for their transgressions and then, when their guests repent and are forgiven, to inherit curses lifted from the regenerate Judahites. True, the second verse quoted gives the pretext that “all these curses” will be transferred to the heathen because they “hated” and “persecuted” the judahites, but how could they be held culpable of this when the very presence of the Judahites among them was merely the result of punitive “curses” inflicted by Jehovah? For Jehovah himself, according to another verse (64, chapter 28) took credit for putting the curse of exile on the Judahites:

“And the Lord shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other . . . and among these nations shalt thou find no ease, neither shall the sole of thy foot have rest…”

Deuteronomy employs this Doublespeak (to use the modem idiom) throughout: the Lord makes the special people homeless among the heathen for their transgressions; the heathen, who have no blame either for their exile or for those transgressions, are their “persecutors “; ergo, the heathen will be destroyed.

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 22 —

The Judaist attitude towards other mankind, creation, and the universe in general, is better understood when these and related passages have been pondered, and especially the constant plaint that Jews are “persecuted” everywhere, which in one tone or another runs through nearly all Jewish literature. To any who accept this book as The Law, the mere existence of others is in fact persecution; Deuteronomy plainly implies that.

The most nationalist Jew and the most enlightened Jew often agree in one thing: they cannot truly consider the world and its affairs from any but a Jewish angle, and from that angle “the stranger” seems insignificant. Thinking makes it so, and this is the legacy of twenty-five centuries of Jewish thinking; even those Jews who see the heresy or fallacy cannot always divest themselves entirely of the incubus on their minds and spirits.

The passage from Deuteronomy last quoted shows that the ruling sect depicted homelessness at one and the same time as the act of the special people’s god and as persecution by the special people’s enemies, deserving of “all these curses”. To minds of such extreme egotism a political outrage in which 95 Gentiles and 5 Jews lose their lives or property is simply an anti-Jewish disaster

Having undertaken to put “all these curses” on innocent parties, if the Judahites would return to observance of “all these statutes and judgments”, the resurrected Moses of Deuteronomy promised one more blessing (“The Lord thy God, he will go over before thee, and he will destroy these nations from before thee, and thou shalt possess them. . . “) and then was allowed to die in the land of Moab.

In “the Mosaic Law” the destructive idea took shape, which was to threaten Christian civilization and the West, both then undreamed of. During the Christian era a council of theologians made the decision that the Old Testament and the New should be bound in one book, without any differentiation, as if they were stem and blossom, instead of immovable object and irresistible force. The encyclopaedia before me as I write states laconically that the Christian churches accept the Old Testament as being of “equal divine authority” with the New.

This unqualified acceptance covers the entire content of the Old Testament and may be the original source of much confusion in the Christian churches and much distraction among the masses that seek Christianity, for the dogma requires belief in opposite things at the same time. How can the same God, by commandment to Moses, have enjoined men to love their neighbours and “utterly to destroy” their neighbours? What relationship can there be between the universal, loving God of the Christian revelation and the cursing deity of Deuteronomy?

Some twenty years after the reading of Deuteronomy in Jerusalem, Judah was conquered by the Babylonian king, in about 596 BC.

The Law, instead of dying, grew stronger in Babylon, where for the first time a foreign king gave it his protection. The permanent state-within-states, nation-within-nations was projected, a first time, into the life of peoples; initial experience in usurping power over them was gained. Much tribulation for other peoples was brewed then.

During this period the Levites added four Books to Deuteronomy and thus set up a Law of racio-religious intolerance which, if it could be enforced, would for all time cut off the Judahites from mankind. By experiment in Babylon, they found ways of enforcing it, that is to say, of keeping their followers segregated from those among whom they dwelt. They acquired authority among their captors, and at last they “pulled down” and “utterly destroyed” their captors’ house; or if this did not truly happen, they handed on this version of history to a posterity which accepted it and in time began to see in these people an irresistibly destructive force.

The first “captivity” (the Egyptian) seems to have been completely legendary; what is known confutes it and as Exodus was completed after the Babylonian incident the Levitical scribes may have devised the story of the earlier “captivity”, and of Jehovah’s punishment of the Egyptians, to support the version of the Babylonian period which they were then preparing.

what truly happened in Babylon seems to have been greatly different from the picture of a mass-captivity, later followed by a mass-return, which has been handed down by the Levitical scriptures.

No mass-exodus of captives from Jerusalem to Babylon can have occurred, because the mass of the Judahite people, from which a Jewish nation later emerged, was already self-distributed far and wide about the known world (that is, around the Mediterranean, in lands west and east of Judah), having gone wherever conditions for commerce were most favourable.

In that respect the picture was in its proportions very much like that of today. In Jerusalem was only a nucleus, comprizing chiefly the most zealous devotees of the Temple cult and folk whose pursuits bound them to the land. The authorities agree that merely a few tens of thousands of people were taken to Babylon, and that these represented a small fraction of the whole.

The Parsees of India offer a case nearly identical and of the same period; they, too, survived the loss of state and country as a religious community in dispersion. The later centuries offer many examples of the survival of racial or religious groups far from their original clime. With the passing of generations such racial groups come to think of their ancestors’ homeland simply as “the old country”; the religious ones turn their eyes towards a holy city (say, Rome or Mecca) merely from a different spot on earth.

The difference in the case of the Judahites was that old country and holy city were the same; that Jehovaism demanded a triumphant return and restoration of [24] temple-worship, over the bodies of the heathen destroyed; and that this religion was also their law of daily life, so that a worldly political ambition, of the ancient tribal or nationalist kind, was also a primary article of faith. Other such creeds of primitive times became fossilized; this one survived to derange the life of peoples throughout the ages to our day, when it achieved its most disruptive effect.

Dr. Kastein says the captives “enjoyed complete freedom” of residence, worship, occupation and selfadministration.

This liberality allowed the Levites to make captives of people who thus were largely free; under priestly insistence they were constrained to settle in closed communities, and in this way the ghetto and Levite power were born.

The support of the foreign ruler was necessary for this corralling of expatriates by their own priests, and it was given on this first occasion, as on innumerable other occasions ever since.

With their people firmly under their thumbs, the Levites then set about to complete the compilation of “The Law”. The four books which they added to Deuteronomy make up the Torah, and this word, which originally meant doctrine, is now recognized to mean “the Law”. However, “completion” is a most misleading word in this connection.

Only the Torah (in the sense of the five books) was completed. The Law was not then and never can be completed, given the existence of the “secret Torah” recorded by the Talmud (which itself was but the later continuation of the Torah), and the priestly claim to divine right of interpretation. In fact, “the Law” was constantly changed, often to close some loophole which might have allowed “the stranger” to enjoy a right devolving only on “a neighbour”. Some examples of this continuing process of amendment have already been given, and others follow in this chapter. The effect was usually to make hatred of or contempt for “the stranger” an integral part of “the Law” through the provision of discriminatory penalties or immunities.

When the Torah was complete a great stockade, unique in its nature but still incomplete, had been built between any human beings who at any time accepted this “Law” and the rest of mankind. The Torah allowed no distinction between this Law of Jehovah and that of man, between religious and civil law. The law of [25] “the stranger”, theologically and juridically, had no existence, and any pretension to enforce one was “persecution”, as Jehovah’s was the only law.

MHR SO ‘PERSECUTION’ REALLY MEANS NOT SUBMITTING TO THE CULT, OR IMPOSING LAWS ON CULT MEMBERS ORIGINATING FROM THE HOST NATION / COMMUNITY’…HOW HORRIBLE TO BE FORCED TO OBEY LAWS YOUR OWN CULT LEADERS DIDN’T WRITE !!!

The priesthood claimed that the Torah governed every act of daily life, down to the most trivial. Any objection that Moses could not have received from Jehovah on the mountain detailed instructions covering every conceivable action performed by man, was met with the dogma that the priesthood, like relay runners, handed on from generation to generation “the oral tradition” of Jehovah’s revelation to Moses, and infinite power of reinterpretation. However, such objections were rare, as the Law prescribed the death penalty for doubters.

Mr. Montefiore remarks, accurately, that the Old Testament is “revealed legislation, not revealed truth”, and says the Israelite prophets cannot have known anything of the Torah as the Levites completed it in Babylon. Jeremiah’s words, “the pen of the Scribes is in vain” evidently refer to this process of Levitical revision and to the attribution of innumerable new “statutes and judgments” to Jehovah and Moses.

“Sin” was not a concept in the Torah as it took shape. That is logical, for in law there cannot be “sin”, only crime or misdemeanour. The only offence known to this Law was non-observance, which meant crime or misdemeanour. What is commonly understood by “sin”, namely, moral transgression, was sometimes expressly enjoined by it or made absolvable by the sacrifice of an animal.

The idea of “the return” (together with the related ideas of destruction and dominion) was basic to the dogma, which stood or fell by it. No strong impulse to return from Babylon to Jerusalem existed among the people (any more than today, when the instinct of the vast majority of Jews is completely against “return”, so that the Zionist state is much more easily able to find money abroad than immigrants).

Literal fulfilment was the supreme tenet and that meant that possession of Palestine, the “centre” of the dominant empire to come, was essential (as it still is); its importance in the pattern was political, not residential.

Thus the Levites in Babylon added Exodus, Genesis, Leviticus and Numbers to Deuteronomy. Genesis and Exodus provide a version of history moulded to fit the “Law” which the Levites by then had already promulgated, in Deuteronomy. This goes right back to the Creation, of which the Scribes knew the exact date

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 26 —

(however the first two chapters of Genesis give somewhat different accounts of the Creation and the Levitical hand, as scholars believe, is more to be seen in the second chapter than the first).

Whatever has survived of the former Israelite tradition is in Genesis and Exodus, and in the enlightened passages of the Israelite prophets. These more benevolent parts are invariably cancelled out by later, fanatical ones, which are presumably Levitical interpolations.

The puzzle is to guess why the Levites allowed these glimpses of a loving God of all men to remain; as they invalidated the New Law and could have been [26] removed. A tenable theory might be that the earlier tradition was too well known to the tribespeople to be merely expunged, so that it had to be retained and cancelled out by allegorical incident and amendment.

Although Genesis and Exodus were produced after Deuteronomy the theme of fanatical tribalism is faint in them. The swell and crescendo come in Deuteronomy, Leviticus and Numbers, which bear the plain imprint of the Levite in isolated Judah and Babylon.

Thus in Genesis the only fore-echo of the later sound and fury is, “And I will make of thee a great nation and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing; and I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee; and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. . . and the Lord appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land. . .”

Exodus is not much different: for instance, “If thou shalt indeed, . . do all that I speak, then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies. . . and I will cut them off”; and even these passages may be Levitical interpolations.

But in Exodus something of the first importance appears: this promise is sealed in blood, and from this point on blood runs like a river through the books of The Law. Moses is depicted as “taking the blood and sprinkling it on the people” and saying, “Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words”. The hereditary and perpetual office of the Aaronite priesthood is founded in this blood-ritual: Jehovah says unto Moses, “And take unto thee Aaron thy brother and his sons with him that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office”.

The manner of a priest’s consecration is then laid down in detail by Jehovah himself, according to the Levitical scribes:

He must take a bullock and two rams “without blemish”, have them butchered “before the Lord”, and on the altar burn one ram and the innards of the bullock. The blood of the second ram is to be put “upon the tip of the right ear of Aaron and upon the tip of the right ear of his sons and upon the thumb of their right hands and upon the great toe of their right foot” and sprinkled “upon the altar round about. . . and upon Aaron, and upon his garments, and upon his sons and the garments of his sons”.

The picture of blood-bespattered priests, thus given, is worth contemplation. Even at this distance of time the question prompts itself: why was this insistent emphasis laid on blood-sacrifice in the books of the Law which the Levites produced. The answer seems to lie in the sect’s uncanny genius for instilling fear by terror; for the very mention of “blood”, in such contexts, made the faithful or superstitious Judahite tremble for his own son!

It is all spelt out in Exodus, this claim of the fanatical priests to the firstborn of their followers:

“And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of [27] beast: it is mine”.

According to the passage earlier quoted from Micah, this practice of sacrificing the human firstborn long continued, and the sight of the bloodied Levite must have had a terrible significance for the humble tribesman, for in the words attributed to God, quoted above, the firstborn “of man and of beast” are coupled. This significance remained long after the priesthood (in a most ingenious way which will later be described) contrived to discontinue human sacrifice while retaining the prerogative. Even then the blood which was sprinkled on the priest, though it was an animal’s, was to the congregation still symbolically that of their own offspring!

The Levitical authorship of the Torah is indicated, again, by the fact that more than half of the five books are given to minutely detailed instructions, attributed directly to the Lord, about the construction and furnishings of altars and tabernacles, the cloth and design of vestments, mitres, girdles, the kind of golden chains and precious stones in which the blood-baptized priest is to be arrayed, as well as the number and kind of beasts to be sacrificed for various transgressions, the uses to be made of their blood, the payment of tithes and shekels, and in general the privileges and perquisites of the priesthood. Scores of chapters are devoted to blood sacrifice, in particular.

God probably does not so highly rate the blood of animals or the fine raiment of priests. This was the very thing, against which the Israelite “prophets” had protested. It was the mummifying of a primeval tribal religion; yet this is still The Law of the ruling sect and it is of great potency in our present-day world.

When they compiled these Books of the Law, the Levitical scribes included many allegorical or illustrative incidents of the awful results of “non-observance”. These are the parables of the Old Testament, and their moral is always the same: death to the “transgressor”. Exodus includes the best known of these, the parable of the golden calf. While Moses was in the mountain Aaron made a golden calf; when Moses came down and saw it he commanded “the sons of Levi” to go through the camp “and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour”, which these dutiful Levites did, so that “there fell of the people that day about three thousand men”.

[28]

Christendom also has inherited this parable of the golden calf (having inherited the Old Testament) and holds it to be a warning against the worship of idols. However, a quite different motive may have produced whatever trend among the people caused the Levites to invent it. Many Judahites, and possibly some priests, at that time may have thought that God would be better pleased with the symbolic offering of a golden calf than with the eternal bleating of butchered animals, the “sprinkling” of their blood, and the “sweet savour” of their burning carcasses. The Levites at all times fought fiercely against any such weakening of their ritual, so that these parables are always directed against any who seek to change it in any detail.

A similar case is the “rebellion of Korah” (Numbers), when “two and fifty hundred princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown, gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them; wherefore then lift ye yourselves above the congregation of the Lord”.

The Israelite “prophets” had made this very complaint, that the Levites took much on themselves, and the parable in Numbers is plainly intended to discourage any other objectors: “So the earth opened and swallowed Korah and his two hundred and fifty men of renown” (however, the congregation “continued to murmur”, whereon the Lord smote it with the plague, and by the time Aaron interceded, “fourteen thousand and seven hundred” lay dead.)

The lesson of these parables, respect for the priesthood, is driven home immediately after this anecdote by the enumeration, in words attributed to the Lord, of the Levite’s perquisites: “All the best of the oil, and all the best of the wine, and of the wheat, the first fruits of them which they shall offer unto the Lord, them have I given thee”.

Presumably because the older tradition imposed some restraint in the writing of history, Genesis and Exodus are relatively restrained. The fanatical note, first loudly sounded in Deuteronomy, then becomes ever louder in Leviticus and Numbers, until at the end a concluding parable depicts a racio-religious massacre as an act of the highest piety in “observance”, singled out for reward by God! These last two books, like Deuteronomy, are supposed to have been left by Moses and to relate his communions with Jehovah. In their cases, no claim was made that “a manuscript hoary with the dust of ages” had been discovered; they were just produced.

They show the growth of the sect’s fanaticism at this period, and the increasing heat of their exhortations to racial and religious hatred. Deuteronomy had first decreed, “Love ye therefore the stranger”, and then cancelled this “judgment” (which probably came down from the earlier Israelite tradition) by the later one which excluded the stranger from the ban on usury.

Leviticus went much further. It, too, began with the admonition to love: “The [29] stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself” (chapter 19). The reversal came in chapter 25: “Of the children of the stranger that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land, and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren, the children of Israel, ye shall not rule over one another with rigour”.

This made hereditary bondage and chattel-slavery of “strangers” a tenet of the Law (which is still valid). If the Old Testament is of “equal divine authority” with the New, professing Christians of the pioneer, frontiersman or Voortrekker kind were entitled in their day to invoke such passages as these in respect of slavery in America or South Africa.

Leviticus introduced (at all events by clear implication) what is perhaps the most significant of all the discriminations made by the Law between “thy neighbour” and “the stranger”. Deuteronomy, earlier, had provided (chapter 22) that “if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die; but unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death; for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter”. This is the kind of provision, in respect of rape, which probably would have been found in any of the legal codes which were then taking shape, and for that matter it would fit into almost any legal code today, save for the extreme nature of the penalty. This passage, again, may very well represent the earlier Israelite attitude towards this particular transgression; it was impartial and did not vary according to the person of the victim.

Leviticus (chapter 19) then provided that a man who “lieth carnally” with a betrothed woman slave might acquit himself of fault by bringing a ram to the priest “as a trespass offering”, when “the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him”, but the woman “shall be scourged”. Under this Law the word of a woman slave clearly would not count against that of her owner, on a charge of rape, so that this passage appears to be an amendment, of the discriminatory kind, to the provision in Deuteronomy. Certain allusions in the Talmud support this interpretation, as will be shown. .

Leviticus also contains its parable depicting the awful consequences of non-observance, and this particular example shows the extreme lengths to which the Levites went. The transgression committed by the two allegorical characters in this case (who were themselves two Levites, Hadab and Abihu) was merely that they burned the wrong kind of fire in their censers. This was a capital offence under “the Law” and they were immediately devoured by the Lord!

Numbers, the last of the five Books to be produced, is the most extreme. In it the Levites found a way to rid themselves of their chief prerogative (the claim to [30] the firstborn) while perpetuating “the Law” in this, its supreme tenet. This was a political move of genius. The claim to the firstborn evidently had become a source of grave embarrassment to them, but they could not possibly surrender the first article of a literal Law which knew no latitude whatever in “observance”; to do so would have been itself a capital transgression. By one more reinterpretation of the Law they made themselves proxies for the firstborn, and thus staked a permanent claim on the gratitude of the people without any risk to themselves:

“And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, And I, behold. I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn that openeth the matrix among the children of Israel: therefore the Levites shall be mine; because all the firstborn are mine. . .” (As the firstborn to be so redeemed outnumbered their Levite redeemers by 273, payment of five shekels each for these 273 was required, the money to be given “to Aaron and his sons”.)

Proceeding from this new status of redeemers, the Levites laid down many more “statutes and judgments” in Numbers. They ruled by terror and were ingenious in devising new ways of instilling it; an example is their “trial of jealousy”. If “the spirit of jealousy” came on a man, he was legally obliged (by “the Lord speaking unto Moses, saying”) to hale his wife before the Levite, who, at the altar, presented her with a

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 29 —

concoction of “bitter water” made by him, saying, “If no man have lain with thee and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse. But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband. . . the Lord make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the Lord doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell.”

The woman then had to drink the bitter water and if her belly swelled the priests “executed the law” of death on her. The power which such a rite put in the hands of the priesthood is apparent; ascribed to the direct command of God, it resembles the practices of witch doctors in Africa.

The final touch is given to “the Law” in the last chapters of this, the last book to be compiled. It is provided by the parable of Moses and the Midianites. The reader will have remarked that the life and deeds of Moses, as related in Exodus, made him a capital transgressor, several times over, under the “Second Law” of Deuteronomy and the numerous other amendments of Leviticus and Numbers. By taking refuge with the Midianites, by marrying the Midianite highpriest’s daughter and by receiving instruction in priestly rites from him, and in other ways, Moses had “gone a-whoring after other gods”, had “taken of their daughters”, and so on. As the whole structure of the law rested on Moses, in whose name the commands against these things were laid down in the later books, something evidently had to be done about him before the Books of the Law were completed, or the whole structure would fall to the ground.

[31]

The last small section of Numbers shows how the difficulty was overcome by the scribes. In these final chapters of “the Law” Moses is made to conform with “all the statutes and judgments” and to redeem his transgressions by massacring the entire Midianite tribe, save for the virgins! By what in today’s idiom would be called a fantastic “twist”, Moses was resurrected so that he might dishonour his saviours, his wife, two sons and father-in-law. Posthumously he was made to “turn from his wickedness”, to validate the racioreligious dogma which the Levites had invented, and by complete transfiguration from the benevolent patriarch of earlier legend to become the founding father of their Law of hatred and murder!

MHR THIS IS HOW YOU ‘REHABILITATE’ YOUR CULT LEADERS PAST I.E HE DID EVERYTHING YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO…BUT ‘CLEANSED’ HIS SLATE IN THE ONLY WAY…TO BLAME THE ‘OTHER’ AND MASSACRE THEM I.E DEMONISE THEM SO CAN GENOCIDALLY MURDER THEM ALL…THIS IS THE LESSON FOR THE CULT MEMBERS…THEY WILL TRICK / DECIEVE / SEDUCE YOU A.K.A ‘ASSIMILATE’ YOU LIKE MARDUK AT THE TOWER OF BABYLON, WHICH IS ‘PERSECUTION’ IN CULT MENTALITY I.E ‘TURNING YOU FROM YOUR RIGHT PATH’, SO YOU MUST KILL AMALEK / THE HOST / THE ASSIMILATING CULTURE AND PEOPLE…AND AS A ‘CARROT’, GET TO RAPE ALL THEIR VIRGINS AS LONG AS THEY INTEREST YOU…

THE CULT OF JUDAISM THUS TAKE A FIGURE THAT THEIR MEMBERS WERE FAMILIAR WITH…WHO ASSIMILATED SO THOROUGLY, LIKE MARDUK AT TOWER OF BABYLON…MINGLING GREAT I.E CULT MEMBERS WITH SMALL I.E HOSTS / NON CULT / OUTSIDERS…THEY WOULD HAVE REMEMBERED THE STORIES…SO HAD TO ‘SPIN’ A NEW ‘SPIN’ ONTO THEM…ADD INTERJECTIONS I.E NEW STORIES…YES HE DID ALL THAT, BUT THEN ‘REALISED THE ERROR OF HIS WAYS / AWOKE FROM THEIR EVIL BRAINWASHING, AND KILLED THEM ALL, THUS SATISFYING YHWY’S LUST FOR REVENGE / MONOPOLY / JEALOUSY / VENGEFULNESS ETC…

In Chapter 25 Moses is made to relate that “the anger of the Lord was kindled” because the people were turning to other gods. He is commanded by the Lord, “Take all the heads of the people and hang them up before the Lord against the sun”, whereon Moses instructs the judges, “Slay ye every one his men that were joined unto Baalpeor” (Baal-worship was extensively practised throughout Canaan, and the competition of this cult with Jehovah-worship was a particular grievance of the Levites).

The theme of religious hatred is thus introduced into the narrative. That of racial hatred is joined to it when, in the direct sequence, a man brings “a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses”. Phinehas (the grandson of Moses’s brother Aaron) goes after them “and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the women through her belly”. Because of this deed, “the plague was stayed”, and “the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Phinehas hath turned away my wrath from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake. . . Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace!”

MHR ‘RELIGION OF PEACE’ MEANS TO PACIFY THE JEALOUS VENGEFUL GOD-CHILD-TANTRUM-PSYCHOTIC…A.K.A CULT LEADERSHIP…

Thus the covenant between Jehovah and the hereditary Aaronite priesthood was again sealed (by the Levitical scribes) in blood, this time the blood of a racioreligious murder, which “the Lord” then describes as “an atonement for the children of Israel”. Moses, the witness of the murder, is then ordered by the Lord, “Vex the Midianites and smite them”. The symbolism is plain. He is required, in resurrection, to strike equally at “other gods” (the god of the high priest Jethro, from whom he had received instruction) and at “strangers” (his wife’s and father-in-law’s race).

The Levites even made the ensuing massacre Moses’s last act on earth; he was rehabilitated on the brink of eternity! “And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites; afterwards thou shalt be gathered to thy people”. Thus ordered, Moses’s men “warred against the Midianites as the Lord commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. . . and took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of their cities, and all their flocks, and all their gods, and burnt their cities”.

This was not enough. Moses, the husband of a loving Midianite wife and the father of her two sons, was “wroth” with his officers because they had “saved all [32] the Midianite women alive. Behold these caused the children of Israel. . . to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregations of the Lord. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves”. (The booty is then listed; after the

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 30 —

enumeration of sheep, beeves and asses follow “thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him”. These were shared among the Levites, the soldiers and the congregation; “the gold” was brought to the Levites “for the Lord”.)

With that, Moses was allowed at last to rest and the Books of the Law were concluded. Incitement could hardly be given a more demoniac shape. Chapters 25 and 31 of Numbers need to be compared with chapters 2, 3 and 18 of Exodus for the full significance of the deed foisted on Jehovah and Moses by the Levites to become apparent. It was a plain warning to the special people of what Jehovaism was to mean to them; it remains today a warning to others.

On that note The Law ended. Its authors were a small sect in Babylon, with a few thousand followers there. However, the power of their perverse idea was to prove very great. By giving material ambition the largest shape it can have on earth, they identified themselves forever with the baser of the two forces which eternally contend for the soul of man: that downward pull of the fleshly instincts which wars with the uplifting impulse of the spirit.

MHR THE POWER OF THE CULT OF JUDAISM IS THAT IT APPEALS TO THE LOWEST INSTINCTS OF FEAR AND DESIRE…FOR RAPE, GOLD, LAND, SLAVES…KEEP IT SIMPLE…CULT GOOD, AMALEK IS ALL ELSE, AND EVIL…LOVE YOUR OWN CULT, HATE THE OUTSIDER…NEVER TRUST THEM, LISTEN TO THEM…ASSIMILIATION – DEATH TO THE CULT I.E WATERING DOWN / LOSS OF CONTROL / QUESTION OF DOGMA / RELATIVITY VS DOGMATIC ACCEPTANCE NO MATTER HOW ABSURD / CONTRADICTORY ETC… SO ASSIMILIATION = PERSECUTION…THE ‘THE JEWISH PROBLEM’ = HOW TO DEAL WITH THIS CULT MENTALITY…HOW TO FIRST MAKE IT TRANSPARENT TO THE HOSTS / AMALEK, AND TO THE CULT MEMBERS … IN FACE OF POWER OF CULT LEADERSHIP TO OFFER THE LOWEST / WORST IN HUMAN NATURE WHAT IT CRAVES … WHEN ALTERNATIVE IS ‘WORK’ AND ‘SPIRITUALITY’ AND ‘JUSTICE FOR ALL’ AND NO SLAVERY, ETC…???

the Torah was “the work of an anonymous compiler” who “produced a pragmatic historical work”. The description is exact; the scribe or scribes provided a version of history, subjectively written to support the compendium of laws which was built on it; and both history and laws were devised to serve a “political purpose. “A unifying idea underlay it all”, says Dr. Kastein, and this unifying idea was tribal nationalism, in a more fanatical form than the world has otherwise known

While the Law was being compiled (it was not completed until the Babylonian “captivity” had ended) the last two remonstrants made their voices heard, Isaiah and Jeremiah. The hand of the Levite may be traced in the interpolations which were made in their books, to bring them into line with “the Law” and its supporting “version of history”. The falsification is clearest in the book of Isaiah, [33] “which is the best known case because it is the most easily demonstrable. Fifteen chapters of the book were written by someone who knew the Babylonian captivity, whereas Isaiah lived some two hundred years earlier. The Christian scholars circumvent this by calling the unknown man “Deutero-Isaiah”, or the second Isaiah.

“This man left the famous words (often quoted out of their context), “The Lord hath said. . . I will also give thee for a light unto the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth”. This was heresy under the Law which was in preparation and the Levite apparently added (as the same man presumably would not have written) the passages foretelling that “the kings and queens” of the Gentiles “shall bow down to thee with their face towards the earth and lick up the dust of thy feet . . . I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine; and all flesh shall know that I am the Lord thy Saviour and thy Redeemer” (This sounds like the voice of Ezekiel, who was the true father of the Levitical Law, as will be seen.)

Jeremiah’s book seems to have received Levitical amendment at the start, because the familiar opening passage sharply discords with other of Jeremiah’s thoughts: “See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy . . .”

That does not sound like the man who wrote, in the next chapter: “The word of the Lord came to me saying, Go and cry in the ears of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the Lord: I remember thee, the kindness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals, when thou wentest after me in the wilderness, in a land that was not sown . . . What iniquity have your fathers found in me, that they are gone far from me . . . my people have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters . . .”

Jeremiah then identified the culprit, Judah (and for this offence well may have come by his death): “The backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah”. Israel had fallen from grace, but Judah had betrayed; the allusion is plainly to the Levites’ new Law. Then comes the impassioned protest, common to all the expostulants, against the priestly rites and sacrifices:

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 31 —

“Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord. . .” (the formal, repetitious incantations) “. . . but thoroughly amend your ways and your doings, oppress not the stranger, the fatherless and the widow, and shed not innocent blood in this place” (the ritual of blood-sacrifice and the ordained murder of apostates). . . “Will ye steal, murder and commit adultery, and swear falsely. . . and come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, We are delivered to do all these abominations” (the ceremonial absolution after animal-sacrifice). “Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? . . I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices….”

[34]

In such words Jeremiah, like Jesus later, protested against the “destruction” of the Law in the name of its fulfilment. It seems possible that even in Jeremiah’s time the Levites still exacted the sacrifice of firstborn children, because he adds, “And they have built the high place. . . to burn their sons and daughters in the fire; which I commanded not, neither came it into my heart”.

Because of these very “abominations”, Jeremiah continued, the Lord would “cause to cease from the cities of Judah, and from the streets of Jerusalem, the voice of mirth, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride; for the land shall be desolate”.

This is the famous political forecast which was borne out; the Levites, with their genius for perversion, later invoked it to support their claim that Judah fell because their Law was not observed, whereas Jeremiah’s warning was that their Law would destroy “treacherous Judah”. Were he to rise from the earth today he might use the word without change in respect of Zionism, for the state of affairs is similar and the ultimate consequence seems equally foreseeable.

MHR SO WAS IT THE CANAANITES WHO WERE SACRIFICING THEIR CHILDREN STILL, OR THE JEWS?

Levites gave their angry answer in the 137th Psalm:

“By the waters of Babylon we sat down and wept….. Our tormentors asked of us mirth: Sing us one of the songs of Zion. How shall we sing the Lord’s song in a strange land? If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth. . . O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed, happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones”.

MHR SO ‘RIPPING APART PREGNANT WOMEN’ AND ‘DASHING THE HEADS OF THE LITTLE ONES AGAINST THE STONES’….LOVELY ‘RELIGIOUS’ NOTIONS HEY !!!

the true captivity of “the Jews” was their enslavement to the law of racial and religious hatred is the only genuine captivity they have suffered. When the Judahites returned from Babylon to Jerusalem, about 538 BC, this impact on other peoples began. At that moment in time it was felt only by little clans and tribes, the immediate neighbours of the repatriated Judahites in Jerusalem. It has continued ever since in widening circles.

Prince Sidharta Gautama, the Buddha, had lived and died and founded the first religion of all mankind, founded on his First Law of Life: “From good must come good, and from evil must come evil”. This was the answer to the Levites’ Second Law, though they probably never heard of it. It was also time’s and the human spirit’s inevitable answer to Brahminism, Hindu racialism and the cult of the perpetual mastercaste (which strongly resembles literal Judaism).

MHR ALL ‘RELIGIONS OF THE BOOK / DOGMA / TRANSFERRED AUTHORITY / BLIND OBEDIENCE / UNTHINKING COMPLIANCE ARE SLAVE ‘RELIGIONS’…BUDDHA TAUGHT LOGIC / REASON / THE AUTHORITY BEING IN THE COMPELLING ARGUMENT OR NOT, NOT IN SOME THREAT FROM SOME ‘GOD’ OF PUNISHMENT IF YOU DON’T SUBMIT / ACCEPT / ASSUME / COMPLY / REPEAT DOGMA AS TENET OF ‘FAITH’…I.E OPPOSITE OF REASON / LOGIC THAT LEADS TO DESTRUCTION OF NATURAL EMPATHY, AND FEEDS NATURAL INSTINCTS TO ENSLAVE / RAPE / STEAL / KILL ETC…I.E WHAT IS COMING VERY SOON SO CLEAR TO ANYONE WHO CAN MOMENTARILY ESCAPE THE MIND PRISON THEY’VE PUT US ALL IN…

Before this first impact of “the Mosaic Law” could be felt by other peoples came the event of 536 BC which set the pattern of the Twentieth Century AD: the fall of Babylon.

The resemblance between the pattern of events today (that is to say, the shape taken by the outcome of the two World Wars) and that of the fall of Babylon is too great to be accidental, and in fact can now be shown to have been deliberately produced. The peoples of the West in the present century, had they realized it, were governed under “the Judaic Law”, not under any law of their own, by the forces that controlled governments.

The grouping of characters and the final denouement are alike in all three cases. On one side of the stage is the foreign potentate who has oppressed and affronted the Judahites (or, today, the Jews). In Babylon this was “King Belshazzar”; in the first World War it was the Russian Czar; in the second war, it was Hitler. Confronting this “persecutor”, is the other foreign potentate, the liberator. In Babylon, this was King Cyrus of Persia; in the second case, it was a Mr. Balfour; in the third, it was a President Truman.

Between these adversaries stands the Jehovan prophet triumphant, the great man at the foreign ruler’s court who foretells, and survives, the disaster which is about to befall the “persecutor”. In Babylon, this was Daniel. In the first and second world wars of this century it was a Dr. Chaim Weizmann, the Zionist prophet at foreign courts.

These are the characters. Then comes the denouement, a Jehovan vengeance on “the heathen” and a Jewish triumph in the form of a symbolic “restoration”. “King Belshazzar”, when Daniel has foretold his doom, is killed “in the same night” and his kingdom falls to the enemy. The Jewish captors who killed the Russian Czar and his family, at the end of the First Twentieth Century war, quoted this precedent in a couplet “written on the wall” of the room where the massacre occurred; the Nazi leaders, at the end of the Second Twentieth Century war, were hanged on the Jewish Day of Atonement.

Thus the two World Wars of this century have conformed, in their outcomes, to the pattern of the Babylonian-Persian war of antiquity as depicted in the Old Testament.

N.B ONCE THEY’VE SERVED THEIR PURPOSES, THEY WERE DESTROYED BY JEWS …I.E THEY USE NATIONS AS MERE MEANS TO THEIR ENDS….ZERO LOYALTY…HOW HAVE JEWS REPAID THE U.S FOR ‘SAVING’ THEM FROM NAZI GERMANS? OR THE BRITISH? OR THE FRENCH? 911? CONTINUAL WAR? MARTIAL LAW? PATRIOT ACT? DEBT SERVITUDE? UNEMPLOYMENT? OPEN BORDERS? … THIS IS THE ‘REWARD’ YOU GET FOR ‘SERVING THE JEWS’…

propaganda. King Belshazzar himself was apparently invented by the Levites. The historical book which records the fall of Babylon was compiled several centuries later and was attributed to one “Daniel”. It states that he was a Judahite captive in Babylon who rose to the highest place at court there and “sat in the gate of the king” (Nebuchadnezzar) through his skill in interpreting dreams. Upon him devolved the task of interpreting the “writing on the wall” (Daniel, 5).

King “Belshazzar, the son of Nebuchadnezzar”, is then depicted as offering an insult to the Judahites by using “the golden and silver vessels” taken by his father from the temple in Jerusalem for a banquet with his princes, wives and concubines. Thereon the fingers of a man’s hand write on the wall the words, [38] “Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin”. Daniel, being called to interpret, tells the king that they mean, “God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it; thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting; thy kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians”. Thereon King Belshazzar “in the same night” is slain, and the Persian conqueror enters, who is to “restore” the Judahites.

Thus the end of a king and a kingdom is related directly to an affront offered to Judah and given the guise of a Jehovan retribution and Jewish vengeance. What matter if Daniel and King Belshazzar never existed: by its inclusion in the Levitical scriptures this anecdote gained the status of a legal precedent! When the murder of the Russian Czar, his wife, daughters and son in 1918, again, was related directly to this legend by words quoted from it and scrawled on a blood-bespattered wall this was at once an avowal of authorship of the deed, and a citation of the legal authority for it.

MHR LITERALLY WHAT I’VE ARGUED…IF BIBLE NOT TRUE, THEN INTENT IS TO BE ‘LEGAL PRECEDENT’ FOR CULT AND ALL WHO SERVE IT…’LEGITIMATION OF GENOCIDE OF AMALEK’ … AS GOD’S WILL…ESCAPES YOUR ATTENTION THAT WHOLE STORY / PRECEDENT INVENTED / PROPAGANDA…STUCK IN THE MIND PRISON…REFLEXIVE BUBBLE OF ASSUMPTIONS / DOGMA / BELIEFS…DEFINITIONS…

When an ancient legend can produce such effects, twenty-five centuries afterwards, there is little gain in demonstrating its untruth, for politicians and the masses they manipulate alike love their legends more than truth. However, of the three protagonists in this version of the fall of Babylon, only King Cyrus certainly existed; King Belshazzar and Daniel seem to be figures of Levitical phantasy!

The Jewish Encyclopaedia, which points out that King Nebuchadnezzar had no son called Belshazzar and that no king called Belshazzar reigned in Babylon when King Cyrus conquered it, says impartially that “the author of Daniel simply did not have correct data at hand”, and thus does not believe that Daniel wrote Daniel. Obviously, if an important Judahite favourite at court, called Daniel, had written the book he would at least have known the name of the king whose end he foretold, and thus have had “correct data”.

Evidently the book of Daniel, like the books of the Law attributed to Moses, was the product of Levitical scribes who in it patiently continued to make history conform with their Law, already laid down. If a King Belshazzar could be invented for the purpose of illustration and precedent, so could a prophet Daniel. This, apparently mythical Daniel is the most popular prophet of all with the fervent Zionists of today, who rejoice in the anecdote of the Judahite vengeance and triumph foretold on the wall, and see in it the legal precedent for all later time. The story of our present century has done more than that of any earlier one to strengthen them in this belief and for them Daniel, with his “interpretation” fulfilled “in the same night”, gives the conclusive, crushing answer to the earlier Israelite prophets who had envisioned a loving God of all men. The fall of Babylon (as depicted by the Levites) gave practical proof of the truth and force of the “Mosaic” Law.

However, it would all have come to nothing without King Cyrus, who alone of the three protagonists did exist and did either allow, or compel, a few thousand Judahites to return to Jerusalem. At that point in history the Levitical theory of [39] politics, which aimed at the exercise of power through the acquirement of mastery over foreign rulers, was put to its first practical test and was successful.

The Persian king was the first of a long line of Gentile oracles worked by the ruling sect, which through him demonstrated that it had found the secret of infesting, first, and then directing the actions of foreign governments.

By the present century this mastery of governments had been brought to such a degree of power that they were all, in large measure, under one supreme control, so that their actions, in the end, always served the ambition of this supreme party. Towards the end of this book the reader will see how the Gentile oracles were worked, so that the antagonisms of peoples might be incited and brought into collision for this supernational purpose.

However, the reader will need to look into his own soul to find, if he can, the reason why these oracles, his own leaders, submitted.

King Cyrus was the first of them. Without his support the sect could not have set itself up again in Jerusalem and have convinced the incredulous Judahite masses, watching from all parts of the known world, that the racial Law was potent and would be literally fulfilled. The line of cause-and-effect runs straight and clear from the fall of Babylon to this century’s great events; the West today owes its successive disappointments and its decline even more to King Cyrus, the first of the Gentile puppets, than to the ingenious, stealthy priesthood itself.

“Judaism originated in the name of the Persian king and by the authority of his Empire, and thus the effect of the Empire of the Alchemenides extends with great power, as almost nothing else, directly into our present age”, says Professor Eduard Meyer, and this authority’s conclusion is demonstrably true. Five hundred years before the West even began, the Levites laid down the Law, and then through King Cyrus set the precedent and pattern for the downfall of the West itself.

The five books of the Law were still not complete when King Cyrus came to Babylon and conquered. The sect in Babylon was still busy on them and on the supporting version of history which, by such examples as that of “King Belshazzar”, was to give plausibility to the unbelievable and supply the precedent for barbaric deeds twenty-five centuries later. The mass of Judahites still knew nothing of the Law of racial intolerance which was being prepared for them, though religious intolerance was by this time familiar to them:

The sect had yet to complete the Law and then to apply it to its own people. When that happened in 458 BC, under another Persian king, the controversy of Zion at last took the shape in which it still implacably confronts its own people and the rest of mankind. The umbilical cord between the Judahites and other men was then finally severed.

These segregated people, before whom the priesthood flaunted its version of the fall of Babylon like a banner, then were set on the road to a future which would find them a compact force among other peoples, to whose undoing they were by their Law dedicated.

The first people to feel the impact of this “Mosaic Law” which the Levites were developing in Babylon were the Samaritans, who in 538 BC warmly welcomed the Judahites returning to Jerusalem and in token of friendship offered to help rebuild the temple, destroyed by the Babylonians in 596 BC. At the Levites’ order the Samaritans were brusquely repulsed and at this affront became hostile, so that the restoration of the temple was delayed until 520 BC. (The feud against the Samaritans continued throughout the centuries to the present time, when they have been reduced to a few score or dozen souls).

The friendly approach shows that the new “Law” of the Judeans was unknown to their neighbours, who were taken by surprise by this rebuff. It seems to have been just as little known to, or understood by the Judeans themselves, at that period. The books of the Law were still being compiled in Babylon and, despite anything the priests may have told them, they clearly did not at that time realize that they were to be racially, as well as religiously, debarred from their fellow men.

The repulse of the Samaritans gave the first hint of what was to follow. The Samaritans were Israelites, probably infused with other blood. They practised Jehovah-worship but did not recognize the supremacy of Jerusalem and on that account alone would have incurred the hatred of the Levites, who probably saw in them the danger of an Israelite revival and absorption of Judah. Thus the Samaritans were put under the major ban; even by taking a piece of bread from a Samaritan a Judahite broke all the statutes and judgments of the Levites and abominably defiled himself.

After this first clash with their neighbours, the Judeans looked around them at ruined and depopulated Jerusalem. None of them, unless they were ancients, can have known it before. They were few in number: those who “returned” numbered about forty thousand, which was perhaps a tenth or twentieth of the total, for centuries self-dispersed in other lands.

It was not a happy or triumphant return for these people, though it was a major political success for the priesthood. The Levites met the same difficulty as the Zionists in 1903, 1929 and 1953: the chosen people did not want to go to the promised land. Moreover, the leaders did not intend to head “the return”; they wished to stay in Babylon (as the Zionist leaders today wish to stay in New York).

The solution found in 538 BC was similar to the one found in 1946: the zealots were ready to go, and a hapless few, who were too poor to choose, were rounded up to accompany them. Those who desired the privilege of remaining in Babylon (under their own prince, the Exilarch, in his own capital!) were mulcted in fines (just as the wealthy Jews of America are pressed today to provide funds for the Zionist state).

[41]

The Jewish nation was already and finally dispersed; obviously it could never again be reassembled in Canaan. That was a fact, unalterable and permanent; “from the exile the nation did not return, but a religious sect only”, says Professor Wellhausen. But this symbolic “return” was of the utmost importance to the priesthood in establishing its mystic power over the scattered mass. It could be held up as the proof that “the Law” was true and valid, and that the destiny of the “special people” was to destroy and dominate.

The “return” meant quite different things to the few who returned and to the many who watched from the dispersion. To the few it meant the possibility to practise Jehovah-worship in the way and on the spot prescribed by “the Law”. To the many it was a triumph of Judahite nationalism and the portent of the final triumph foreseen by the Law.

Segregation had proved effective, and the chief methods of enforcing this segregation were the ghetto and the synagogue. The ghetto (essentially a Levitical concept) had been tried out in Babylon, in the form of the closed-community in which the Judahites lived.

The collective reading of the law had also proved to be an effective substitute for the ritual of worship which, under the Law, could be performed only at the temple in Jerusalem (this was the beginning of the synagogue). The institutions of the ghetto and the synagogue were adopted by the communities of the dispersion, and gave them a feeling of union with the exiled Judahites and the returned Judeans.

Thus the “religious sect” which “returned” to an unknown Jerusalem was also the core of the nationwithin-nations, state-within-states. The priesthood had shown itself able to maintain its theocracy without a territory of its own and under a foreign king. It had ruled its followers under its own Law; and of this Law as it was first imposed in exile on the Judahites in Babylon Dr. Kastein says: “Instead of the constitution of the defunct state, communal autonomy was established, and, instead of the power of the state, there came into being another power, more reliable and more enduring: the stern and inexorable regime enforced by the obligation to render unquestioning obedience to the regulations of the ritual.”

The words deserve careful study; many of “the regulations of the ritual” have been quoted in this book. The Levites had succeeded, in “captivity” and on foreign soil, in “enforcing” a “stern and inexorable regime”. The achievement is unique, and it has been a continuing one, from that time to our day.

“Strangers” are usually puzzled to imagine any means by which the ruling sect could keep so firm a hold over a community scattered about the world. This power is based, ultimately, on terror and fear. Its mysteries are kept hidden from the stranger, but by diligent study he may gain some idea of them.

The weapon of excommunication is a dreaded one, and the fear which it [42] inspires rests to some extent on the literal Judaist’s belief in the physical efficacy of the curses enumerated in Deuteronomy and other books; the Jewish Encyclopaedia testifies to this continuing belief. In this matter there is a strong resemblance to the African Native’s belief that he will die if he is “tagati’d”, and to the American Negro’s fear of voodooist spells. Casting out of the fold is a much-feared penalty (and in the past was often a lethal one), of which examples may be found in the literature of our day.

Also, for pious (or for that matter superstitious) Judaists the Torah-Talmud is the only Law, and if they submit formally to the laws of countries where they dwell, it is with this inner reservation. Under that onlyLaw the priesthood wields all judicial and magisterial powers (and often has had these formally delegated to it by governments), and literally the Law includes capital punishment on numerous counts; in practice the priesthood in closed-communities of the dispersion has often exacted that penalty.

The Jerusalem to which a few returned was far from Babylon, in those times, and after their first coup (the repulse of the Samaritans’ offer of friendship) the Levites apparently found themselves unable, from a distance, to restrain the normal impulses of human kind. The Judahites, in their impoverished fragment of land, began to settle down and intermarry with their neighbours for all that. They broke no law comprehended by them. The books of the Law were still being compiled in Babylon; they knew about Solomon’s hundreds of wives and Moses’s Midianite father-in-law, but did not yet know that Moses had been resurrected in order to exterminate all the Midianites save the virgins. Thus they married their neighbours’ sons and daughters and this natural intermingling continued for about eighty years after the return.

During that period the Levites in Babylon completed the Law, the impact of which all nations have felt ever since. Ezekiel of the High Priest’s family was its chief architect and probably all five books of the Law, as they have come down, bear his mark. He was the founding-father of intolerance, of racialism and vengeance as a religion, and of murder in the name of God.

The book of Ezekiel is the most significant of all the Old Testament books. It is more significant than even Deuteronomy, Leviticus and Numbers because it seems to be the fountainhead from which the dark ideas of those books of the Law first sprang. For instance, the student of the curses enumerated in Deuteronomy is bound to suspect that the deity in whose name they were uttered was of diabolic nature, not divine; the name, “God”, in the sense which has been given to it, cannot be coupled with such menaces. In Ezekiel’s book the student finds this suspicion expressly confirmed. Ezekiel puts into the very mouth of God the statement that he had made evil laws in order to inspire misery and fear! This appears in chapter 20 and gives the key to the whole mystery of “the Mosaic Law” .

In this passage Ezekiel appears to be answering Jeremiah’s attack on the [43] Levites in the matter of sacrificing the firstborn: “And they have built the high places to burn their sons and daughters in the fire; which I commanded not, neither came it into my heart”. Ezekiel is not much concerned about the lot of the sons and daughters but is clearly enraged by the charge that the Lord had not commanded the sacrifice of the firstborn, when the scribes had repeatedly ascribed this command to him. His retort is concerned only to show that God had so commanded and thus to justify the priesthood; the admission that the commandment was evil is casual and nonchalant, as if this were of no importance:

“I am the Lord your God; walk in my statutes and keep my judgments, and do them….Notwithstanding the children rebelled against me; they walked not in my statutes, neither kept my judgments to do them…. then I said, I would pour out my fury upon them, to accomplish my anger against them in the wilderness….Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good and judgments whereby they should not live; And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord.”

SO WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A ‘CULT OF EZEKIEL’ … AND YES, THE JEWS DID SACRIFICE THEIR FIRST BORN IN FIRES I.E HOLOCAUST…OF A SWEET SAVOUR UNTO THE LORD … FUCK!!!

The ruling of Christian theologians, that the Old Testament is of “equal divine authority” with the New, presumably includes this passage! Ezekiel, in his day, forbade any protest by quickly adding, “And shall I be enquired of by you, O house of Israel? As I live, saith the Lord, I will not be enquired of by you”.

Ezekiel experienced the Fall of Judah and the removal of the sect to Babylon, so that his book is in parts an eye-witness account of events. Its other, “prophetic” parts show this founding-father of literal Judaism to have been a man of dark, even demoniac obsessions; indeed, parts of the book of Ezekiel probably could not be publicly printed as anything but Scripture.

Early in it he portrays (in words which he also attributes to the Lord God) a siege of Jerusalem in which he, Ezekiel, to atone “for the iniquity of the people”, is commanded to eat human excrement baked before his eyes. At his plea, that he has always scrupulously observed the dietary laws and never taken anything abominable in his mouth, this is mitigated to cow’s dung. Then he threatens trangressors with cannibalism, a curse on which the Levites laid marked stress:

“. . . the fathers shall eat the sons in the midst of thee and the sons shall eat their fathers…. a third part shall fall by the sword…. and I will scatter a third part unto all the winds….famine and evil beasts…. pestilence and blood…..”

All this is to be the retribution for non-observance, not for evil deeds. Pages of cursings follow and Jehovah promises to use the Gentiles as the rod of chastisement: “Wherefore I will bring the worst of the heathen,.. and they shall possess your houses”.

MHR SO JEWS SUPPORTED NAZI GERMAN ‘KZ’S AND APPROPRIATION OF THEIR HOUSES !!! TO GET THEM TO BECOME MORE ‘OBEDIENT’ TO THE DOGMA…THE CULT…

Portraying what will happen to those who worship “other gods”, Ezekiel in a characteristic vision sees “them that have charge over the city” (Jerusalem) “draw near, every man with his destroying weapon in his hand,” One, with a [44] writer’s inkhorn by his side, is commanded by the Lord, “go through the midst of Jerusalem and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof” (these are the zealots in “observance”). The foreheads having been marked, Ezekiel quotes the Lord, “in my hearing”, as saying to the men, “Go ye through the city and smite; let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity; slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children and women; but come not near any man upon whom is the mark . . . and they went forth and slew in the city”.

After Ezekiel’s time men may have thought it wise to be seen sighing and crying in Jerusalem; hence, perhaps, the Wailing Wall. Chapter on chapter of menaces follow, always with the alluring proviso that if the transgressors turn from their wickedness towards observance, even worse things will then be visited on the heathen:

“I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land…. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God…. Assemble yourselves, and come; gather yourselves on every side to my sacrifice that I do sacrifice for you, even a great sacrifice for you, even a great sacrifice upon the mountains of Israel, that ye may eat flesh and drink blood. Ye shall eat the flesh of the mighty, and drink the blood of the princes of the

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 39 —

earth…. And ye shall eat fat till ye be full, and drink blood till ye be drunken…. and I will set my glory among the heathen, and all the heathen shall see my judgment that I have executed, and my hand that I have laid upon them”.

While the school of scribes founded by Ezekiel continued for eighty years, in Babylon, to compile their Law, the repatriated Judahites in Jerusalem gradually developed normal relationships with their neighbours. They had never known the regime of bigotry and exclusion which was being prepared for them in Babylon. Many of the people still prayed to “other gods” for rain, crops, sun and herds, and to Jehovah in tribal feuds.

Then, in 458 BC, the Levites struck.

Their Law was ready, which was not by itself of much importance. The Persian King was ready to enforce it for them, and that was of the greatest importance, then and up to the present moment. For the first time the ruling sect accomplished the wonder which they have since repeatedly achieved: by some means they induced a foreign ruler, who was their ostensible master and to all outer appearances a mighty potentate in his own right, to put his soldiers and money at their disposal.

On this day in 458 BC the Judahites in Jerusalem were finally cut off from mankind and enslaved in a way they never knew in Babylon. This was the true “start of the affair”. The story is told in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, the Levitical emissaries from Babylon who were sent to Jerusalem to enforce Ezekiel’s law.

[45]

Ezra of the high priesthood came from Babylon to Jerusalem with some 1500 followers. He came in the name of the Persian King Artaxerxes the Longhanded, with Persian soldiers and Persian gold. He arrived just as Dr. Chaim Weizmann arrived in Palestine in 1917, supported by British arms and British gold, and in 1947, supported by American money and power. Ezra was in legal form a Persian emissary (Dr. Weizmann, a Russian-born Jew, was in legal form a British emissary in 1917).

What means the sect found to bend King Artaxerxes to its will, none can now discover; after King Cyrus, he was the second potentate to play a puppet’s part and in our century this readiness has become a strict qualification for public life.

Ezra brought the new racial Law with him. He enforced it first among his own travelling companions, allowing only those to accompany him who could prove that they were Judahites by descent, or Levites. When he reached Jerusalem he was “filled with horror and dismay” (Dr. Kastein) by the prevalence of mixed marriages. The Judahites were finding happiness in their fashion; “by tolerating miscegenation with neighbouring tribes they had established peaceful relations based on family ties”.

Dr. Kastein (who was equally horrified by this picture many centuries afterwards) has to admit that the Judahites by this intermingling “observed their tradition as it was understood at the time” and broke no law known to them. Ezra brought Ezekiel’s new Law, which once more supplanted the old “tradition”. In his status as emissary of the Persian king he had the Jerusalemites assembled and told them that all mixed marriages were to be dissolved; thenceforth “strangers” and everything foreign were to be rigorously excluded. A commission of elders was set up to undo all the wedlocks forged and thus to destroy the “peaceful relations based on family ties”.

Dr. Kastein says that “Ezra’s measure was undoubtedly reactionary; it raised to the dignity of a law an enactment which at that time was not included in the Torah” (which the Levites, in Babylon, were still writing down). Dr. Kastein’s use of the word “dignity” is of interest in this connection; his book was published, in Berlin, in the year, twenty-four centuries later, when Hitler enacted exactly the same kind of law; it was then called “infamous” by the Zionists, and the armies of the West, reversing the role of the Persian soldiers of 458 BC, were mobilized to destroy it!

The effect of this deed was the natural one, in 458 BC as in 1917 AD: the neighbouring peoples were affronted and alarmed by the unheard-of innovation. They saw the threat to themselves and they attacked Jerusalem, tearing down the symbols of the inferiority imputed to them: its walls. By that time Ezra, like any Twentieth Century Zionist, had evidently returned to his home abroad, for once more the artificial structure began to crumble and natural tendencies were resumed: intermarriage began again and led anew to “peaceful relations based on family ties”. Only force can prevent this from happening.

MHR WHAT IS THE SECRET THAT ALLOWS THE SMALL NUMBER OF CULT LEADERS TO ENLIST THE SELF-INTERESTED MOTIVES OF POWERFUL HOST NATIONS, FROM THE VERY BEGINNING… NOTE FROM THE START MOST ‘JEWS’ WERE NOT INTERESTED IN THE CULTS DOGMAS…AS TODAY MOST ONLY ‘LOOSELY’ IDENTIFIED AS ‘JEWISH’ … ALWAYS CULT NEEDED TO USE VIOLENCE FORCE, AND A FOREIGN POWERS POWER AND RESOURCES, TO COERCE A RELUCTANT ‘JEWISH’ POPULATION TO SUBSCRIBE / SUBMIT TO THE WILL OF THE CENTRALISED POWER OF THE CULT LEADERSHIP…SO WHO ARE THEY, AND WHAT ‘POWER’ DO THEY HAVE? SIMPLE CORRUPTION? FRACTIONAL BANKING? ASTROLOGY? ME’S FROM ENLI’S TIME I.E ANNUNAKI / NIBIRU RELATED TECHNOLOGY? OR ARE THE STORIES MADE UP AND DESIGNED TO ACT AS SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECIES LATER I.E SO LATER POWERFUL NATIONS WOULD FALL FOR TRICK? USE AS ‘PRECEDENTS’ TO SHOW EARLIER WORLD LEADERS DID THIS, SO THEY SHOULD TOO???

After thirteen years, in 445 BC, the elders in Babylon struck again. Nehemiah was another figure, as typical of our century as of that time in Babylon. He was of Judahite descent and stood high in the Persian king’s favour (as Zionist “advisers” today habitually stand at the right hand of British Prime Ministers and American Presidents; the parallel could not be much closer). He was cupbearer to Artaxerxes himself. He arrived from Babylon in Jerusalem with dictatorial power and enough men and money to re-wall the city (at Persian expense; the parallel with today continues), and it thus became the first true ghetto. It was an empty one, and when the walls were ready Nehemiah ordered that one in ten of the Judahites be chosen by lot to reside in it.

Race thus became the supreme, though still unwritten tenet of the Law. Jehovah-worshippers who could not satisfy Persian officials and the Levite elders of their descent from Judah, Benjamin or Levi were rejected “with horror” (Dr. Kastein). Every man had to establish “the undisputed purity of his stock” from the registers of births (Hitler’s Twentieth Century edict about the Aryan grandmothers was less extreme).

Then, in 444 BC, Nehemiah had Ezra embody the ban on mixed marriages in the Torah, so that at last what had been done became part of the much-amended “Law” (and David and Solomon presumably were posthumously cast out of the fold). The heads of clans and families were assembled and required to sign a pledge that they and their peoples would keep all the statutes and judgments of the Torah, with special emphasis on this new one.

In Leviticus the necessary insertion was made: “I have severed you from other people that ye should be mine”. Thenceforth no Judahite might marry outside the clan, under penalty of death; every man who married a foreign woman committed a sin against God (Nehemiah, 13.27; this is the law in the Zionist state today). “Strangers” were forbidden to enter the city, so that the Judahites “might be purified from everything foreign”.

Nehemiah and Ezra were both eye-witnesses. Nehemiah is the ideal, unchallengeable narrator: he was there, he was the dictator, his was the deed. He says that when Ezra for the first time read this new Law to the Jerusalemites:

“All the people wept when they heard the words of the Law”.

These twelve words of contemporary journalism bring the scene as clearly before today’s reader as if it had occurred twenty-four hours, not twenty-four centuries ago. He sees the weeping, ghettoized throng of 444 BC through the eyes of the man who, with Persian warriors at his side, forced them into their first true captivity, the spiritual one which thereafter was to enclose any man who called himself “Jew”.

Nehemiah remained twelve years in Jerusalem and then returned to the Babylonian court. At once the artificial structure he had set up in Jerusalem began to disintegrate, so that some years later he descended again on the city, where once more mixed marriages had occurred. He “forcibly dissolved” these, [47] also setting “the severest penalties” on further transgressions of the kind. Next, “with a view to applying rigorously the selective principle, he again carefully studied the register of births” and ejected all, including even Aaronite families, in whose descent the slightest flaw could be detected. Last, he “ruthlessly purged” the community of all who had failed in “unquestioning and unhesitating allegiance to the established order and the law” and made the entire people renew their pledge.

This is known as “the New Covenant” (as Deuteronomy was the Second Law; these qualifying words are the milestones of the supplanting heresy). It had to be signed, at Levite order and under Persian duress, by every man in Jerusalem singly, as if it were a business contract. Then Nehemiah finally departed for Babylon, his home, having “completed the task of isolation” and “left behind him a community which, agreed as it now was on all fundamental questions, was able to fend for itself. He had organized their everyday life for them and built up their spiritual foundations”. These words are Dr. Kastein’s; the reader has seen, also in his words, by what means these Jerusalemites were brought to “agree on all fundamental questions”.

By this time about four hundred years had passed since the repudiation of Judah by Israel, and three hundred since the Assyrian conquest of Israel. This period of time the Levites had used to complete the perversion of the older tradition, to put their racio-religious Law in writing, and at last to clamp it, like shackles, on the Judahites in the little Persian province of Judea. They had succeeded in setting up their fantastic, tribal creed and in establishing their little theocracy. They had started the catalytic agent on its journey through the centuries.

MHR CLEAR THAT’JEWS’ ONLY EVER REALLY ‘ENSLAVED’ BY THEIR OWN CULT LEADERS…FROM BEGINNING…AND THESE CULT LEADERS RARELY LIVED IN ISRAEL, AS TODAY, INSTEAD PULLING STRINGS FROM AFAR, USING MILITARY MIGHT AND WEALTH OF THE MOST POWERFUL NATIONS…CORRUPTING AND MANIPULATING THESE HOSTS…WHILE DOING THE SAME WITH THEIR CULT MEMBERSHIP…CONSTANTLY ‘WEEDING OUT’ ANY ‘DISSENTERS’ AND ‘FREE THINKERS’ BY DEATH OR EX-COMMUNICATION… ALWAYS ACTING ‘IN THE NAME OF THEIR INVENTED GOD YHWH’ SO COULD THREATEN WITH ‘FATES WORSE THAN DEATH’ AND WILLING AT ANY MOMENT TO SLAUGHTER TENS OF THOUSANDS OF THEIR OWN PEOPLE…EXCOMMUNICATE EVEN MORE I.E THAT IS THE HISTORY OF THE TRUE EXPULSIONS I.E BY THE CULT LEADERS, OF THE ‘LESS OBEDIENT’ E.G ‘MIX BREEDS’…RACIALLY IMPURE…MENTALLY INDEPENDENT…EXPOSED TO ALTERNATIVE VIEWS … SO LEFT WITH CORE OF FANATICS…USEFUL IDIOTS…MEANS TO ENDS OF CULT LEADERS… SO IT IS THE CULT LEADERS WHO ENSLAVED ‘THE JEWS’ AND ‘EXPELLED’ THEM AND ‘PERSECUTED’ THEM…ENSURED HOSTS REGULARLY REJECTED THEM, AND IF MURDERING TENS OF THOUSANDS OF OWN PEOPLE, OFTEN USING THEIR HOST NATIONS MILITARY AND WEALTH E.G FROM VERY BEGINNING…THEN MURDERING SOME POOR GOY CHILD TO ENRAGE THE LOCALS AGAINST THE LOCAL JEWRY, TO GIVE THEM A ‘SHARED SENSE OF PERSECUTION’ AND ‘SENSE OF IDENTITY’ E.G ‘THE HOLOCAUST’ FICTION, IS EASY TO EXPECT FROM THEM… THE ‘IDENTITY’ OF ‘JEWISH’ IS SO FOCUSSED ON ‘A SHARED BELIEF IN A HISTORY OF PERSECUTION’ FROM THE START I.E TORAH WRITERS ADDED SUCH FICTIONS TO THEIR PAST, FROM THE START E.G EGYPT AND BABYLON, WHILE WRITING THE BOOKS IN BABYLON, LONG AFTER THE CULT ESTABLISHED, TO PROVIDE A LOCUS OF ‘SHARED BELIEFS IN SENSE OF COMMUNITY IDENITY OF PERSECUTION’, WHICH COULD BE USED IN TYPICAL NLP FASHION I.E CONDITIONED SENSE OF ‘FEAR OF OTHER’ AND ‘EXCLUSIVITY’ AND ‘INBREEDING’ … ANTI-SOCIAL B EHAVIOR TOWARDS HOSTS…SENSE OF FEAR OF THEM…TO JUSTIFY THE DEFINITION OF THEM AS EVIL / THREAT / ‘FAIR GAME’ I.E GET THEM BEFFORE THEY GET YOU, THEY ARE OUT TO TRICK YOU, SO YOU OUTTRICK THEM FIRST I.E DECEPTION / YOU HAVE RIGHT TO ‘DEFEND’ YOURSELF IN ADVANCE AS YOU ‘KNOW’ THEY ARE OUT TO GET YOU…JUST LIKE IN THE BOOKS, AND EVERY ‘POGROM’ THE CULT LEADERS INITIATED/ PROVOKED SINCE. … TO ‘WRITE’ A ‘HISTORY’ OF SHARED PERSECUTION, WHICH IS ABOUT ALL MOST ‘JEWS’ SHARE IN COMMON AS A ‘MARKER’ I.E THIS BELIEF…ALL BASED ON A CULT CORE BOOK LIST / STORIES THAT WERE WRITTEN PROGRESSIVELY AND ‘UPDATED’ AND ‘REVISED’ WHILE IN THE PROCESS OF BEING WRITTEN IN BABYLON…WITH THE ‘JEWS’ IN PALESTINE ‘DOWNLOADING’ THESE UPDATES, AND ANY WHO ‘QUESTIONED’ THEM SIMPLY THREATENED WITH DEATH / EXCOMMUNICATION … AND NOTE IF YOU ARE BROUGHT UP TO FEAR ALL NON JEWS, EX COMMUNICATION MEANS BEING FED ALIVE TO AMALEK, IN THEIR IMAGINATION…LIKE POINTING THE STICK / PLACEBO EFFECTS / SELF FULLFILLING PROPHECY… IF YOU’VE BEEN TAUGHT FROM BIRTH, AND EVERYONE AROUND YOU SEEMS TO BELEIVE , THAT ‘OUT THERE’ YOU WILL BE KILLED, RAPED, ENSLAVED, PERSECUTED BY ‘AMALEK’ I.E ALL NON CULT MEMBERS, THEN BEING ‘FORCED TO LEAVE YOUR SAFE COMMUNITY’ IS A DEATH SENTENCE IN YOUR MIND, FOR MOST CULT MEMBERS…EVEN TODAY, HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD WILLINGLY ‘EXPATRIATE’ THEMSELVES UNLESS THEY HAVE A JOB OFFER / CAREER MOVE ETC ???

WE HAVE TO APPROACH ‘JUDAISM’ AND ‘THE JEWISH QUESTION’ FROM OUTSIDE THE CULT, FROM OUTSIDE THE PROPAGANDA…START FROM SCRATCH WITH INFO NOT CONTAMINATED BY CULT CONDITIONING…TO SEE WHAT IS HAPPENING…WHAT HAS HAPPENED…THE PATTERN THAT APPEARS…THAT JEWS ARE ENSLAVED BY THEIR OWN CULT MENTALITY / LEADERS … PERSECUTED BY THEM IF THEY DON’T TOTALLY SUBMIT…THESE LEADERS ALWAYS MOVE TO LIVE AMONG THE MOST POWERFUL HOST NATIONS E.G RUSSIA AND U.S.A WHERE THEY MANIPULATE THE HOST POLITICAL SITUATION / CORRUPT THE ELITES / GAIN CONTROL OF KEY POSITIONS / INFLUENCE / POWER IN THE HOST, TO IMPOSE THEIR WILLS ON THEIR CULT MEMBERS…ALWAYS FOCUSSED ON PALESTINE I.E NEED SOME ‘LOCUS’…THE ENTIRE PLAN SET UP AROUND THIS LOCUS…THIS ARTIFICIAL ‘ISRAEL’ PROJECT…THOUGH IT WILL BE SACRIFICED, AS ALWAYS WAS IN PAST, TO BABYLON, THEN ROME ETC…SO CULT MEMBERS WOULD INFILTRATE ROMAN, BABYLONIAN, ETC WORLD…USE THEM TO ATTACK OWN PEOPLE AND SAY’ SEE, WE TOLD YOU SO, JUST LIKE BEFORE, AMALEK HATE US…SO YOU’D BETTER LISTEN TO US OR DIE…BETTER DO AS WE SAY OR DIE…VERBATIM…EXPLICITLY…TOTALLY WITHOUT HESITATION OR SELF REFLECTION / THINKING … THE ‘CORE’ WILL BE CONTINUALLY ‘FILTERED’ TO BE ‘IMMUNE’ TO OUTSIDE LOGIC / REASON / FACTS / INFLUENCE…OVER MILLENIA…TILL ONLY ‘ZOMBIE CULT SLAVES’ REMAIN… THE TOOLS FOR THE JEW WORLD ORDER … BUT MERE MEANS TO THEIR ENDS…THEY HAVE NO ‘LOVE’ FOR THEM…

NOTE THAT TORAH TEACHES THAT ANY GOY WHO EVER OPPOSED THE JEW WORLD ORDER WILL BE REINCARNATED JUST TO BE BRUTALLY PUNISHED / KILLED IN THE END OF DAYS…WHICH ARE COMING I.E ALL GERMANS TODAY TO BE EXTERMINATED AS AMALEK, AS THE REINCARNATED SOULS OF NAZIS’….AND U.S.A , ITALY ETC TO BE DESTROYED AS THAT OTHER GROUP ‘EDOM’ TARGETTED ALONG WITH AMALEK…THE GRANDFATHER AND HIS SON?…ALL PERFECTLY COLD BLOODED…’AS WRITTEN’… BY A CULT WHO SELF-SELECT BASED ON TOTAL BRAINLESS ACCEPTANNCE OF DOGMA, INCLUDING THIS ‘REQUISITE GENOCIDE’ OF BILLIONS TO USHER IN THE JEWTOPIA JEW WORLD ORDER ….

For more than a hundred generations, since that day when the New Covenant was enforced by Persian arms, and the people who had wept were compelled to sign it anew, a mass of human beings, changing in blood but closely or loosely held in the bonds of this Law, have carried its burden and inheritance, in spiritual isolation from the rest of mankind. The singular paradox remains: though their enchainment was devised by the Levites the chains were Persian. On that day as ever since, though the fanatical sect has dictated their continuing captivity, foreign arms and foreign money have kept them in it.

CULT LEADERS HAVE ALWAYS MOVED TO THE POWERFUL NATIONS TO SUBVERT IT TO THEIR WILL…SO EASY…JUST NEED TO KNOW SECRETS OF FINANCE…FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING…COMPOUND INTEREST…AND TO HAVE AGENTS AROUND THE WORLD, SO CAN DIVIDE AND CONQUER, PLAY SIDES OFF AGAINST EACH OTHER…ALWAYS TO BENEFIT OF CULT LEADERS…WHO HAVE ZERO ETHICAL / MORAL QUALMS / CONSCIENCE…IT IS ALL GOOD THAT SERVES THE CULTS POWER…THEY ARE ON A MISSION FROM ‘GOD’…THE ENDS JUSTIFY ANY MEANS…EVEN THE SACRIFICE OF MILLIONS OF THEIR OWN CULT MEMBERS…WHO WILL BE REWARDED IN AN AFTERLIFE…AND EVERY LITTLE ‘SIN’ COMMITTED AGAINST A JEW EVER, THROUGHOUT HISTORY, WILL BE REPAID WHEN THE PERSON WHO DID THE TINIEST OF INSULTS WILL BE REINCARNATED ONLY TO BE PUNISHED AND KILLED IN THE LAST DAYS BEFORE THE JEW WORLD ORDER ASSUMES ITS RIGHTFUL PLACE AS MASTER OF THE ENTIRE WORLD…

the Gentiles, who from the time of the Persian kings to this century have done the bidding of the sect that devised it.

It was a heresy: On the day when King Artaxerxes’s soldiers forced the Jerusalemites to sign Ezekiel’s New Covenant, the perversion of the earlier Israelite tradition was made complete and the affirmation of God was supplanted [48] by the denial of God.

No resemblance remained between the God of the moral commandments and Ezekiel’s malevolent deity who boasted that he commanded men to kill their firstborn in order to keep them in awe of himself! This was not revealed God, but a man-made deity, the incarnation of primitive tribalism. What those ancient people signed under duress, in the New Covenant, was either the formal denial of God or the formal claim that God was Judah, and this in fact is the claim expressly made in many Zionist utterances of our time, so that the heresy is openly avowed:

“God is absorbed in the nationalism of Israel. He becomes the national ethos . . . He creates the world in the Hebrew language. He is the National God” (Rabbi Solomon Goldman).

“We and God grew up together. . . We have a national God. . . We believe that God is a Jew, that there is no English or American God” (Mr. Maurice Samuel).

“It was not God who willed these people and their meaning. It was this people who willed this God and this meaning” (Dr. Kastein).

These statements are explicit, and such phrases are easy to pen in this century, in New York or Chicago, London or Berlin. But at the start of this affair, as Nehemiah recorded:

“All the people wept when they heard the words of the Law” and since that day it has given very many cause to weep.

MHR THEY WERE NOT WEEPING WITH JOY AT JUST LAWS … BUT WEEPING WITH HORROR AND FEAR AND MISERY AND REPUGNANCE, AS WE SOON ALL WILL BE WEEPING E.G PATRIOT ACT, MARTIAL LAW…ALL BEIND FORCED UPON US BY OCCUPATIONAL GOVERMENTS, IN CONTRADICTION OF OUR CONSTITUTIONS…WHAT MORE EVIDENCE DO YOU NEED? AUSTRALIAN GUN CONTROL LAWS, PATRIOT ACT AND CONSTANT FOREIGN WARS IN U.S DESPITE CONSTITUTION…HATE SPEECH LAWS IN EUROPE…MARTIAL LAW IN EUROPE…???

the translation was ever made (as tradition says, by seventy-two Jewish scholars at Alexandria between 275 and 150 BC.) Dr. Kastein explains that it was undertaken “with a definite object in view, that of making it comprehensible to the (JEWISH) Greeks; this led to the distortion and twisting of words, changes of meaning, and the frequent substitution of general terms and ideas for those that were purely local and national”.

MHR AS JESUS SAYS, THEY WENT AROUND THE WORLD SEEKING CONVERTS…VERY INTERESTING GIVEN NOTION OF ‘RACIAL PURITY’…PROOF THAT THERE IS A ‘CORE’ OF THE CULT, AND THE REST OF THE MEMBERS ARE MERE MEANS TO THEIR ENDS…WILL RECRUIT ‘SAYANIM’ AROUND THE WORLD…

Dr. Kastein’s so learned a Judaic scholar must have known what the Jewish Encyclopaedia records, that the later Talmud even “prohibited the teaching to a Gentile of the Torah, anyone so teaching ‘deserving death’.” Indeed, the Talmud saw such danger in the acquirement by the heathen of knowledge of the Law that it set up the oral Torah as the last repository of Jehovah’s secrets, safe from any Gentile eye.

If the Judaic scriptures were translated into Greek, then, this was not for the benefit of the Greeks (Dr. Kastein wrote for a largely Gentile audience). The reason, almost certainly, was that the Jews themselves needed the translation. The Judahites had lost their Hebrew tongue in Babylon (thereafter it became a priestly mystery, “one of the secret spiritual bonds which held the Judaists of the Diaspora together”, as Dr. Kastein says), and spoke Aramaic. However, the largest single body of Jews was in Alexandria, where Greek became their everyday language; many of them could no longer understand Hebrew and a Greek version of their Law was needed as a basis for the rabbinical interpretations of it.

MHR SO IT WAS FOR THE DIASPORA PURPOSES I.E JEWS WHO DIDN’T SPEAK HEBREW…TO KEEP THE FAITH…PROBABLY WOULDN’T GET THEM TO LEARN HEBREW, SO HAD TO TRANSLATE, TO KEEP THEIR ZOMBIE STATE ‘ALIVE’…I.E KEEP EM BRAIN DEAD CULTISTS…

THIS IS KEY HERE…ORAL TRADITIONS, UNLIKE CLAY TABLETS, CAN CONSTANTLY BE REVISED AND BACK-WRITTEN AND CHANGED, WITHOUT THE MERE MORTAL LAY CULT MEMBERS EVER REALISING THAT TODAYS ORAL TORAH WAS TOTALL DIFFERENT FROM ONE A FEW YEARS BEFORE…ANYONE WHO CHALLENGED THIS WOULD BE STONED TO DEATH…USUALLY JUST THREATENING SOMEONE IS ENOUGH…OR EX COMMUNICATED WHICH WOULD FEEL LIKE A THREAT OF DEATH I.E EXPOSED TO AMALEK, AND ITS EVIL MALICE …

Nevertheless, the translators were evidently reminded by the priests that their work would bring “the Law”, for the first time, under Gentile scrutiny; hence the distortions, twistings, changes and substitutions mentioned by Dr. Kastein. An instance of these is apparently given by Deuteronomy 32.21; the translation which [50] has come down to the heathen alludes vaguely to “a foolish nation”, whereas the reference in the Hebrew original, according to the Jewish Encyclopaedia, is to “vile and vicious Gentiles”.

What was translated? First, the five books of the Law, the Torah. After the “New Covenant” had been forcibly imposed on the Jerusalemites by Ezra and Nehemiah, the priesthood in Babylon had given the Torah yet another revision: “once again anonymous editors lent their past history, their traditions, laws and customs a meaning entirely in keeping with theocracy and applicable to that system of government…. The form which the Torah then received was the final and conclusive form which was not to be altered by one iota; no single thought, word or letter of it was to be changed.”

When mortal men repeatedly “lend meaning” to something supposed already to be immutable, and force all spiritual tradition into the framework of their worldly political ambition, what remains cannot be an original revelation of God. What had happened was that the earlier, Israelite tradition had been expunged or cancelled, and in its place the Judaic racial law had assumed “final and conclusive form”.

The same method was followed in the compilation of the other books, historical, prophetic or lyrical. The book of Daniel, for instance, was completed at about this time, that is to say, some four hundred years after the events related in it; small wonder that the anonymous author got all his historical facts wrong. Dr. Kastein is candid about the manner in which these books were produced:

“The editors who put the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings into their final form gathered every fragment” (of the old teachings and traditions) and “creatively interpreted them . . . It was impossible always definitely to assign particular words to particular persons, for they had so frequently worked anonymously, and, as the editors were more concerned with the subject matter than with philological exactitude, they were content with stringing the sayings of the prophets together as best they could”. (This method might account for the attribution of the identical “Messianic” prophecy to two prophets, Isaiah 2, 2-4, and Micah 4, 1-4, and for the numerous repetitions to be found in other books).

The subject matter, then, was the important thing, not historical truth, or “philological exactitude”, or the word of God. The subject matter was political nationalism in the most extreme form ever known to man, and conformity with this dogma was the only rule that had to be observed. The way in which these books were compiled, after Judah was cast off by Israel, and the reasons, are clear to any who study their origin.

The resultant product, the growth of five or six hundred years and the work of generations of political priests, was the book which was translated into Greek around 150 BC. After the lifetime of Jesus it, and the New Testament, was translated into Latin by Saint Jerome, when both “came to be regarded by the Church as of equal divine authority and as sections of one book” (from a typical [51] modern encyclopaedia), a theological dictum which was formally confirmed by the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century of our era and has been adopted by nearly all Protestant churches, although in this matter they might have found valid reason to protest.

MHR I FEEL THAT THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS WRITTEN BY THE CULT ITSELF…AS A MEANS TO ITS ENDS…OR BY SIMILIARY UNENLIGHTENED SOULS…FOR THE OLD TESTAMENT IS REPUGNANT…THOUGH HAS SOME GOOD STORIES…IF CHRISTIANS ARE WILLING TO ACCEPT IT, THEN THEY PROVE THEIR OWN LACK OF TASTE / MORALITY / ETHICS…

THE FACT THAT THE ‘REAL’ TORAH IS ‘ORAL’ AND THUS SECRET, AND ALL WE HAVE IS THIS EDITED / REVISED / ADAPTED TORAH FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION…MEANS NON CORE CULT LEADERS CAN NEVER HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THE ‘TORAH’ THAT THE CULT LEADERS FOLLOW REALLY IS… the “oral Torah”, and the Talmudic continuation of the Torah, so that the Gentile world has never known the whole truth of the Judaic Law.

By the time the West, and Christianity, were nineteen and a half centuries old, the political leaders there, being much in awe of the central sect of Judaism, had begun to speak with pious awe of the Old Testament, as if it were the better half of the Book by which they professed to live. Nevertheless it was, as it always had been, the Law of their peoples’ destruction and enslavement, and all their deeds, under the servitude which they accepted, led towards that end.

THIS IS THE REAL MYSTERY…OF HUMAN NATURE…WHY PEOPLE FALL INTO THE NEW EXTENDED CULT WITHIN WHICH THE CULT CORE LEADERSHIP THRIVE…TO ACCEPT SUCH MIND CONTROL…SUCH SELF LOATHING…PROVES NOTHING ‘SPECIAL’ ABOUT ‘JEWS’ E.G THEY ARE NOT ESPECIALLY BAD , ZOMBIES, FOOLS, MENTALLY FEARFUL, NEUROTIC, ETC…

HOW DO YOU GET PEOPLE TO ‘RESPECT’ AND ‘FEAR’ AND ‘TREAT WITH AWE’ SUCH A SILLY BOOK? SUCH A REPUGNANT BOOK? FULL OF SELF-HATRED? SLAVERY? … IT APPEALS TO HUMAN NATURE…THE WORST IN HUMAN NATURE…AND THAT IS A GOOD BET…THE ODDS ARE IN YOUR FAVOR…WHEN BETTING ON THE BEST VS THE WORST…IF HUMANS WERE GOOD, CLEVER, KIND, CONSCIENTIOUS ETC, SUCH A CULT COULD NEVER HAVE THRIVED…THIS CULT WILL MURDER MOST LIVING BEINGS AS WELL AS ANY FLOOD OR PESTILENCE…IT IS A VIRUS… IT WILL DESTROY ITSELF…MAYBE THAT IS THE SECRET BEHIND IT…THE SOLUTION TO THE MYSTERY? ENLIL WILL HAVE HIS WAY…ENLIL AND ANU… AND PUT AN END TO ENKI’S CREATION…WHICH MARDUK WAS SO FOND OF… IT IS JESUS VS YAHWEH… THE BUDDHISTS AND SCHOPENHAUER WILL BE HAPPY WITH THE END TO ENKI’S EXPERIMENT…WHAT WE CALL ‘HUMAN SOCIETY’…???

the enforced conversion of the Idumeans to Jehovaism (“Judaism” is a word apparently first used by the Judean historian Josephus to denote the culture and way of life of Judea, as “Hellenism” described those of Greece, and originally had no religious connotation. For want of a better word it will now be used in this book to identify the racial religion set up by the Levites on their perversion of the “Mosaic Law”.)

Only one other mass-conversion to Judaism is known to recorded history, and that one, which came about eight or nine centuries later, was of immediate importance to our present generation, as will be shown. Individual conversion, on the other hand, was at this period frequent, and apparently was encouraged even by the rabbis, for Jesus himself, according to Saint Matthew, told the scribes and pharisees, rebukingly, that they “compass sea and land to make one proselyte” .

Thus, for some reason, the racial ban introduced by the Second Law and the New Covenant was not, at this time, being enforced. Presumably the explanation is the numerical one; if the racial law had been strictly enforced the small tribe of Judah would have died out and the priesthood, with its creed, would have been left like generals with a plan of battle, but no army.

Evidently there was much intermingling, for whatever reason. The Jewish Encyclopaedia says that “early and late Judah derived strength from the absorption of outsiders” and other authorities agree, so that anything like a purebred tribe of Judah must have disappeared some centuries before Christ, at the latest.

Nevertheless, the racial Law remained in full vigour, not weakened by these exceptions, so that in the Christian era proselytizing virtually ceased and the Judaists of the world, although obviously they were not descended from Judah, became again a community separated from mankind by a rigid racial ban. Racial exclusion remained, or again became, the supreme tenet of formal Zionism, and the Talmudic ruling was that “proselytes are as injurious to Judaism as ulcers to a sound body”.

SO THE ‘RACIAL PURITY’ PROVISIONS ARE THERE TO MERELY ‘SECURE’ CULT MEMBERSHIP…WHEN NUMBERS WANE, YOU RECRUIT, AND RELAX ‘RACIAL PURITY’ LAWS…BUT ONCE YOU HAVE ENOUGH MEMBERS FOR YOUR NEEDS, YOU RE-IMPOSE THE SUPPOSEDLY ‘RACIAL’ LAWS…WHICH ARE CLEARLY A JOKE I.E NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE / BIOLOGY…MERELY A MEANS TO RESTRICT NUMBERS…IT IS EASIER TO TOTALLY DOMINATE A FEW MILLION, THAN BILLIONS…SO ONCE YOU HAVE A FEW MILLION, YOU’D WANT TO STOP FURTHER EXPANSION…SO TODAY AGAIN JEWS IMAGINE THEY ARE A ‘CLOSED GROUP’…SIMPLY AS THE ‘CLUB’ HAS STOPPED TAKING NEW MEMBERS…DOESN’T NEED OR WANT THEM… THEY ARE MERE MEANS TO ENDS…OF COURSE IF YOU HAPPEN TO BE EXCEPTIONAL, YOU ARE WELCOME E.G RICH, TALENTED, POWERFUL…AN ASSET TO THE CULT….BUT IF YOU ARE POOR, WITHOUT ANYTHING TO OFFER, YOU ARE NOT WANTED…IT IS HARD ENOUGH KEEPING YOUR CURRENT CULT MEMBERS ISOLATED AND STUPID AND IGNORANT AND ‘IN THRALL’ TO YOUR NONSENSE…YOU DON’T WANT FREE THINKING ‘OUTSIDERS’ COMING IN AND QUESTIONING THINGS, RAISING CHALLENGES, GETTING THE ZOMBIES TO START THINKING FOR THEMSELVES…THIS IS THE REAL DANGER…EXCOMMUNICATION DOESN’T MEAN SO MUCH TO MOST JEWS TODAY, EXXCEPT HTE REALLY FANATICAL WHO STILL FEAR ALL NON CULT MEMBERS ETC…ARE DELUDED TO THE DANGERS, AND THEIR OWN ‘SPECIALNESS’ ETC…

Fervent Zionists still beat their heads on a wall of lamentation when they consider the case of the Idumeans, which, they hold, proves the dictum just quoted. The problem of what to do with them apparently arose out of the priests’ own sleight-of-hand feats with history and The Law. In the first historical book, Genesis, the Idumeans are shown as the tribe descended from Esau (“Esau the father of the Edomites”), who was own brother to Jacob-called-Israel. This [53] kinsmanship between Judah and Edom was apparently the original tradition, so that the Idumeans’ special status was still recognized when Deuteronomy was produced in 621 BC, the Lord then “saying unto Moses”:

“And command thou the people, saying, Ye are to pass through the coast of your brethren the children of Edom. . . Meddle not with them; for I will not give you of their land, no, not so much as a foot breadth. . . And when we passed by from our brethren the children of Esau . . .”

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 45 —

When Numbers came to be written, say two hundred years later, this situation had changed. By then Ezra and Nehemiah, escorted by Persian soldiery, had enforced their racial law on the Judahites, and the Idumeans, like other neighbouring peoples, became hostile (for exactly the same reasons that cause Arab hostility today).

They learned, from Numbers, that, far from being “not meddled” with, they were now marked down for “utter destruction”. Thus in Numbers Moses and his followers no longer “pass by our brethren the children of Esau”; they demand to pass through the Idumean land. The King of Idumea refuses permission, whereon Moses takes another route and the Lord promises him that “Edom shall be a possession” .

From other passages in The Law the Idumeans were able to learn the fate of cities so taken in possession; in them, nothing was to be left alive that breathed. (The scribes dealt similarly with the Moabites; in Deuteronomy Moses is commanded “Distress not the Moabites, neither contend with them in battle; for I will not give thee of their land for a possession”; in Numbers, the divine command is that the Moabites be destroyed).

SO YOU SEE HOW RELIABLE AN ‘ALLY’ ISRAEL WILL BE…HOW ONE MOMENT THEY WILL LEAVE YOU IN PEACE, AND THE NEXT UTTERLY EXTERMINATE YOU…ON A WHIM OF THEIR CULT LEADERSHIP…(WHO WILL CLAIM ‘GOD TOLD THEM TO DO IT’…)….

From about 400 BC on, therefore, the Judeans were distrusted and feared by neighbouring tribes, including the Idumeans. They were proved right in this, for during the brief revival of Judah under the Hasmoneans, John Hyreanus, who was king and high priest in Judea, fell on them and at the swordpoint forced them to submit to circumcision and the Mosaic Law. Of the two versions of The Law (“not to meddle” and “take possession”) he obeyed the second, which might have been a satisfactory solution if the matter had ended there, for any good rabbi could have told him that either, neither or both of these decrees was right (“If the Rabbis call left right and right left, you must believe it”: Dr. William Rubens).

But the matter did not end there. A law set up in this way throws up a new problem for each one that is solved. Having “taken possession”, was John Hyreanus to “utterly destroy” and “save nothing alive that breatheth” of “our brethren, the children of Esau”? He disobeyed that law, and contented himself with the forcible conversion. But by so doing he made himself a capital transgressor, like Saul, the first king of the united kingdom of Israel and Judah, long before. For this very thing, stopping short of utter destruction (by sparing King Agag and some beasts), Saul had been repudiated, dethroned and [54] destroyed (according to the Levitical version of history).

John Hyrcanus had to deal with two political parties. Of these, the more moderate Sadducees, who supported the monarchy, presumably tendered the counsel to spare the Idumeans, and merely by force to make them Jews. The other party was that of the Pharisees, who represented the old despotic priesthood of the Levites and wished to restore it in full sovereignty.

Presumably these fanatical Pharisees, as heirs of the Levites, would have had him exact the full rigour of the Law and “utterly destroy” the Idumeans. They continued fiercely to oppose him (as Samuel opposed Saul) and to work for the overthrow of the monarchy. What is of particular interest today, they later claimed that from his clemency towards the Idumeans the entire ensuing catastrophe of Judea came! They saw in the second destruction of the temple and the extinction of Judea in AD 70 the prescribed penalty for John Hyrcanus’s failure in observance; like Saul, he had “transgressed”.

The Pharisees had to wait about 150 years for the proof of this argument, if proof it was to any but themselves. Out of the converted Idumeans came one Antipater who rose to high favour in the little court at Jerusalem (as the legendary Daniel had risen at the much greater courts of Babylon and Persia). The Pharisees themselves appealed to the Roman truimvir, Pompey, to intervene in Judea and restore the old priesthood, while abolishing the little monarchy. Their plan went agley; though the Hasmonean dynasty was in fact exterminated in the chaotic decades of little wars and insurrections that followed, Antipater the Idumean rose until Caesar made him procurator of Judea, and his son, Herod, was by Antony made king of Judea!

In the sequel, utter confusion reigned in the little province so that even the shadow of independence vanished and Rome, left no other choice, began directly to rule the land.

For this denouement the Pharisees, as the authors of Roman intervention, were apparently to blame. They laid the fault on “the half caste” and “Idumean slave”, Herod. Had John Hyrcanus but “observed the Law” and “utterly destroyed” the Idumeans, 150 years before, all this would not have come about, they said. It is illuminating to see with what bitter anger Dr. Josef Kastein, two thousand years later, took up this reproach, as if it were an event of the day before. A Twentieth Century Zionist, who wrote in the time of Hitler’s advent to power in Germany, he was convinced that this offence against the racial law had brought the second calamity on Judea.

However, the calamity of Judea was also the victory of the Pharisees, as will be seen, and this is typical of the paradoxes in which the story of Zion abounds from its start.

THE RISE OF THE PHARISEES

These Pharisees, who formed the most numerous political party in the little Roman province of Judea, contained the dominant inner sect, earlier represented by the Levite priesthood. They made themselves the carriers of the Levitical idea in its most fanatical form, as it had found expression in Ezekiel, Ezra and Nehemiah; they were sworn to “the strict observance of Levitical purity”, says the Jewish Encyclopaedia.

As the Levites had triumphed over the Israelite remonstrants, and had succeeded in severing Judah from its neighbours, so did the Pharisees, their successors, stand ready to crush any attempt to reintegrate the Judeans in mankind. They were the guardians of the destructive idea, and the next chapter in the story of Zion was to be that of their victory; as in the case of the Levites, the background to it was to be that of Jerusalem destroyed.

Among the priests themselves, the passing generations had produced something of a revolt against the process of constant amendment of The Law, begun by the scribes of the school of Ezekiel and Ezra. These priests held that The Law was now immutable and must not be further “reinterpreted”.

To this challenge (which strikes at the very root of Judaist nationalism) the Pharisees in deadly enmity opposed their reply: that they were the keepers of “the traditions” and o that oral Law, directly imparted by God to Moses, which must never be put in writing but which governed all the rest of The Law. This claim to possess the secrets of God (or, in truth, to be God) is at the heart of the mystic awe in which so many generations of Jews hold “the elders”; it has a power to affright which even enlightened beings on the far fringes of Jewry cannot quite escape.

MHR SO THE CULT LEADERSHIP WOULD CONSIDER THE IDEA OF THE SHULCHRAN ARUCH AS THE LAST WORD L.A.W LAW A JOKE…IT MUST REMAIN ORAL, AND THUS FLEXIBLE, TO SERVE ITS INTENDED PURPOSE I.E TO GRANT THE AUTHORITY OF ‘GOD’ TO ANY DECISION MADE BY THE CULTS CORE LEADERSHIP…EVEN THEY WOULDN’T WANT TO LOSE THE FLEXIBILITY OF HAVING EARLIER VERSIONS OF THEIR STORIES IDOLISED, AND DOGMATISED…THEY WOULD LOSE TOO MUCH FLEXIBILITY..THEY WOULD LOSE THEIR ULTIMATE POWER OF BEING ABLE TO GRANT THEIR OWN IDEAS / BELIEFS / COMMANDS THE AUTHORITY OF THEIR INVENTED GOD…THEN THAT INVENTED GOD MIGHT END UP WORKING AGAINST THEM…NOT MEET THEIR CURRENT NEEDS…THEY’D HAVE TO INVENT A WHOLE NEW RELIGION…HMMM…CALL IT ISLAM? CALL IT CHRISTIANITY? CALL IT BAHAI FAITH???

, the instinctive impulse to break free from this thrall has at all times thrown up a moderate party in Judaism, and at this period it was that of the Sadducees, which represented the bulk of the priesthood and stood for “keeping the peace of the city” and avoiding violent conflict …The Pharisees and the Sadducees were bitter foes. This internal dissension among Jews has continued for twenty-five hundred years into our time.

history shows that whenever the dispute for and against “seeking the peace of the city” has reached a climax, the party of segregation and destruction has always prevailed, and the Judaist ranks have closed behind it. The present century has given the latest example to this. At its start the established Jewish communities of Germany, England and America (who may be compared with the Sadducees) were implacably hostile to the Zionists from Russia (the Pharisees), but within fifty years the extreme party had made itself the exclusive spokesman of “the Jews” with the Western governments, and had succeeded in beating down nearly all opposition among the Jewish communities of the world.

MHR THE WHOLE COLD WAR SCENARIO INSTIGATED FOR THIS CULT…RUSSIA WAS TAKEN BY THE JEWS…EXPANDED WEST TO TAKE MOST OF THE ‘PALE’ I.E JEWISH AREAS…AND HALF OF GERMANY…WHILE JEWS RULED THE JEW.S.A SECRETLY, PULLING THE STRINGS…PROPAGANDA, CONSCRIPTION, COLD WAR, LEND LEASE, WAR DECLARATION, FIRE BOMBING OF AMALEK…IRON CURTAIN…TOTAL DICTATORSHIP…TYPICAL CULT OF JUDAISM STUFF…ZERO FREE SPEECH / CHALLENGING / QUESTIONING…ALL PARTY LINES…ALL DOGMATIC…NO FREEDOM…THAT IS PURE CULT OF JUDAISM…NOTHING ‘RUSSIAN’ ABOUT IT…NOTHING ‘SLAVIC’ EXCEPT BEING ‘SLAVISH’ I.E ‘SLAVE LIKE COMPLIANCE WITH RULES / DOGMA …

The Pharisees occupy the second place in the pedigree of the sect which has brought about such large events in our time. The line of descent is from the Levites in Babylon, through the Pharisees in Jerusalem, through the Talmudists of Spain and the rabbis of Russia, to the Zionists of today.

The name “Pharisee”, according to the Judaist authorities, means “one who separates himself”, or keeps away from persons or things impure in order to attain the degree of holiness and righteousness required in those who would commune with God. The Pharisees formed a league or brotherhood of their

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 48 —

own, admitting to their inmost councils only those who, in the presence of three members, pledged themselves to the strict observance of Levitical purity. They were the earliest specialists in secret conspiracy, as a political science.

The experience and knowledge gained by the Pharisees may be plainly traced in the methods used by the conspiratorial parties which have emerged in Europe during the last two centuries, and particularly in those of the destructive revolution in Europe, which has been Jewish-organized and Jewish-led.

For instance, the Pharisees originally devised the basic method, resting on mutual fear and suspicion, by which in our day conspirators are held together and conspiratorial bodies made strong. This is the system of spies-on-spies and informers-among-informers on which the Communist Party is built (and its Red Army; the official regulations of which show the “political commissar” and “informer” to be a recognized part of the military structure, from the high-command level to the platoon one).

The Pharisees first employed this device, basing it on a passage in Leviticus: “Ye shall place a guard around my guard” (quoted by the Jewish Encyclopaedia from the Hebrew original, in use among Jews). The nature of the revolutionary machine which was set up in Europe in the Nineteenth Century cannot be understood at all unless the Talmudic knowledge and training be taken into account, which most of its organizers and leaders inherited; and the Pharisees were the first Talmudists. They claimed divine authority for any decision of their Scribes, even in case of error, and this is a ruling concept of the Talmud.

Under the domination of the Pharisees the Messianic idea first emerged, which was to have great consequences through the centuries. It was unknown to the earlier Israelite prophets; they never admitted the notion of an exclusive, master-race, and therefore they could not be aware of the later, consequential concept of a visitant who would come in person to set up the supreme kingdom of this exclusive master-race on earth.

The nature of this Messianic event is clear, in the Judaist authorities. The Jewish Encyclopaedia says the Pharisees’ conception of it was that “God’s kingship shall be universally recognized in the future. . . God’s kingship excluded any other”. As Jehovah, according to the earlier Torah, “knew” only the Jews, this meant that the world would belong to the Jews. The later Talmud confirmed this, if any doubt remained, by ruling that “the non-Jews are as such precluded [57] from admission to a future world” (the former Rabbi Laible).

The mass of the Judeans undoubtedly expected that “the Anointed one”, when he came, would restore their national glory; in the perfect theocratic state he would be their spiritual leader, but also their temporal one who would reunite the scattered people in a supreme kingdom of this world. The Messianic idea, as it took shape under the Pharisees, was not an expectation of any kingdom of heaven unrelated to material triumph on earth, or at any rate it was not this among the mass of the people.

The Messianic expectation, indeed, must in a sense have been the logical and natural result of the sect’s own teaching. The Pharisees, like the Levites whose message they carried on, claimed to know all things, from the date of the world’s creation, and its purpose, to the manner of the special people’s triumph.

Only one thing they never stated: the moment of that glorious consummation. The burden of observance which they laid on the people was harsh, however, and it was but natural that, like prison inmates serving a term, the people should clamour to know when they would be free.

That seems to be the origin of Messianism. The people who once had “wept” to hear the words of the New Law, now had borne its rigour for four hundred years. Spontaneously the question burst from them: When? When would the glorious consummation come, the miraculous end? They were “doing all the statutes and judgments”, and the performance of them meant a heavy daily task and burden. They were doing all this under “a covenant”, which promised a specific reward. When would this reward be theirs? Their rulers were in direct communion with God, and knew God’s mysteries; they must be able to answer this question, When?

This was the one question which the Pharisees could not answer. They seem to have given the most ingenious answer they could devise: though they would not say when, they would say that one day “the Messiah the Prince” would appear (Daniel), and then there would be given to him “dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him”.

Thus the compressed, ghettoized Judean spirit was anaesthetized with the promise of a visitant; Messianism appeared and produced the recurrent outbreaks of frenzied anticipation, the latest of which our Twentieth Century is experiencing.

Such was the setting of the scene when, nearly two thousand years ago, the man from Galilee appeared. At that time those Judeans who remained in Judea had spent the six hundred years since their casting-off by Israel in what Dr. John Goldstein, in our day, calls “Jewish darkness”, and at the end of this period had come to wait and hope for the liberating Messiah.

The visitant who then appeared claimed to point them the way to “the kingdom of heaven”. He was the very opposite road from that, leading over ruined nations to a temple filled with gold, towards which the Pharisees beckoned them, [58] crying “Observe!”

The Pharisees were strong and the foreign “governor” quailed before their menaces (the picture was very much like that of our day) and those of the people who saw in the newcomer the Messiah they awaited, despite his contempt for worldly rewards, put themselves in danger of death by saying so. They were “transgressing”, and the Roman ruler, like the Persian king five hundred years earlier, was ready to enforce “the Law”.

Evidently many of these people were only too ready to listen, if they were allowed, to any who could show them the way out of their darkness into the light and the community of mankind. However, victory lay with the Pharisees (as with the Levites of yore), so that, once more, many of these people had cause to weep, and the catalytic force was preserved intact.

THE MAN FROM GALILEE

When Jesus was born the vibrant expectation that a marvellous being was about to appear was general among the Judeans. They longed for such proof that Jehovah intended to keep the Covenant with his chosen people, and the scribes, reacting to the pressure of this popular longing, gradually had introduced into the scriptures the idea of the anointed one, the Messiah, who would come to fulfil his bargain.

The Targams, the rabbinical commentaries on the Law, said: “How beautiful he is, the Messiah king who shall arise from the house of Judah. He will gird up his loins and advance to do battle with his enemies and many kings shall be slain”.

This passage shows what the Judeans had been led to expect. They awaited a militant, avenging Messiah (in the tradition of “all the firstborn of Egypt” and the destruction of Babylon) who would break Judah’s enemies “with a rod of iron” and “dash them in pieces like a potter’s vase”; who would bring them empire of this world and the literal fulfilment of the tribal Law; for this was what generations of Pharisees and Levites had foretold.

The idea of a lowly Messiah who would say “love your enemies” and be “despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows” was not present in the public mind at all and would have been “despised and rejected”, had any called attention to these words of Isaiah (which only gained significance after Jesus had lived and died).

Yet the being who appeared, though he was lowly and taught love, apparently claimed to be this Messiah and was by many so acclaimed!

In few words he swept aside the entire mass of racial politics, which the ruling sect had heaped on the earlier, moral law, and like an excavator revealed again what had been buried. The Pharisees at once recognized a most dangerous “prophet and dreamer of dreams”.

even if the mass of the people wanted a militant, nationalist Messiah who would liberate them from the Romans, many among them must subconsciously have realised that their true captivity was of the spirit and of the Pharisees, more than of the Romans. Nevertheless, the mass responded mechanically to the Pharisaic politicians’ charge that the man was a blasphemer and bogus Messiah.

By this response they bequeathed to all future generations of Jews a tormenting doubt, no less insistent because it must not be uttered (for the name Jesus may not even be mentioned in a pious Jewish home): Did the Messiah appear, only to be rejected by the Jews, and if so, what is their future, under The Law?

The English abbreviation, “Jew”, is recent and does not correspond to anything denoted by the Aramaic, Greek or Roman terms for “Judahite” or “Judean”, which were in use during the lifetime of Jesus. In fact, the English noun “Jew” cannot be defined (so that dictionaries, which are scrupulously careful about all other words, are reduced to such obvious absurdities as “A person of Hebrew race”); and the Zionist state has no legal definition of the term (which is natural, because the Torah, which is the Law, exacts pure Judahite descent, and a person of this lineage is hardly to be found in the entire world).

Rabbi Stephen Wise, the leading Zionist organizer in the United States during the 1910-1950 period, stated “Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian” (Christianity was born with the death of Jesus). For this he was excommunicated by the Orthodox Rabbis Society of the United StateS

inserted to make the account agree with Micah’s prophecy that “a ruler” would “come out of Bethlehem”.

The Jewish Encyclopaedia insists that Nazareth was Jesus’s native town, and indeed, general agreement exists that he was a Galilean, whatever the chance of his actual birthplace. Galilee, where nearly all his life was spent, was politically entirely separate from Judea, under its own Roman tetrarch, and stood to Judea in the relationship of “a foreign country” (Graetz). Marriage between a Judean and a Galilean was fobidden and even before Jesus’s birth all Judeans living in Galilee had been forced by Simon Tharsi, one of the Maccabean princes, to migrate to Judah.

Thus, the Galileans were racially and politically distinct from the Judeans

There was in the time of Jesus no “Jewish” (or even Judahite or Judaist or Judean) religion. There was Jehovahism, and there were the various sects, Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, which disputed violently between themselves and contended, around the temple, for power over the people. They were not only sects, but also political parties,and the most powerful of them were the Pharisees with their “oral traditions” of what God had said to Moses.

the party which in Judea in the time of Jesus corresponded to the Zionists was that of the Pharisees. Jesus brought the whole weight of his attack to bear on these Pharisees. He also rebuked the Sadducees and the scribes, but the Gospels show that he held the Pharisees to be the foe of God and man and that he used an especial scarifying scorn towards them. The things which he singled out for attack, in them and in their creed, are the very things which today’s Zionists claim to be the identifying features of Jews, Jewishness and Judaism.

Religiously, Jesus seems beyond doubt to have been the opposite and adversary of all that which would make a literal Jew today or would have made a literal Pharisee then.

The carpenter’s son from Galilee evidently had no formal schooling: “The Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?”

[62]

What is much more significant, he had known no rabbinical schools or priestly training. His enemies, the Pharisees, testify to that

The Law, when Jesus came to “fulfil” it, had grown into a huge mass of legislation, stifling and lethal in its immense complexity. The Torah was but the start; heaped on it were all the interpretations and commentaries and rabbinical rulings; the elders, like pious silkworms, span the thread ever further in the effort to catch up in it every conceivable act of man; generations of lawyers had laboured to reach the conclusion that an egg must not be eaten on the Sabbath day if the greater part of it had been laid before a second star was visible in the sky.

Already the Law and all the commentaries needed a library to themselves, and a committee of international jurists, called to give an opinion on it, would have required years to sift the accumulated layers.

The unschooled youth from Galilee reached out a finger and thrust aside the entire mass, revealing at once the truth and the heresy. He reduced “all the Law and the Prophets” to the two commandments, Love God with all thy heart and thy neighbour as thyself.

This was the exposure and condemnation of the basic heresy which the Levites and Pharisees, in the course of centuries, had woven into the Law.

Leviticus contained the injunction, “Love thy neighbour as thyself”, but it was governed by the limitation of “neighbour” to fellow-Judeans. Jesus now reinstated the forgotten, earlier tradition, of neighbourly love irrespective of race or creed;

“My kingdom is not of this world . . . The kingdom of Heaven is within you . . . Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth. . . but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal”.

Everything he said, in such simple words as these, was a quiet, but direct challenge to the most powerful men of his time and place, and a blow at the foundations of the creed which the sect had built up in the course of centuries.

What the entire Old Testament taught in hundreds of pages, the Sermon on the Mount confuted in a few words. It opposed love to hatred, mercy to vengeance, charity to malice, neighbourliness to segregation, justice to discrimination, affirmation (or reaffirmation) to denial, and life to death. It began (like the “blessings-or-cursings” chapters of Deuteronomy) with blessings, but there the resemblance ended.

Deuteronomy offered material blessings, in the form of territory, loot and slaughter, in return for strict performance of thousands of “statutes and judgments”, some of them enjoining murder. The Sermon on the Mount offered no material rewards, but simply taught that moral behaviour, humility, the effort to do right, mercy, purity, peaceableness and fortitude would be blessed for their own sake and receive spiritual reward.

Deuteronomy followed its “blessings” with “cursings”. The Sermon on the Mount made no threats; it did not require that the transgressor be “stoned to death” or “hanged on a tree”, or offer absolution for nonobservance at the price of washing the hands in the blood of a heifer. The worst that was to befall the sinner was that he was to be “the least in the kingdom of heaven”; and most that the obedient might expect was to be “called great in the kingdom of heaven”.

The young Galilean never taught subservience, only an inner humility, and in one direction he was consistently and constantly scornful: in his attack on the Pharisees.

The name, Pharisees, denoted that they “kept away from persons or things impure”. The Jewish Encyclopaedia says, “Only in regard to intercourse with the unclean and the unwashed multitude did Jesus differ widely from the Pharisees”. MHR BUT THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE CULT…ISOLATION / EXCEPTIONALISM / SPECIAL RIGHTS / CHOSEN PEOPLE ETC…SO HE WAS THE ULTIMATE THREAT TO THE CULT MENTALITY / CULT LEADERS POWER OVER ITS MEMBERS I.E ITS SLAVES…

The Pharisees watched him and asked, “Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners” (a penal offence under their Law). He was equally their master in debate and in eluding their baited traps, and answered, swiftly but [64] quietly, “They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick . . , I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance”.

They followed him further and saw his disciples plucking ears of corn to eat on the Sabbath (another offence under the Law), “Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the Sabbath day”. They pursued him with such interrogations, always related to the rite, and never to faith or behaviour; “why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders, for they wash not their hands when they eat bread?”. “Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophecy of you, saying, this people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” ,

This was the lie direct: The Law, he charged, was not God’s law, but the law of the Levites and Pharisees: “the commandments of men”!

From this moment there could be no compromise, for Jesus turned away from the Pharisees and “called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man, but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man”.

undoubtedly a “commandment of man”, although attributed to Moses, and strict observance of this dietary ritual was held to be of the highest importance by the Pharisees, Ezekiel (the reader will recall) on being commanded by the Lord to eat excrement “to atone for the iniquities of the people”, had pleaded his unfailing observance of the dietary laws and had had his ordeal somewhat mitigated on that account. Even the disciples were apparently so much under the influence of this dietary tradition that they could not understand how “that which cometh out of the mouth” could defile a man, rather than that which went in.

The simple truth which Jesus then gave them was abominable heresy to the Pharisees: “Do not ye understand, that what whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: these are the things which defile a man; but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man”.

This last remark was another penal offence under the Law and the Pharisees began to gather for the kill. They prepared the famous trick questions: “Then went the Pharisees and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk”. The two chief questions were, “To whom shall we render tribute?” and “Who then is my neighbour?” A wrong answer to the first would deliver him to [65] punishment by the foreign ruler, Rome. A wrong answer to the second would enable the Pharisees to denounce him to the foreign ruler as an offender against their own Law, and to demand his punishment.

This is the method earlier pictured by Jeremiah and still in use today, in the Twentieth Century. All who have had to do with public debate in our time, know the trick question, carefully prepared beforehand, and the difficulty of answering it on the spur of the moment. Various methods of eluding the trap are known to professional debaters (for instance, to say “No comment”, or to reply with another question). To give a complete answer, instead of resorting to such evasions, and in so doing to avoid the trap of incrimination and yet maintain the principle at stake is one of the most difficult things known to man. It demands the highest qualities of quickwittedness, presence of mind and clarity of thought. The answers given by Jesus to these two questions remain for all time the models, which mortal man can only hope to emulate.

“Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?” (the affable tone of honest enquiry can be heard). “But Jesus perceived their wickedness and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? . . . Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s. When they heard these words, they marvelled, and left him and went their way”.

On the second occasion, “a certain lawyer stood up and tempted him, saying, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” In his answer Jesus again swept aside the great mass of Levitical Law and restated the two essentials: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart . . . and thy neighbour as thyself”. Then came the baited trap: “And who is my neighbour?”

What mortal man would have given the answer that Jesus gave? No doubt some mortal men, knowing like Jesus that their lives were at stake, would have said what they believed, for martyrs are by no means rare. But Jesus did much more than that; he disarmed his questioner like an expert swordsman who effortlessly sends his opponent’s rapier spinning into the air. He was being enticed to declare himself openly; to say that “the heathen” were also “neighbours”, and thus to convict himself of transgressing The Law. In fact he replied in this sense, but in such a way that the interrogator was undone; seldom was a lawyer so confounded.

The Levitical-Pharisaic teaching was that only Judeans were “neighbours”, and of all the outcast heathen they especially abominated the Samaritans (for reasons earlier indicated). The mere touch of a Samaritan was defilement and a major “transgression” (this continues true to the present day). The purpose of the question put to him was to lure Jesus into some statement that would qualify him for the major ban; by choosing the Samaritans, of all peoples, for the purpose of his reply, he displayed an audacity, or genius, that was more than human:

He said that a certain man fell among thieves and was left for dead. Then came [66] “a priest” and “likewise a Levite” (the usual stinging rebuke to those who sought the chance to put him to death), who “passed by on the other side”. Last came “a certain Samaritan”, who bound the man’s injuries, took him to an inn, and paid for his care: “which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?”

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 55 —

The lawyer, cornered, could not bring himself to pronounce the defiling name “Samaritan”; he said, “He that showed mercy on him” and thereby joined himself (as he probably realized too late) with the condemnation of those for whom he spoke, such as “the priest” and “the Levite”. “Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise”. In these few words, and without any direct allusion, he made his interrogator destroy, out of his own mouth, the entire racial heresy on which the Law had been raised.

One moderate Judaist critic, Mr. Montefiore, has made the complaint that Jesus made one exception to his rule of “love thine enemies”; he never said a good word for the Pharisees.

Scholars may debate the point. Jesus knew that they would kill him or any man who exposed them. It is true that he especially arraigned the Pharisees, together with the scribes, and plainly saw in them the sect responsible for the perversion of the Law, so that the entire literature of denunciation contains nothing to equal this:

“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for ye neither go in yourselves neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in . . . ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves ….. ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy and faith. . . ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess . . . ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. . . ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, and say, if we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have partaken with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers. . .”

The end approached. The “chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders” (the [67] Sanhedrin) met under the high priest Caiaphas to concert measures against the man who disputed their authority and their Law. The only Judean among the Galilean disciples, Judas Iscariot, led the “great multitude with swords and staves”, sent by the “chief priests and elders of the people”, to the garden of Gethsemane and identified the man they sought by the kiss of death.

This Judas deserves a passing glance. He was twice canonized in the Twentieth Century, once in Russia after the Bolshevist Revolution, and again in Germany after the defeat of Hitler, and these two episodes indicated that the sect which was more powerful than Rome, in Jerusalem at the start of our era, was once more supremely powerful in the West in the Twentieth Century.

MHR DID YOU READ THAT…JUDAS WHO BETRAYED JESUS WAS MADE A SAINT BY THE JEWS RULING THE JEW.S.S.R AND THEN BY THE JEWS RULING OCCUPIED GERMANY AFTER THE DEFEAT OF HITLER BY THE JEW WORLD ORDER…DO YOU NEED ANY MORE PROOF RE: THE TRINITY OF HATE, AND WHO RAN THE U.S.S.R AND NOW RULES GERMANY? WHY SAINT JUDAS? BECAUSE HE WAS A JUDEAN, THE ONLY ONE OF JESUS’ DISCIPLES LOYAL TO THE PHARISEES, WHO ARE THE CORE OF THE CULT OF JUDAISM…THE REST OF THE ‘JEWS’ BEING MERE USEFUL SLAVES / MEANS … IDIOTS…WITH THE GREATER THE IDIOCY THE HIGHER THE PUBLIC STATUS I.E AS ‘OBEDIENT / UNTHINKING / ZOMBIES / SLAVES / SERVANTS’…

The Pharisees, who controlled the Sanhedrin, tried Jesus first, before what would today be called “a Jewish court”. Possibly “a people’s court” would be a more accurate description in today’s idiom, for he was “fingered” by an informer, seized by a mob, hailed before a tribunal without legitimate authority, and condemned to death after false witnesses had spoken to trumped-up charges.

However, the “elders”, who from this point on took charge of events in exactly the same way as the “advisers” of our century control events, devised the charge which deserved death equally under their “Law” and under the law of the Roman ruler. Under “the Mosaic Law”, Jesus had committed blasphemy by claiming to be the Messiah; under the Roman law, he had committed treason by claiming to be the king of the Jews.

MHR EXACTLY AS TODAY THEY ABUSE THE LAWS / GET LAWS PUT IN PLACE, THEN TAKE ANY ‘AMALEK’ AND TAILOR THEIR ATTACK WITH THE LAWS IN MIND E.G BRENDON O’CONNOR…BAITED AND TRICKED INTO EXPOSING HIMSELF TO THE LAW…THEN ABUSED … AS USUAL BY THE HOST NATION’S LEGAL SYSTEM, CO-OPTED BY AS USUAL BY THE CULT OF THE PHARISEES / JUDAISM…

The Roman governor, Pilate, tried one device after another, to avoid complying with the demand of these imperious “elders”, that the man be put to death. MHR TO HIS CREDIT, TODAY THE OCCUPIED GOVERNMENTS PANDER TO JEWS, LOVING NOTHING MORE THAN TO ‘BE OF SERVICE’ TO THEM…BRAINWASHED FOOLS…OR GRASPING, WORLDLY AMBITIOUS CAREERISTS, WHO KNOW HOW TO ‘GO ALONG TO GET ALONG’…KNOWING WHO BUTTERS THE BREAD…AND HOW TO ADVANCE AS A ‘USEFUL ZOMBIE / IDIOT’…OR LITERALLY TOTALLY FOOLED BY THE PROPAGANDA…TOO STUPID FOR WORDS…TOO LAZY TO READ A FEW BOOKS…TOO GUTLESS TO DEFEND THEIR OWN FAMILY…

This Pilate was the prototype of the Twentieth Century British and American politician. He feared the power of the sect in the last resort, more than anything else. His wife urged him to have no truck with the business. He tried, in the politician’s way, to pass the responsibility to another, Herod Antipas, whose tetrarchy included Galilee; Herod sent it back to him. Pilate next tried to let Jesus off with a scourging, but the Pharisees insisted on death and threatened to denounce Pilate in Rome: “Thou art not Caesar’s friend”.

This was the threat to which Pilate yielded, just as one British Governor after another, one United Nations representative after another, yielded in the Twentieth Century to the threat that they would be defamed in London or New York. Evidently Pilate, like these men nineteen centuries later, knew that his home government would disavow or displace him if he refused to do as he was [68] bid.

The resemblance between Pilate and some British governors of the period between the First and Second World Wars is strong, (and at least one of these men knew it, for when he telephoned to a powerful Zionist rabbi in New York he jocularly asked, as he relates, that the High Priest Caiaphas be informed that Pontius Pilate was on the line).

Pilate made one other attempt to have the actual deed done by other hands: “Take ye him, and judge him according to your law”. With the ease of long experience it was foiled: “it is not lawful for us to put any man to death”.

After that he even tried to save Jesus by giving “the people” the choice between pardoning Jesus or Barabbas, the robber and murderer. Presumably Pilate had small hope from this quarter, for “the people” and “the mob” are synonyms and justice and mercy never yet came from a mob, as Pilate would have known; the function of the mob is always to do the will of powerful sects. Thus, “the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus”.

In this persuasion of the multitude the sect is equally powerful today.

The longer the time that passes, the more brightly glow the colours of that unique final scene. The scarlet robe, mock sceptre, crown of thorns and derisive pantomime of homage; only Pharisaic minds could have devised that ritual of mockery which today so greatly strengthens the effect of the victim’s victory. The road to Calvary, the crucifixion between two thieves: Rome, on that day, did the bidding of the Pharisees, as Persia, five hundred years before, had done that of the Levites.

After the death of Jesus the Pharisees, according to the Jewish Encyclopaedia, found “a supporter and friend” in the last Herodian king of Judea, Agrippa I. Agrippa helped dispose of the Sadducees, who disappeared from the Judean scene, leaving all affairs there in the hands of the Pharisees (whose complaint about the Idumean line, therefore, seems to have little ground). They were thus left all-powerful in Jerusalem, like the Levites after the severance of Judah from Israel, and as on that earlier occasion disaster at once followed. In rising, phoenix-like, from the ashes of this, the Pharisees also repeated the history of the Levites.

During the few remaining years of the tiny and riven province the Pharisees once more revised “the Law”, those “commandments of men” which Jesus had most scathingly attacked. Dr. Kastein says, “Jewish life was regulated by the teachings of the Pharisees; the whole history of Judaism was reconstructed from the Pharisaic point of view . . Pharisaism shaped the character of Judaism and the life and the thought of the Jew for all the future . . It makes ‘separatism’ its chief characteristic “.

in the immediate sequel to Jesus’s life and arraignment of the “commandments of men”, the Pharisees, like the Levites earlier, intensified the racial and tribal nature and rigour of the Law; the creed of destruction, enslavement and dominion was sharpened on the eve of the people’s final dispersion.

Dr. Kastein’s words are of especial interest. He had earlier stated (as quoted) that after the infliction of the “New Covenant” on the Judahites by Nehemiah, the Torah received a “final” editing, and that “no word” of it was thereafter to be changed. Moreover, at the time of this Pharisaic “reconstruction” the Old Testament had already been translated into Greek, so that further changes made by the Pharisees could only have been in the original.

It seems more probable that Dr. Kastein’s statement refers to the Talmud, the immense continuation of the Torah which was apparently begun during the last years of Judea, although it was not reduced to writing until much later. Whatever happened, “the life and the thought of the Jew” were once again settled “for all the future”, and “separatism” was reaffirmed as the supreme tenet of the Law.

In AD 70, perhaps thirty-five years after the death of Jesus, all fell to pieces. The confusion and disorder in Judea were incurable and Rome stepped in. The [70] Pharisees, who had originally invited Roman intervention and were supreme in Judea under the Romans, remained passive.

Other peoples of Palestine, and most especially the Galileans, would not submit to Rome and after many risings and campaigns the Romans entered and razed Jerusalem. Judea was declared conquered territory and the name vanished from the map. For long periods during the next nineteen hundred years no Jews at all lived in Jerusalem (the Samaritans, a tiny remnant of whom have survived all the persecutions, are the only people who have lived continuously in Palestine since Old Testamentary times).

The Pharisees, AS USUAL, AFTER BRINGING DESTRUCTION TO THEIR CULT MEMBERS, LEFT TOWN FOR GREENER FIELDS, WITH THEIR LOOT/ TREASURE, TO SET UP SHOP AS USUAL AND START CO-OPTING THEIR HOST NATION, removed to a new headquarters from which (as from Babylon of yore) the ruling sect might exercise command over “the Jews”, wherever in the world they lived.

Jerusalem might be ruined and Judea be empty of Jews, but the ruling sect was free and victorious. Its opponents around the temple had been swept away by the conqueror and it was already established in its new “centre”, to which it had withdrawn before the fall of the city.

The Pharisees were as supreme in this new citadel as the Levites once in Babylon…the Pharisees, when they left the surviving Judeans to their fate and set up their new headquarters at Jamnia (still in Palestine), took their dark secrets of power over men into a world different from any before it.

“love your enemies” WAS JESUS’ FIRST TENET, WHILE the first tenet of the Pharisaic law was “hate your enemies”

Their task was larger than that of the Levites in Babylon. The temple was destroyed and Jerusalem was depopulated. The tribe of Judah had long since been broken up; now the race of Judeans was dissolving. There remained a “Jewish nation”, composed of people of many admixtures of blood, who were spread all over the known world, and had to be kept united by the power of the tribal idea and of the “return” to a land “promised” to a “special people”; this dispersed nation had also to be kept convinced of its destructive mission among the nations where it dwelt.

the Law needed constant reinterpretation and application to the events of changing times, so that the “special people” could always be shown that each and every event, however paradoxical at first sight, was in fact one of Jehovan fulfilment. The Pharisees at Jamnia invoked once more their claim to possess the oral secrets of God and began, under it, to reinterpret the “statutes and commandments” so that these could be shown to apply to Christianity. This was the origin of the Talmud, which in effect is the antiChristian extension of the Torah.

MHR THE VALUE OF AN ‘ORAL’ LAW WAS LOST THE MOMENT IT WAS WRITTEN DOWN AND SHARED / KNOWN BY ENOUGH PEOPLE THAT CHANGING IT WOULD DRAW A LOT OF UNWANTED ATTENTION / CHALLENGES E.G ‘THE SATANIC VERSES’, ONCE WRITTEN, WERE LATER REMOVED, SO OF COURSE IT IS POSSIBLE, BUT YOU WILL LOSE A FEW CULT MEMBERS ??? SO PHARISEES REVERTED AGAIN TO THE NOTION THAT THEY NEVER WROTE ALL THE ‘VERBAL’ LAW DOWN .. SO COULD REVISE IT AMONGST THEMSELVES…MIGHT CONFUSE A FEW CULT MEMBERS WITH GOOD MEMORIES, BUT THE WHOLE POINT OF ‘STATUS’ AND ‘BEING A GOOD JEW’ ACC. TO THE PHARISEES, LIKE OUR SPEAKER IN THE VIDEO, (RABBI?) WAS UNREFLECTING ACCEPTANCE / OBEDIENCE EVEN OF WHAT MAKES NO SENSE TO YOU…THAT MAKES A ‘GOOD’ CULT MEMBER / JEW / PHARISEE / CULT MEMBER…

the ban on the mention of the name Jesus) derive directly from the teaching of the Talmud, which in effect was another “New Law” with a specifically anti-Christian application

the next period in the story of Zion is best described as that of the Talmudists, the former ones being those of the Pharisees and of the Levites. MHR LETS SEE WHAT HAS TO SAY, BUT IN REALITY, FOR ME, THE CORE CULT IS THE OLDEST PART, THE CONTINUAL PART…THAT SET THE ORIGINAL MISSION…WAS IT ENLIL / ANU / NIBURIAN I.E DESIRE TO DESTROY ALL HUMANITY…WITH ENKI AS JESUS / AHURA MAZDA / ZARATHUSTRA / MARDUK ETC?

the Pharisaic Talmudists, in their new academy at Jamnia, worked on the new Law

A Pharisee greatly helped to spread them; Saul of Tarsus set out from Jerusalem (before its fall) to exterminate heretics in Damascus and before he arrived there became a follower of Christ. He preached to Jew and Gentile alike, until he was prevented, and he told the Jews, “It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you; but seeing that ye put it from you and judge yourselves worthy of everlasting life, we turn to the Gentiles”.

Possibly this impulse in men was also the reason why Jesus had to appear among the Judeans; the Judaic creed was tribalism in its most fanatical form, even at that time, and, as every action produces its reaction, the counter-idea was bound to appear where the pressure was greatest. THUS SAUL NAMED PAUL CONVERTS…THOUGH SADLY BRINGS A LOT OF BAGGAGE WITH HIM THAT HE COULD NEVER QUITE ESCAPE, WHICH JESUS NEVER HAD, E.G HATRED OF OWN SEXUALITY AS HOMOSEXUAL ETC…I.E OWN DYNAMICS…WAS HE REALLY AGENT OF PHARISEES? IF EVER EXISTED? IS CHRISTIANITY AN EXTENSION OF PHARISEES CULT? WHY ELSE WOULD THE OLD TESTAMENT / TORAH BE ADDED TO THE NEW TESTAMENT? FOR AUTHORITY? BUT BRINGS THE WORST TO THE BEST…CONTAMINATES IT…SLAVERY, GENOCIDE, WAR, HATRED, ‘IDOLISATION OF WRITTEN LAWS’…I.E IN COURT IT IS THE LETTER OF THE LAW, AND NOT THE ‘SPIRIT’ THAT IS ENFORCED…FORCED UPON VICTIMS OF IT…AND JURIES DIRECTED TO ‘DISREGARD’ EVIDENCE ETC…OR EVEN KNOW WHAT THE RESULT OF THEIR DECISIONS WILL BE E.G SENTENCING…

MHR THAT WAS MY CONCLUSION AS TO WHY THERE ARE SO MANY ‘GREAT’ ‘JEWS’ I.E LIBERAL, FREE THINKING, ICONOCLASTS…AS A RESPONSE TO AN EXTREME, IN THE TYPICAL DIALECTICAL SENSE… ANYONE WITH THE SLIGHTEST NOTIONS OF LOGIC / REASON / FAIRNESS / JUSTICE / BEAUTY / COHERENCE ETC WOULD BE PROVOKED BY A CULT MENTALITY, THE RIGID ENFORCEMENT OF ABSURD CONTRADICTIONS AND HATE, INTO SEEKING AN ALTERNATIVE, AND LIKELY TO INVENT IT… PROBABLY HAD TO BE AN OUTSIDER ALSO, IN SOME SENSE, TO BE ABLE TO OVERCOME THE FEARS / TERROR / THREATS / CONDITIONING / STIMULUS RESPONSE TRIGGERS I.E JESUS TOTALLY AWARE OF PHARISEES TEACHINGS AND CONSEQUENCES, BUT INDEPENDENT ENOUGH I.E FREE OF THE FEAR INSTILLED IN CULT MEMBERS, TO BE ABLE TO ESCAPE IT / SEE IT FOR WHAT IT IS…LIKE MYSELF… A ‘CHURCH OF CHRIST’ CHRISTIAN…SORT OF ON THE VERY OUTER LIMITS OF THE CULT OF CHRISTIANITY / JUDAISM…GOT AT PEEK INTO IT…BUT NEVER ‘BOUND’ TO IT … NOTHING MUCH TO LOSE BY BEING ‘EXCOMMUNICATED’ ETC…NEVER A PART OF ANY COMMUNITY / LET ALONE A CULT… VERY MUCH LIKE JESUS…CAME TO SAME CONCLUSIONS ETC…COMPREHENSIONS…

About five hundred years after the life of Jesus the instinctive impulse of men to seek one God produced another challenge to Talmudic racialism, and this time it came from among the Semitic masses. The Arabs, too, attained to the concept of one God of all men.

Muhammad (dismissed by Dr. Kastein as “a half-educated Bedouin”), like Saul on the road to Damascus, had a vision of God. His teaching in many ways resembled that of Jesus. He held Jesus to have been, like Abraham and Moses, a prophet of God (not the Messiah). He regarded himself as the successor of Moses and Jesus and as the prophet of God, whom he called Allah. There was but one God, Allah, the creator of mankind, and Allah was not the tribal god of the Arabs, but the God of all men. This religion, like Christianity, taught no hatred of other religions. Muhammad showed only reverence for Jesus and his mother (who are both the subjects of profane derision in Talmudic literature).

However, Muhammad held the Jews to be a destructive force, self-dedicated. The Koran says of them, “Oft as they kindle a beacon fire for war, shall God quench it. And their aim will be to abet disorder on the earth; but God loveth not the abettors of disorder “. All down the centuries the wisest men spoke thus of the tribal creed and the sect, until the Twentieth Century of our era, when public discussion of this question was virtually suppressed.

Thus was Islam born, and it spread over the meridianal parts of the known [75] world as Christianity spread over the West and Buddhism, earlier, over the East. Great streams began to move, as if towards a confluence at some distant day, for these universal religions are in no major tenet as oil and water, and in the repudiation of master-racehood and the destructive idea they agree.

Christianity and Islam spread out and embraced great masses of mankind; the impulse that moved in men became clear. Far behind these universal religions lay Judaism, in its tribal enclosure, jealously guarded by the inner sect.

In the Twentieth Century this powerful sect was able to bring the masses of Christendom and Islam to the verge of destructive battle with each other. If the present generation sees that clash, the spectacle will be that of one great universal religion contending with another for the purpose of setting up the creed of the “master-race”.

MHR THIS IS OF COURSE EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE DOING RIGHT NOW, AND SEEM TO HAVE SUCCEEDED IN DOING…A FAIT ACCOMPLI…UNLESS WE ACT RIGHT NOW TO AVERT IT…IF WE DO, THEY WILL THROW TANTRUMS, FALSE FLAG ATTACKS, ETC, BUT WE HAVE TO RESIST LETTING FEAR OF ‘TERRORISTS’, WHO ARE REALLY OUR OWN OCCUPIED GOVERNMENTS, STOP US OUSTING THEM, AND RETAKIN BACK OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS…

five distinct phases: those of the Levites, the Pharisees, the Talmudists, the “emancipation” interlude and the Zionists…The third, Talmudic phase was much the longest for it lasted seventeen centuries, from 70 AD to about 1800 AD. The seventeen centuries represented a new “captivity”, under the Law, which laid down that wherever the chosen people dwelt outside Jerusalem they were in captivity, and that this captivity was in itself “persecution”, and for what they did the heathen have yet to pay… MHR DEFINED FOR JEWS AS PUNISHMENT FOR NOT BEING SLAVISHLY DOGMATIC / OBEDIENT TO THE PHARISEE CULT RULES, BUT FOR WHICH THE INSTRUMENT CHOSEN FOR THIS PUNISHMENT, AMALEK, US, WILL BE PUNISHED, IF NOT STILL ALIVE, REINCARNATED JUST TO SUFFER AND PAY FOR WHAT WE DID ??? THAT IS PHARISEE CULT ‘LOGIC’ I.E ‘SPIN’ I.E HYPOCRISY, LIKE NON-SEQUITUR SELF CANCELLING ANSWERS IN COURT…

MHR THE JEWS PUBLICALLY SUPPORTED THE ‘EMANCIPATION’ AND ‘GREATER EQUALITY’ OF THE GOYS, WHILE MAINTAINING THEIR OWN ‘RACIAL PURITY LAWS’ AND ‘SEPARATION’ … PLANNING A UNIVERSAL DIVISION OF ‘CULT’ AND NON-CULT THAT WOULD REPLACE THE EXISTING INEQUALITIES… DESTROYING ANY ‘SOLIDARITY’ WITHIN POTENTIAL COMPETITORS…REDUCING POWERFUL NATION STATES AND ‘RACES’ INTO AN ATOMISED MASS SO THE ONLY CENTRAL POWER WOULD BE THE CULT…’TO PULL DOWN AND DESTROY THE NATIONS’ (GOYS)…

the century of emancipation (say, from 1800 to 1900 AD) brought the peril of “assimilation”. In the century of “freedom” a great number of Jews, in Western Europe and in the new “West” oversea, did evince the desire to cast off the chains of the Judaic Law and to mingle themselves with the life of peoples. THREAT OF the ‘destruction’, through assimilation, of the BOUNDARIES OF THE CULT I.E SEPARATENESS…

the Torah (the Law) began to receive its huge supplement, the Talmud,

The aim was to “make the life of the Jew utterly different from that of the Gentiles”. Any law that received a majority of votes of the Sanhedrin became enforcible throughout the dispersed Judaist communities everywhere; “opponents were threatened with the ban, which meant being excluded from the community”.

the secret edict went out from “the centre” at Jamnia, authorizing Jews to pretend denial of their creed and profess conversion to “pagan religions”, if circumstances made this expedient.

The period of government from Jamnia lasted for about a century, and then it [81] was transferred to Usha in Galilee, where the Sanhedrin was re-established. “Judaism set limitations about itself and grew ever more exclusive”; at this time the special curse on Jewish Christians was pronounced. In 320 AD the Roman Emperor Constantine was converted to Christianity, and enacted laws which forbade marriages between Christians and Jews and forbade Jews to keep Christian slaves. These were the natural response to the Law of exclusion and “stranger”-slavery administered by the Talmudic government at Usha, but they were held to be “persecution” and to escape their reach “the centre” was moved back to Babylonia,

where the Judean colony, which eight centuries earlier had preferred to stay there rather than “return” to Jerusalem, “was still intact”. The Talmudic government was set up at Sura, and academies were established there at Pumbedita.

The Talmud, begun at Jamnia and Usha, was completed at Sura and Pumbedita. “A ring of vast proportions and colossal elasticity” was built around the Jews everywhere; the mystic circle of fear and superstition was drawn tighter. From Sura an Exilarch (prince of the captivity of the house of David), ruled, but in time he became a figurehead. Thereafter “the president of the academy” (in effect, the high priest and prime minister) “laid down the rules and regulations not only for the Babylonian Jews but for the whole of Judaism . . . The Jews throughout the world recognized the academies in Babylonia as the authoritative centre of Judaism, and regarded any laws they passed as binding”.

Thus the nation-within-nations, the state-within-states, was enfettered and ruled by the Talmudic government in Babylonia.

The core of dogma remained as Ezekiel, Ezra and Nehemiah had shaped and enforced it; but the Talmud, in effect, had taken the place of the Torah, as the Torah earlier had supplanted the “oral traditions”. The heads of the academies of Sura and Pumbedita were called Gaonim and began to exercise autocratic power over the scattered Jews. The shadowy Exilarchs (later Nasim, or princes) were dependent on their approval and the Sanhedrin surrendered its functions to them, or was deprived of these. When doubt arose among Jews, anywhere in the world, about the interpretation or application of the Law in any matter of the day, the question was referred to the Gaonate. The verdicts and judgments returned (in the name of Jehovah) from the distant government were the Gaonic Reponses, or laws enacted from Babylonia, to which Jews everywhere submitted, or incurred danger of excommunication.

In this manner the Talmudic thrall spread round the dispersed Jews, wherever they dwelt, “like a closely woven net . . . over ordinary days and holidays, over their actions and over their prayers, over their whole lives and every step they took . . . Nothing in their external lives was any longer allowed to be the sport of arbitrary settlement or of chance”. This is the picture of an absolute despotism, different from other despotisms only in the element of distance between the despots and their subjects. Given a benevolent mission, a community of people so [82] closely controlled might immensely fructify the life of peoples; given a destructive one, their presence among others is like that of a blasting charge in rock, operated by a distant hand on a plunger.

For six hundred years the Talmudic government, at Jamnia, Usha, and Sura, remained in or near to its native, oriental climate, where its nature was comprehended by other peoples; they knew how to cope with and counter the savage tribal creed and, as long as they were not hampered or constrained by foreign powers in their dealings with it, they were always able to find a workaday compromise, which enabled all to live in practical amity side by side.

Then came the event which has produced such violent results in our time: the Talmudic government moved into Christianized Europe and established itself among peoples to whom the nature of its dogma and its methods were strange and even incomprehensible. This led, in the course of many centuries, to the recurrent clash of the alien ambition and creed against native interest, which our century is again experiencing.

The nature of Westerners (more especially in the northern latitudes) is to be candid, to declare purposes, and to use words to express intention, and Christianity developed these native traits. The force which appeared among them was of the opposite character, oriental, infinitely subtle, secretive, conspiratorial, and practised in the use of language to disguise real purposes. Therein lay its greatest strength in the encounter with the West.

The removal to Europe came about through the Islamic conquests. The Arabs, under the Prophet’s banner, drove the Romans from Palestine. By this means the native inhabitants of Palestine, who had inhabited it some two thousand years before the first Hebrew tribes entered, became the rulers of their own country, and remained so for nine hundred years (until 1517, when the Turks conquered it). An instructive comparison may be made between the Islamic and the Judaic treatment of captives:

The Caliph’s order to the Arab conquerors in 637 AD was, “You shall not act treacherously, dishonestly, commit any excess or mutilation, kill any child or old man; cut or burn down palms or fruit trees, kill any sheep, cow or camel, and shall leave alone those whom you find devoting themselves to worship in their cells”. Jehovah’s order, according to Deuteronomy 20.16, is, “Of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shall save alive nothing that breatheth”.

From Palestine, Islam then spread its frontiers right across North Africa, so that the great mass of Jews came within the boundaries of the same external authority. Next, Islam turned towards Europe and invaded Spain. Therewith the shadow of Talmudic Zionism fell across the West. The Moorish conquest was “supported with both men and money” by the Jews, who as camp-followers were treated with remarkable favour by the conquerors, city after city being handed to their control! The Koran itself said, “Their aim will be to abet disorder on the [83] earth”; the Islamic armies certainly facilitated this aim.

Christianity thus became submerged in Spain. In these propitious circumstances the Talmudic government was transferred from Babylonia to Spain, and the process began, the results of which have become apparent in our generation. Dr. Kastein says:

“Judaism, dispersed as it was over the face of the globe, was always inclined to set up a fictitious state in the place of the one that had been lost, and always aimed, therefore, at looking to a common centre for guidance . . . This centre was now held to be situated in Spain, whither the national hegemony was transferred from the East. Just as Babylonia had providentially taken the place of Palestine, so now Spain opportunely replaced Babylonia, which, as a centre of Judaism, had ceased to be capable of functioning. All that could be done there had already been accomplished; it had forged the chains with which the individual could bind himself, to avoid being swallowed up by his environment: the Talmud”.

The reader will observe the description of events: “individuals” do not commonly bind themselves, of choice, with chains forged for them. Anyway, the Jewish captivity was as close as ever, or perhaps had been made closer. That was for the Jews to ponder.

The Talmudic government of the nation-within-nations was continued from Spanish soil. The Gaonate issued its directives; the Talmudic academy was established at Cordova; and sometimes, at least, a shadowy Exilarch reigned over Jewry.

This was done under the protection of Islam; the Moors, like Babylon and Persia before, showed remarkable benevolence towards this force in their midst. To the Spaniards the invader came to bear more and more a Jewish countenance and less and less a Moorish one; the Moors had conquered, but the conqueror’s power passed into Jewish hands. The story which the world had earlier seen enacted in Babylon, repeated itself in Spain, and in later centuries was to be re-enacted in every great country of the West.

The Moors remained in Spain for nearly eight hundred years. When the Spanish reconquest, after this long ordeal, was completed in 1492 the Jews, as well as the Moors, were expelled. They had become identified with the invaders’ rule and were cast out when it ended, as they had followed it in.

The “centre” of Talmudic government was then transferred to Poland.

At that point, less than four centuries before our own generation, a significant mystery enters the story of Zion: why was the government set up in Poland? Up to that stage the annals reveal no trace of any large migration of Jews to Poland. The Jews who entered Spain with the Moors came from North Africa and when they left most of them returned thither or went to Egypt, Palestine, Italy, the [84] Greek islands and Turkey. Other colonies had appeared in France, Germany, Holland and England and these were enlarged by the arrival among them of Jews from the Spanish Peninsula. There is no record that any substantial number of Spanish Jews went to Poland, or that any Jewish mass-migration to Poland had occurred at any earlier time.

Yet in the 1500’s, when the “centre” was set up in Poland, “a Jewish population of millions came into being there “, according to Dr. Kastein. But populations of millions do not suddenly “come into being”. Dr. Kastein shows himself to be aware that something needs explanation here, and to be reluctant to go into it, for he dismisses the strange thing with the casual remark that the size of this community, of which nothing has previously been heard, “was more due to immigration, apparently from France, Germany and Bohemia, than to any other cause”. He does not explain what other cause he might have in mind and, for a diligent scholar, is on this one occasion strangely content with a random surmise.

The “centre” of Jewish government was at this time planted among a large community of people who were unknown to the world as Jews and in fact were not Jews in any literal sense. They had no Judahite blood at all (for that matter; Judahite blood must by this time have been almost extinct even among the Jews of Western Europe) and their forefathers had never known Judea, or any soil but that of Tartary.

These people were the Khazars, a Turco-Mongolian race which had been converted to Judaism in about the 7th century of our era. This is the only case of the conversion of a large body of people of quite distinct blood to Judaism (the Idumeans were “brothers”). The reason why the Talmudic elders permitted or encouraged it can only be guessed; without it, however, the “Jewish question” would by now have joined the problems that time has solved.

When they became known, as “Eastern Jews”, they profited by the confusing effect of the contraction of the word Judahite, or Judean, to “Jew”; none would ever have believed that they were Judahites or Judeans. From the time when they [85] took over the leadership of Jewry the dogma of “the return” to Palestine was preached in the name of people who had no Semitic blood or ancestral link with Palestine whatever!

Dr. Kastein gives the picture of this independent Jewish government during the Polish phase. The Talmudists were allowed to draw up “a constitution”, and through the 1500’s and 1600’s the Jews in Poland lived under “an autonomous government”. This administered “an iron system of autonomy and an iron religious discipline, which inevitably resulted in the formation of an oligarchic body of administrators and the development of an extreme form of mysticism” (this gives the picture of the training, under rigid discipline in close confinement, which produced the Communist and Zionist revolutionaries of our century).

This autonomous Talmudic government was called the Kahal. In its own territory the Kahal was a fully-empowered government, under Polish suzerainty. It had independent authority of taxation in the ghettoes and communities, being responsible for payment of a global sum to the Polish government. It passed laws regulating every action and transaction between man and man and had power to try, judge, convict or acquit.

This power only nominally stopped short of capital punishment: Professor Salo Baron says, “In Poland, where the Jewish court had no right to inflict capital punishment, lynching, as an extra-legal preventive, was encouraged by rabbinical authorities such as Solomon Luria”.

Once again, a virtually independent state was formed within the Polish state, which like so many states before and after showed the greatest benevolence to the nation-within-nations that took shape within its gates. As in the earlier and later cases this in no wise mitigated the hostility of the Talmudic Jews towards it, which was proverbial

in 1772, Poland was partitioned and this great community of “Eastern Jews”, organized as a state-within-the-state, was divided by national boundaries, most of it coming under Russian rule. Up to 1772 there had always been A CULT HQ: in Poland, Spain, Babylonia, Galilee, Judea, Babylon and Judah. BUT in the Nineteenth Century “a Jewish international took shape” with a secret cult HQ…from 1772…

this only became clear when the revolution of 1917 produced an almost all-Jewish government in Russia; and by that time power over governments in the West was so great that the nature of this new regime was little discussed, a virtual law of heresy having come into force there. Had the visible institution continued, the masses of the West would in time have become aware that the Talmudic government of Jewry, though it led the clamour for “emancipation”, was also organizing a revolution to destroy all that the peoples might gain from this emancipation.

Dr. Kastein says, “The Russians wondered what could possibly be the reason why the Jews did not SET UP A NEW CULT HQ, and came to the conclusion that in their secret Kabals they possessed a strong reserve, and that a ‘World Kabal’ existed”.

its main seat of power is evidently in the United States, it now takes the form of a directorate distributed among the nations and working in unison, over the heads of governments and peoples.

The Russians, who at the time of the disappearance of “the centre” from public view were better informed than any others about this matter, have been proved right.

this international directorate gains and wields power over Gentile governments.

“The Talmud was regarded almost as the supreme authority by the majority of Jews . . . Even the Bible was relegated to a secondary place” (the Jewish Encyclopaedia).

MHR SO TODAY JEWS CONTINUE TO CLAIM SOME SHULCHRAN ARUCH IS THE LAST WORD…AND CLAIM TALMUDIC LAWS RELATING TO ‘GOYS’ AND ‘GENOCIDE OF AMALEK’ ETC ARE NO LONGER VALID…AND REFER TO OLD TESTAMENT AND MOSES, RATHER THAN TALMUD, WHEN INTERACTING WITH THE NATIONS / GOYS / NON-CULT OUTSIDERS…

The compilation of the Talmud began at Jamnia, the part played in Babylon by Ezekiel and Ezra being played in this new revision of the Law, by the rabbi known as Judah the Holy or the Prince.

It was in effect a massive addition to the “statutes and judgments” of Deuteronomy, Leviticus and Numbers. All the laws which “the centre” enacted were appended to the Torah as the “Oral Torah”, having equal divine origin. Then they were written down in the Mishna. Later again (under the oft-used pretext of “completing” the work) immense records of rabbinical discussions and rulings were added in the Gemara, but as the Gemara was the product of two distinct Jewish communities, those of Jerusalem in the fifth and of Babylon in the seventh century, there are two Talmuds, known as the Palestinian and the Babylonian.

The Talmud, which thus was produced during the Christian era, is anti-Christian. It is supposed to derive from the same original source as the Torah; the priestly scribes who compiled it once more claimed to revise or expand under powers “orally” bestowed on Mount Sinai.

“the churches of all denominations receive and accept” the Old Testament “as given by inspiration of God, therefore being for them a Divine rule or guide of faith and practice”, a ruling which comes down from the Council of Trent.

The Talmud expressly forbids one to save a [89] non-Jew from death. . . to restore lost goods, etc., to him, to have pity on him”.

Deuteronomy when that “second Law” was made public a thousand years before the Palestinian Talmud , ALSO STATED ‘THE NON JEW IS NOT YOUR NEIGHBOUR’ RE: LOVE THEY NEIGHBOUR…SO THIS WAS ALWAYS THERE, IN THE BIBLE, LONG BEFORE THE TALMUD BECAME MORE SPECIFIC.. RE: CHRISTIANS.Mention of the name, Jesus, is prohibited in Jewish households.

Jesus is depicted as the illegitimate son of Mary, a hairdresser’s wife, and of a Roman soldier called Panthera. Jesus himself is referred to by a name which might be translated “Joey Virgo”. He is shown as being taken by his stepfather to Egypt and there learning sorcery.

The significant thing about this bogus life-story (the only information about Jesus which Jews were supposed to read) is that in it Jesus is not crucified by Romans. After his appearance in Jerusalem and his arrest there as an agitator and a sorcerer he is turned over to the Sanhedrin and spends forty days in the pillory before being stoned and hanged at the Feast of the Passover; this form of death exactly fulfils the Law laid down in Deuteronomy 21.22 and 17.5, whereas crucifixion would not have been in compliance with that Judaic Law. The book then states that in hell he suffers the torture of boiling mud EXCREMENT

MHR NOTE THE SECRETS OF THE TALMUD WERE EXPOSED BY JEWS WHO CONVERTED TO CHRISTIANITY, OR SIMPLY BECAME SECULAR…

“This is why we enjoin you, under pain of excommunication major, to print nothing in future editions, whether of the Mishna or of the Gemara, which relates whether for good or evil to the acts of Jesus the Nazarene, and to substitute instead a circle like this: O, which will warn the rabbis and schoolmasters to teach the young these passages only viva voce. By means of this precaution the savants among the Nazarenes will have no further pretext to attack us on this subject” (decree of the Judaist Synod which met in Poland in 1631 MHR I.E KEEP SOME THINGS ORAL, AND THUS SECRET, SO NO-ONE CAN REVEAL IT OUTSIDE THE CULT…

the Koran describes Jesus as “strengthened with the Holy Spirit” and the Jews are reproached with rejecting “the Apostle of God”, to whom was given “the Evangel with its guidance and light”. Of his mother, the Koran says, “O Mary! verily hath God chosen thee and purified thee, and chosen thee above the women of the world”, and, “Jesus, the son of Mary, illustrious in this world, and in the next, and one of those who have near access to God”.

The Talmud, related the passage in Deuteronomy to one in Ezekiel, 23.20, and by so doing defined Gentiles as those “whose flesh is as the flesh of asses and whose issue is like the issue of horses”!

The Law (the Talmud laid down) allowed the restoration of a lost article to its owner if “a brother or neighbour”, but not if a Gentile. Book-burning (of Gentile books) was recommended (book-burning is a Talmudic invention, as the witch-hunt was prescribed by the Torah). The benediction, “Blessed be Thou . . . who has not made me a goi”, was to be recited daily

The Jew who sells to a Gentile landed property bordering on the land of another Jew is to be excommunicated. A Gentile cannot be trusted as witness in a criminal or civil suit because he could not be depended on to keep his word like a Jew. A Jew testifying in a petty Gentile court as a single witness against a Jew must be excommunicated. Adultery committed with a non-Jewish woman is not adultery “for the heathen have no lawfully wedded wife, they are not really their wives”. The Gentiles are as such precluded from admission to a future world.

Finally, the Talmudic interpretation of the original moral commandment, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart”, is that “man shall occupy himself with the study of Holy Scripture and of the Mishna and have intercourse with learned and wise men”. In other words, the man who best proves his love of God is he who studies the Talmud and shuns his Gentile fellow-man.

MHR SO ALL ‘MODERN’ JEWS / TALMUDIC JEWS / CULT MEMBERS, ARE REALLY SECULAR EVEN IF THEY USE THE WORD GOD, AS THEY OWE THEIR OBEDIENCE TO THE TALMUDIC SCRIBES / RABBIS / CULT LEADERS, AND NOT GOD…

“One very cold night the rabbi tottered into our house in a pitiful condition; it took half a dozen glasses of boiling tea to thaw him out. He then told how a sympathetic goy had offered him a pair of gloves and why he had refused the gift; a Jew must not be the instrument of bringing a mitvah, or blessing, on a non-believer.

The Talmudic Law governed every imaginable action of a Jew’s life anywhere in the world: marriage, divorce, property settlements, commercial transactions, down to the pettiest details of dress and toilet. As unforeseen things frequently crop in daily life, the question of what was legal or illegal (not what was right or wrong) in all manner of novel circumstances had incessantly to be debated, and this produced the immense records of rabbinical dispute and decisions in which the Talmud abounds.

Was it as much a crime to crush a flea as to kill a camel on the sacred day? One learned rabbi allowed that the flea might be gently squeezed, and another thought its feet might even be cut off. How many white hairs might a sacrificial red cow have and yet remain a red cow? What sort of scabs required this or that ritual of purification? At which end of an animal should the operation of slaughter be performed? Ought the high priest to put on his shirt or his hose first? Methods of putting apostates to death were debated; they must be strangled, said the elders, until they opened their mouths, into which boiling lead must be poured. Thereon a pious rabbi urged that the victim’s mouth be held open with pincers so that he not suffocate before the molten lead enter and consume his soul with his body. The word “pious” is here not sardonically used; this scholar sought to discover the precise intention of “the Law”. Talmudic scholars. Might a louse or a flea be killed on the Sabbath? The Talmudic reponse was that the first was allowed and the second was a deadly sin.

MHR THE CULT IS THE SLAVE MASTER, THE PERSECUTOR, OF THE JEW…NO ‘GENTILE’ EVER DID SUCH THINGS TO ANY JEWS… AND ALL FOR SIMPLY DECIDING THEY DID NOT WANT TO BE IN THE CULT ANY MORE , OR FOR CHALLENGING SOME CULT RULE, POSSIBLY JUST WRITTEN …

the Jews, “owing to the acceptance of the idea of the Chosen People, and of salvation . . . could interpret everything that happened only from the standpoint of themselves as the centre”.

Enough is known of the Talmud (and most of this from Jewish or converted-Jewish sources) for its nature to be clear, and nothing is gained by heaping proof endlessly on proof. Ample enlightenment can be obtained from the Jewish Encyclopaedia, the German translation of the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds (Zurich 1880 and Leipzig 1889), William Ruben’s Der alte und der neue Glaube im Judentum, Strack’s Einleitung in den Talmud, Laible’s Jesus Christus im Talmud, Drach’s De l´Harmoni entre l´Eglise et la Synagogue, and Graetz’s History of the Jews.

The Talmud is admittedly manmade. The Torah was attributed to the voice of Jehovah, recorded by Moses. This is of great significance.

Dr. Kastein was accurate in saying, “It was not God who willed these people and their meaning; it was this people who willed this God and this meaning”,

When the Talmud was completed the question which the future had to answer was whether the central sect would succeed in imposing this New Law on the scattered Jews, as Ezra and Nehemiah, with Persian help, had inflicted the New Covenant on the Judahites in Jerusalem in 444 BC.

They did succeed. In 1898, at the Second World Zionist Congress at Basel, a Zionist from Russia, Dr. Mandelstamm of Kieff, declared, “The Jews energetically reject the idea of fusion with other nationalities and cling firmly to their historical hope, i.e., of world empire”.

JEWS HAVE NOT SUFFERED DISPROPORTIONATELY COMPARED TO OTHER PEOPLES…THEIR SHARE HAS BEEN AS SMALL AS THEIR RELATIVE NUMBERS…

The ghetto was not something inflicted on the Jews by the Gentiles. It was the logical product of the Talmudic Law, and derived directly from the experiment in Babylon. Dr. Kastein describes the Talmud as “the home” which the Jews took everywhere with them. However, for physical life they also needed four walls and a roof. The Talmud itself decreed that the Gentiles were not “neighbours” and that a Jew might not sell landed property adjoining that of a Jew to a Gentile. The express object of such provisions as these was the segregation of Jews from others and their isolation in ghettoes.

The first ghetto was that which the Babylonian rulers allowed the Levites to set up in Babylon. The next was the Jerusalem around which Nehemiah, backed by the Persian king’s soldiers, built new walls, wherefrom he drove out all non-Judahites. From those models the European ghetto took its shape.

Jews who never saw a ghetto carry a half-conscious memory of it within them like a haunting fear, yet it was essentially a Talmudist conception, to which their ancestors surrendered. It was the perfect means of corralling a scattered congregation, imprisoning people’s minds, and wielding power over them.

The demand for a ghetto often came from the Talmudists (that is to say, outside Poland, where all Jewish life, of course, was ghetto-life). The modern suggestion that the ghetto signified inferiority is part of the legend of “persecution”, which is chiefly meant to intimidate Jews, so that they shall always fear to venture outside the fold; today’s myth of “antisemitism” is intended to produce the same effect on them.

In ancient Alexandria (the New York of its day) and in medieval Cairo and Cordova the Jewish quarters were established at the insistence of the rabbis, intent on keeping their flock isolated from others. In 1084 the Jews of Speyer petitioned the ruling German prince to set up a ghetto; in 1412, at Jewish request, a

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 76 —

ghetto law was enacted throughout Portugal. The erection of the ghetto walls in Verona and Mantua was for centuries celebrated annually by the Jews there in a festival of victory (Purim). a ghetto made such control easy and absolute” (Rabbi Elmer Berger …The ghettoes of Russia and Poland were an essential and integral part of theTalmudic organization and any attempt to abolish them would have been denounced as persecution.

When the Roman ghetto was destroyed at Mussolini’s order in the early 1930’s the Jewish press (as Mr. Bernard J. Brown records) lamented the event in such words as these:

“One of the most unique phenomena of Jewish life in Goluth is gone. Where but a few months ago a vibrant Jewish life was pulsating, there now remains a few [96] half-destroyed buildings as the last vestige of the quondam ghetto. It has fallen victim to the Fascist passion for beauty and under Mussolini’s order the ghetto has been razed. . .” .

The implication of this is that the razing of the ghetto was “Fascism”, just as the original creation of ghettoes (at Jewish demand) is presented as persecution by the Zionist historians of today.

With emancipation the ghetto disappeared; its maintenance would too blatantly have shown that the rulers of Jewry had no true intention of sharing in emancipation on an equal basis.

The Talmudic regime in the close confinement of the ghettoes was in its nature essentially rule by terror, and employed the recognizable methods of terror: spies-on-spies, informers, denunciants, cursing and excommunication, and death. The secret-police and concentration-camp regime of the Communist era evidently took its nature from this model, which was familiar to its Talmudic organizers.

During the many centuries of Talmudist government the terror, and the dogma which it enclosed, produced two significant results. These were recurrent Messianic outbursts, which expressed the captives’ longing to escape the terror; and recurrent protests against the dogma, from the Jews themselves.

These were latterday symptoms of the feeling expressed on the ancient day when “the people wept” at the reading of The Law. The Talmud forbade the Jew almost every activity other than the amassing of money

Even the most docile in time questioned the credentials of such a Law, asking “Can it be really true that every new edict and ban derives from God’s revelation at Sinai?” That was their rulers’ claim: “according to the Jewish view God had given Moses on Mount Sinai alike the oral and written Law, that is, the Law with all its interpretations and applications”,

MHR BASICALLY SAME PROBLEM OF PROTESTANTS WITH CATHOLIC CHURCH’S CLAIMS TO ‘DIVINE’ AUTHORITY FOR ‘NEW’ LAWS / RULES I.E ITSELF A CULT…

The “Great Ban” was in effect a death sentence, and was so intended. It called down on the victim the “cursings” enumerated in Deuteronomy, and cursing was (and by the literal devotees of this sect still is) held to be literally effective.

The article on “Cursing” in the Jewish Encyclopaedia says, “Talmudic literature betrays a belief, amounting to downright superstition, in the mere power of the word . . . Not only is a curse uttered by a scholar unfailing even if undeserved . . . Scholars cursed sometimes not only with their mouths, but by an angry, fixed look. The unfailing consequence of such a look was either immediate death or poverty”.

This is recognizably the practice known today as “the evil eye”, of which my encyclopaedia says, “This superstition is of ancient date, and is met with among almost all races, as it is among illiterate people and savages still”. The Jewish Encyclopaedia shows that it is a prescribed legal penalty under the Judaic Law

Moses Maimonides (born at the Talmudic centre, Cordova, in 1135) drew up a famous code of the principles of Judaism and wrote, “It is forbidden to defraud or deceive any person in business. Judaist and non-Judaist are to be treated alike . . . What some people imagine, that it is permissible to cheat a Gentile, is an error, and based on ignorance . . . Deception, duplicity, cheating and circumvention towards a Gentile are despicable to the Almighty, as ‘all that do unrighteously are an abomination unto the Lord thy God’ “.

The Talmudists denounced Maimonides to the Inquisition, saying, “Behold, there are among us heretics and infidels, for they were seduced by Moses Ben Maimonides. . . you who clear your community of heretics, clear ours too”. At this behest his books were burned in Paris and Montpellier, the book-burning edict of the Talmudic law thus being fulfilled. On his grave the words were incised, “Here lies an excommunicated Jew”.

The Inquisition, like the Gentile rulers of the earlier period and the Gentile politicians of our day, often did the bidding of the inveterate sect. The falsification of history, insofar as it relates to this particular subject, has left the impression on Gentile minds that the Inquisition was primarily an instrument of “the Jewish persecution”. in 1232, at the denunciation of the Talmudists, it had ordered the anti-Talmudic work of Maimonides to be publicly burned!

MHR SO IN FACT AGAIN THE CULT LEADERSHIP IS THE PERSECUTOR, USING THE HOST NATIONS POWER TO INFLICT THE HARM / PUNISHMENT / PERSECUTION, IN THIS CASE ANY ‘NON-CONFORMISTS’ IN THEIR OWN CULT…

Another great expostulant against the Talmud was Baruch Spinoza, born at Amsterdam in 1632. The ban pronounced on him by the Amsterdam rabbinate derives directly from the “cursings” of Deuteronomy: “By the sentence of the angels, by the decree of the saints, we anathematise, cut [101] off, curse and execrate Baruch Spinoza, in the presence of these sacred books with the six hundred and thirteen precepts which are written therein, with the anathema wherewith Joshua anathematized Jericho; with the cursing wherewith Elisha cursed the children; and with all the cursings which are written in the Torah; cursed be he by day and cursed by night; cursed when he goeth out, and cursed when he cometh in; the Lord pardon him never; the wrath and fury of the Lord burn upon this man; and bring upon him all the curses which are written in the Torah. The Lord blot out his name under the heaven. The Lord set him apart for destruction from all the tribes of Israel, with all the curses of the firmament which are written in the Torah. There shall be no man to speak to him, no man write to him, no man show him any kindness, no man stay under the same roof with him, no man come nigh unto him”.

Spinoza was banished from Amsterdam and exposed to “a persecution which threatened his life”, as one encyclopaedia puts it. In fact it took his life, in the way depicted by Mr. Rodkinson (as previously quoted). Shunned and destitute, he died at forty-four in a Gentile city, far from the centre of Talmudic government but not far enough to save him.

Two hundred years later, during the century of emancipation, Moses Mendelssohn proclaimed the heresy that Jews, while retaining their faith, ought to become integrated with their fellow men. That meant breaking free from the Talmud and returning to the ancient religious idea of which the Israelite remonstrants had glimpses. His guiding thought was, “Oh, my brethren, follow the example of love, as you have till now followed that of hatred”. Mendelssohn had grown up in the study of the Talmud. He prepared for his children a German translation of the Bible, which he then published for general use among Jews.

The Talmudic rabbinate, declaring that “the Jewish youth would learn the German language from Mendelssohn’s translation, more than an understanding of the Torah”, put it under ban: “All true to Judaism are for bidden under penalty of excommunication to use the translation”. They then had the translation publicly burned in Berlin.

MHR JEWS AS THE ORIGINAL BOOK BURNERS TOO…NAZISM’S MODEL FOR RACIAL PURITY LAWS, RACE SUPREMACISM …

the Jewish mass, or mob, was not different from all mobs, or masses, at all periods in history. The mass passively submitted to the revolution in France, to Communism in Russia, to National Socialism in Germany, its inertia being greater than any will to resist or the fear of ensuing danger. So it has always been with the Jews and the Talmudic terror.

What was actually permitted in the synagogues and schools was a unique form of dialectics, designed still further to strengthen the edifice of The

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 81 —

Law. The disputants were merely allowed to prove that anything was legal under the Talmud; one debater would state a proposition and another the contrary, each demonstrating that The Law allowed it!

This practice (the brothers Thoreau give glimpses of it in their books) was called “pilpulism”. It gives the key to a mystery which often baffles Gentiles: the agility with which Zionists are often able to justify, in themselves, precisely what they reproach in others. A polemist trained in pilpulism would have no difficulty in showing the Judaic law ordaining the enslavement of household Gentiles to be righteous and the Roman ban on the enslavement of Christians by Jewish masters to be “persecution”; the Judaic ban on intermarriage to be “voluntary separation” and any Gentile counter-ban to be “discrimination based in prejudice” (Dr. Kastein’s terms); a massacre of Arabs to be rightful under The Law and a massacre of Jews to be wrongful under any law.

An example of pilpulism is provided by Dr. Kastein’s own description of pilpulism: “A species of spiritual gymnastics which is frequently practised where men’s intellects, menaced with suffocation by the pressure of the outside world, find no outlet for creative expression in real life”.

The italicised words are the pilpulist’s suggestive interjection; these debaters were stifled by pressure from within their communities, not from “the outside world” (which their Law excluded).

These pilpulist “discussions of the Talmud” may have given the closed communities a slight, and illusory, sense of participation in the despotism that ruled them (like the vote, which may be cast only for one party, in today’s dictatorship states). Their real yearning, to escape from their captivity, found its outlet in the Messianic outbreaks; possibly the permission to “discuss the [103] Talmud” was granted in the hope of checking these.

Ever and again the cry went up from the communities, held fast within the tribal palisade, “We are doing all the statutes and judgments; now give us the promised, miraculous End!” Thus the series of Messiahs appeared, and each time whipped the communities into a frenzy of anticipation. They were always denounced as “false Messiahs” (they had to be so denounced, as the ruling sect could not effect the triumphant enthronement in Jerusalem which The Law promised), and the people in the ghettoes fell back into hope deferred.

Early Messiahs were Abu Isa of Ispahan in the seventh, Zonarias of Syria in the eighth, and Saadya ben Joseph in the tenth century. The most famous of all was Sabbatai Zevi of Smyrna, who in 1648 proclaimed that the Millennium was at hand by pronouncing the dread name of God in the Synagogue, whereon the Ban was put on him and “to escape its effects” he fled, and stayed away for many years. However, his effect on the Jewish communities, pining for the promised End, was immense. They agreed that he was the Messiah; so that he returned to Smyrna in 1665 in defiance of the Talmudists, who in him perceived the greatest threat to their authority in many centuries.

Sabbatai Zevi next declared himself to be the Messiah. The desire to exchange the chains of the Talmud for the triumphant fulfilment in Jerusalem was so great that the congregation in Smyrna, followed by the Jewish masses all over the world, brushed aside the Talmudists’ ban and acclaimed him. He then proclaimed that 1666 was to be the Messianic year, distributed the crowns of the world among his friends, and set out for Constantinople to dethrone the Sultan of Turkey (then ruler of Palestine). Jews everywhere began to sell their businesses, homes and chattels in preparation for “the return” and the day of world dominion. In London (as Samuel Pepys recorded in February 1666) bets were made among Jews on the prospects of his being acclaimed “King of the World and the true Messiah”.

As was to be expected, he was arrested when he reached Constantinople and cast in jail. This merely increased his renown and following; the prison was besieged by clamorous throngs, so that he was removed to a fortress in Gallipoli, which in turn was transformed into a royal residence by gifts from Jews. Massemotions were fully aroused; in the imagination of a scattered nation, long isolated from mankind, he was the King of the World, come to liberate them by setting them over all mankind.

At that instant Sabbatai Zevi had done exactly what the elders of the sect them selves had done: he had promised what he could not fulfil (this is the basic flaw in the creed, which must eventually destroy it). Unlike the wary elders, he had set himself a time limit: the last day of the year 1666! As the year approached its end (and the Talmudic government in Poland, now sure of the outcome, through an emissary denounced him to the Sultan as “a false Messiah”), he decided, in his prison-palace, to save himself. With great ceremony he had [104] himself converted to Islam and ended his days at the Sultan’s court, like any present-day Zionist in New York. For a while he had shaken even the Talmudic government, which then put “the great Ban” on his

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 82 —

followers. A tiny remnant of them survive to this day; they believe that Sabbatai will return and that his example must be copied, including conversion to Islam.

Zionism in our time is recognisably a new form of Messianism,

the story of Zion is all summed-up in Mr. Maurice Samuel’s twenty-one words: “We Jews, the destroyers, will remain the destroyer forever . . . nothing that the Gentiles will do will meet our needs and demands”.

Zionist scribes, apostate rabbis and Gentile historians agree about the destructive purpose; it is not in dispute among serious students and is probably the only point on which agreement is unanimous. All history is presented to the Jew in these terms: that destruction is the condition of the fulfilment of the Judaic Law and of the ultimate Jewish triumph.

“All history” means different things to the Jew and the Gentile. To the Gentile it means, approximately, the annals of the Christian era and any that extend further back before they begin to fade into legend and myth.

To the Jew it means the record of events given in the Torah-Talmud and the rabbinical sermons, and this reaches back to 3760 BC., the exact date of the Creation. The Law and “history” are the same, and there is only Jewish history; this narrative unfolds itself before his eyes exclusively as a tale of destructive achievement and of Jewish vengeance, in the present time as three thousand or more years ago.

The command, “destroy”, forms the very basis of the Law which the Levites made. If it be deleted, what remains is not “the Mosaic Law”, or the same religion, but something different; the imperative, “destroy”, is the mark of identity. It must have been deliberately chosen. Many other words could have been used; for instance, conquer, defeat, vanquish, subdue; but destroy was chosen, It was put in the mouth of God, but obviously was the choice of the scribes.

The act of destruction is sometimes the subject of a bargain between God and the chosen people, on an “If” and “Then” basis; either God offers to destroy, or the chosen people ask him to destroy. In each case the act of destruction is depicted as something so meritorious that it demands a high equivalent service. Thus:

“If thou shalt indeed. . . do all that I speak, then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies . . . and will destroy all the people to whom thou shalt come” (Exodus). (In this case God is quoted as promising destruction in return for “observance”; chief among the “statutes and judgments” to be observed is, “Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served other Gods”; Deuteronomy).

Conversely: “And Israel vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy their cities; And the Lord hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities” (Numbers). As will be seen, the bargain about “destruction” is conditional, in both cases, on performance of a counter-service by the people or by God.

The command, “utterly destroy”, being high among the tenets of the inflexible Law, any exercise of clemency, or other shortcoming in utter destruction, is a grave legal offence, not merely an error of judgment. For this very crime (under this Law it is a crime, not a misdemeanour) Saul, the first and only true king of the united kingdom of Israel and Judah, was dethroned by the priests and David, the man of Judah, put in his place. This reason for David’s elevation is significant, as the “king of the world”, yet to come, is to be of the house of David. The same lesson is repeatedly driven home in the books of The Law, particularly by the [107] allegorical massacre of the Midianites which concludes Moses’s narrative ( Numbers).

This was the basis on which all The Law, and all history of that time and later times, was built. From the moment when Israel rejected them and they were left alone with the Levites, the Judahites were ruled by a priesthood which avowed that destruction was Jehovah’s chief command and that they were divinely chosen to destroy. Thus they became the only people in history specifically dedicated to destruction as such. Destruction as an attendant result of war is a familiar feature of all human history. Destruction as an avowed purpose was never before known and the only discoverable source of this unique idea is the Torah-Talmud.

The intention clearly was to organize a destructive force

Out of the experience of 458444 BC, when the Levites with Persian help clamped down their law on a weeping people, the nation was born which ever since has performed its catalytic function of changing surrounding societies while remaining itself unchanged.

The Jews became the universal catalyst, and the changes they produced were destructive.

The Law specifically enjoined the chosen people to ruin other peoples among whom Jehovah “scattered” them as punishment for their own “transgressions”.

For instance, Exodus cannot be regarded as more than a legend which received a priestly re-editing in Jerusalem and Babylon many centuries after any time at which anything resembling the events described in it could have occurred. Therefore the scribes had no need to attribute to the Egyptians fear of the destructive purpose nursed by the sojourners in their midst. If they did this, in the very first chapter of Exodus. (“Come, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies and fight against us. . . “) it was evidently to fix the idea of this destructive mission in the minds of the people over whom they ruled.

Here the idea that “the people” should join with their hosts’ enemies, in order to destroy their hosts, first appears. When the story reaches a more or less verifiable event (the fall of Babylon) it is portrayed in such a way as to foster this same notion. The Judahites are depicted as joining with the enemies of Babylon and exultantly welcoming the Persian invader. The destruction of Babylon is [108] shown as an act of vengeance wreaked by Jehovah on behalf of the Judahites, exclusively; this vengeance is extended also to a king and the manner of his death (both apparently invented, but valid as historical precedents).

The presentation of history in the Old Testament ends with the next act of vengeance, on the Persian liberators! Western political leaders of our century, who often were flattered to be compared by Zionist visitors to good King Cyrus of Persia, the liberator of the Judahites, may not have read “The Law” with attention or have noted what then befell the Persians. Logically the Persians in their turn had to suffer for having Judahites among them.

For the purpose of this allegorical anecdote, a symbolic heathen “persecutor”, Haman, was created, who advised the Persian king Ahasuerus: “There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of thy kingdom and their laws are diverse from those of every people; neither keep they the king’s laws; therefore it profiteth not the king to suffer them” (Esther 3). Thus far, Haman’s words are not much different from the opinion which any statesman might, and many statesmen through the centuries until our day did, proffer in respect of the “severed” people and their unique Law. But then, according to Esther, Haman adds, “If it please the king, let it be written that they may be destroyed “, and king Ahasuerus gives the order. (Haman has to speak so, and king Ahasuerus to act so, in order that the ensuing Jewish vengeance may come about.) Letters go out to all provincial governors that all Jews are to be killed in one day, “even upon the thirteenth day of the twelfth month”.

The later scribes who composed the book of Esther apparently wished to vary the theme of the powerful Judahite at the court of the foreign king, and conceived the character of Esther the secret Jewess, the favourite concubine of the Persian king who was raised to be his consort. At Esther’s intercession the king cancels the order and has Haman and his ten sons hanged on gallows which Haman had built for Mordecai the Jew (Esther’s cousin and guardian). The king also gives Mordecai carte blanche, whereon Mordecai instructs the governors of the “hundred twenty and seven provinces” from India unto Ethiopia to have the Jews in every city “gather themselves together and to stand for their life, to destroy, to slay and to cause to perish all the power of the people . . . both little ones and women . . .”

This countermanding decree being published, “the Jews had joy and gladness, a feast and a good day” and (a detail of interest) “many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them”.

Then, on the appointed day, the Jews “smote all their enemies with the stroke of the sword, and slaughter, and destruction, and did what they would unto those that hated them, slaying of their foes “seventy and five thousand”. Mordecai then ordered that the fourteenth and fifteenth days of the month Adar should in future be kept as “days of feasting and joy”, and so it has been, ever since.

[109]

Apparently Haman, Mordecai and Esther were all imaginary. No “king Ahasuerus” historically exists, though one encyclopaedia (possibly from the wish to breathe life into the veins of the parables) says that Ahasuerus “has been identified with Xerxes”. In that case he was father of the king Artaxerxes who sent

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 86 —

soldiers with Nehemiah to Jerusalem to enforce the racial “New Covenant”, and in that event, again, Artaxerxes so acted after witnessing in his own country a massacre of 75,000 Persian subjects by Jews!

No historical basis for the story can be discovered and it has all the marks of chauvinist propaganda.

The perplexing fact remains that, if it was invented, it could be true in every detail today, when The Law founded on such anecdotes has been imposed on The West. Today people cannot “become Jews” (or very rarely), but a familiar picture of our time is conveyed in the words, “many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them”; in our generation they become “Zionist sympathizers” from the same motive.

How faithful a portrait of the 20th Century politician in Washington or London is given in the passage, “and all the rulers of the provinces, and the lieutenants, and the deputies, and officers of the king, helped the Jews; because the fear of Mordecai fell upon them”. If neither king Ahasuerus nor “Mordecai sitting in the king’s gate” truly lived in 550 BC, nevertheless Mordecai in our century is real and powerful and two generations of public men have administered their offices from fear of him more than from care of their peoples’ interest.

MHR PREDICTIVE PROGRAMMING AND SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECIES AND SUGGESTION…PRECEDENCE USED TO JUSTIFY ACT ‘AGAIN’…PEOPLE TODAY CLEARLY FEAR, LIKE IN JEW.S.S.R, LOSING THEIR JOBS, CAREERS, PROMOTIONS, FINES, IMPRISONMENT, PUBLIC SHAMING, ETC…

It is our today which makes this remote, implausible yesterday so plausible. On the face of it, Belshazzar and Daniel, Ahasuerus and Mordecai seem to be symbolic figures, created for the purpose of the Levitical political programme, not men who once lived. But. . . the massacre of the Czar and his family, in our century, was carried out according to verse 30, chapter 5 of Daniel: the hanging of the Nazi leaders followed the precept laid down in verses 6 and 10, chapter 7, and verses 13 and 14, chapter 9, of Esther.

Whether these anecdotes were fact or fable, they have become The Law of our century. The most joyful festivals of the Jewish year commemorate the ancient legends of destruction and vengeance on which The Law is based: the slaying of “all the firstborn of Egypt”, and Mordecai’s massacre.

MHR TALK ABOUT ‘CONTROLLING THE NARRATIVE’…THAT IS WHAT CULTS ARE ALL ABOUT…DEFINING REALITY…

Perhaps, then, it is even true that within fifty years of their conquest by Babylon the Jews brought about the destruction of that kingdom by Persia; and that within fifty years of their liberation by the Persian king they had in turn possessed themselves of the Persian kingdom, to such an extent that the king’s governors “from India to Ethiopia” from fear of the Jews carried out a pogrom of 75,000 people, and that the death “accursed of God” was inflicted on some selected “enemies”. In that case the Persian liberator fared rather worse at the captives’ hands than the Babylonian captor, earlier.

[110]

As this tale goes along, with its inevitable allusions to “the Jews”, it is important to remember that there have always been two minds in Judaism, and quotations from our time serve to illustrate this.

A Chicago rabbi, Mr. Solomon B. Freehof, quoted by Mr. Bernard J. Brown, considered the story of Haman, Mordecai and Esther to be “the essence of all the history of the Jewish people”; whereas Mr. Brown himself (also of Chicago) says the celebration of Purim ought to be discontinued and forgotten, being in the present time “a travesty” even of “the festivals which were so disgusting” to the Israelite prophets. (Purim had not been invented when Isaiah and Hosea made their impassioned protests against the “appointed seasons” and “feast days”).

Mr. Brown wrote in 1933 and the event of 1946, when the Nazi leaders were hanged on a Jewish feast day, showed that his remonstrance was as vain as the ancient remonstrances cited by him. In 1946, as twentyseven centuries earlier, the view expressed by Rabbi Freehof prevailed. The essential features of the event commemorated by Purim are those which invariably recur in earlier and later stages of the story of Zion: the use of a Gentile ruler to destroy Gentiles and give effect to the Judaic vengeance.

From the time of Mordecai, as the Old Testament provides no more history, the student must turn to Judaist authorities to learn whether later events also were presented to Jews in the same light; namely, as a series of Jewish ordeals suffered at the hands of “the heathen”, each leading to the ruination of the heathen nation concerned and to a Judaic vengeance.

This research leads to the conclusion that all history, to the present time, is so seen by the elders of the sect and so presented to the Jewish masses. In the same way that Egypt, Babylon and Persia, in the Old Testament, exist only insofar as they capture, oppress or otherwise behave towards Jews, who are then avenged by Jehovah, so in the scholars’ presentation of the later period does all else fall away. Rome, Greece

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 87 —

and all subsequent empires have life and being, in this depictment, only to the extent that the behaviour of Jews towards them or their behaviour towards Jews gives them existence.

After Babylon and Persia, the next nation to feel the impact of the catalytic force was Egypt. The Jewish community in Alexandria (which had been large even before its reinforcement by fugitives from the Babylonian invasion) was at this period the largest single body of Jews in the known world; Egypt was in that respect in the position of Russia before the 1914-1918 war and of the United States today. The attitude of the Jews, or at all events of the elders, towards the Egyptians was the same as their earlier attitude towards the Persians and Babylonians.

Dr. Kastein says, first, that Egypt was “the historic refuge” for Jews, which sounds like a grateful tribute until subsequent words show that “a refuge” is a place to be destroyed. He describes the feeling of the Jews towards the Egyptians in words very similar to those concerning the Jews which Exodus attributes to the [111] Egyptians in respect of the earlier “captivity”. He says, the Jews in Egypt “constituted a closed community . . . they led a secluded life and built their own temples . . . the Egyptians felt that the religious exclusiveness of the Jews showed that they despised and spurned their own form of faith”. He adds that the Jews “naturally” upheld the Persian cause because Persia had formerly “helped them restore Judah.

Thus the fact that Egypt had given shelter, and was “the historic refuge” did not entitle Egypt to any gratitude or loyalty. Hostility to the host-people took the form of support for the Egyptians’ enemy and therefore awoke Egyptian suspicion: “Other causes of hostility were the determination Shown by the Jews not to become assimilated with the people about them or identify themselves with the country of their adoption . . . The profound spiritual necessity of keeping in touch with every branch of the nation, the call for loyalty towards every group of their own people, however fragmentary, was bound to affect the integrity of their citizenship of a particular state”.

“As in Babylon of yore”, concludes Dr. Kastein, the Jews in Egypt extended “open arms” to the Persian conqueror. Yet Egypt had shown the Jews only hospitality.

Babylon, Persia, Egypt . . . then came Greece. In 332 BC. Greece conquered Persia and the Greek rule of Egypt began; Alexandria became the Greek capital. Many Alexandrine Jews would fain have followed Jeremiah’s counsel to “seek the peace of the city”. The power of the sect and the destructive teaching prevailed.

Dr. Kastein, the sect’s devotee, says of Greece and its civilization merely that, “it was intellectually brilliant . . . but the prototype of everything that was mendacious, cruel, slanderous, cunning, indolent, vain, corruptible, grasping and unjust”. He dismisses the episode of Greece with the triumphant note. “The Alexandrian Jews brought about the disintegration of Hellenic civilization “.

Babylon, Persia, Egypt, Greece . . . Up to the start of the Christian era, therefore, history back to the Creation was presented to the Jews, by their scriptures and their scholars, as an exclusively Jewish affair, which took note of “the heathen” only insofar as they impinged on Jewish life, and as a record of destruction achieved against these heathen, in peace and war.

Was this portrayal true, of events in the pre-Christian era, and did it continue true of later events, down to our day?

The inference of our own generation, of which it is certainly true, is that is has always been true. In our century conflicts between nations, on the Babylonian-Persian model, even though they seemed at their start to be concerned with issues remote from any Jewish question, were turned into Judaic triumphs and Judaic vengeances, so that the destruction which accompanied them became an act of fulfilment under The Judaic Law, like the slaying of the Egyptian firstborn, the destruction of Babylon, and Mordecai’s pogrom.

[112]

Rome followed Greece, and when Rome rose Cicero evidently shared the opinion, about the part played by the Jews in the disintegration of Greek civilization, which a Dr. Kastein was to express twenty centuries later, for at the trial of Flaccus Cicero looked fearfully behind him when he spoke of Jews; he knew (he said) that they all held together and that they knew how to ruin him who opposed them, and he counselled caution in dealing with them.

Fuscus, Ovid and Persius uttered similar warnings, and, during the lifetime of Jesus, Seneca said, “The customs of this criminal nation are gaining ground so rapidly that they already have adherents in every

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 88 —

country, and thus the conquered force their laws upon the conqueror”. At this period too the Roman geographer Strabo commented on the distribution and number of the Jews (which in our time is patently so much greater than any statistics are allowed to express), saying that there was no place in the earth where they were not.

Greece and Rome, in the common Gentile view, created enduring values on which the civilization of Europe was built. Out of Greece came beauty and Greek foundations lie beneath all poetry and art; out of Rome came law and Roman ones lie beneath Magna Charta, Habeas Corpus and the right of a man to fair and public trial, which was the greatest achievement of The West.

To the Zionist scholar Greece and Rome were just transient heathen manifestations, equally repellent. Dr. Kastein says disdainfully that in Rome “from the very beginning Judea quite rightly saw merely the representative of unintellectual and stupid brute force”.

For three hundred years after the lifetime of Jesus, Rome persecuted the Christians. After the conversion of the Emperor Constantine to Christianity in 320 AD, the Jews were forbidden to circumcize their slaves, keep Christian ones, or intermarry; this application of the Judaic Law in reverse is held by Dr. Kastein to be persecution.

After the division of the Roman Empire in 395 Palestine became part of the Byzantine Empire. The ban on Jews in Jerusalem had only been lifted after Rome became predominantly Christian, so that the city might still have been empty of Jews, but for Christianity. However, when the Persians in 614 carried their war against Byzantium into Palestine, the Jews “flocked to the Persian army from all sides” and then participated, “with the fury of men bent on avenging themselves for three hundred years of oppression”, in “a wholesale massacre of Christians”, (again according to Dr. Kastein, to whom, as above shown, the ban on the enslavement of Christians is oppression).

MHR ‘OPPRESSION’ TO THE CULT MENTALITY IS BEING DENIED THE RIGHT TO ENSLAVE OTHERS, TO RULE THE EARTH, TO IMPOSE YOUR CULT DEFINITIONS ON EVERYONE…AMALEK IS TO OPPOSE THE JEW WORLD ORDER IN ANY WAY…THIS IS YOUR JEWISH ‘OPPRESSION’…THEIR OWN LEADERS PUT THEM IN GHETTOES TO CONTROL THEM, PROVOKED ANIMOSITY AMONG HOST NATIONS SO THEIR CAPTIVES, THE ‘JEWS’, THE CULT MEMBERS, WOULD FEEL OPPRESSED, AND SEEK ACCEPTANCE, APPROVAL, COMFORT, SECURITY ETC AMONG THEIR FELLOW CULT MEMBERS I.E DRIVE THE LESS ENTHUSIASTIC CULT AFFILIATES BACK TO THE CENTER OF THE CULT, FROM THE FRINGES I.E MENTALLY AND EMOTIONALLY…TO PRODUCE AN ‘ENEMY’ AS A SOURCE OF IDENTITY AND UNIFYING FORCE I.E WHAT WE ARE NOT, RATHER THAN WHAT WE ARE, OFTEN DEFINES A CULT…THEY ARE NOT US…RATHER THAN LOVE OF THE OTHER CULT MEMBERS, OR EVEN THE CULT…YOU MAY HATE FAMILY MEMBERS, BUT YOU KNOW THAT IN TIMES OF CRISIS (OR EXPECT) THAT THEY MUST STAND BY YOU, SO YOU WILL NEVER TRULY DISAVOW THEM / ALLOW OTHERS TO ATTACK THEM…NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU DO…DEPENDENCE ON THE CULT / FAMILY IS THE SAME…ESPECIALLY IF THE CULT LEADERS DELIBERATELY PROVOKE ANIMOSITY TOWARDS YOUR CULT…

Enthusiasm for the Persians died with the vengeance on Christians; fourteen years later the Jews “were only too ready to negotiate with the Byzantine emperor Heraclitus”, and to help him to reconquer Jerusalem.

Then came Muhammad and Islam. Muhammad shared the view of Cicero and other, earlier authorities; his Koran, in addition to the allusion previously cited, says, “Thou shalt surely find the most violent of all men in enmity against the true [113] believers to be the Jews and the idolaters . . .”

Nevertheless, Islam (like Christianity) showed no enmity against the Jews and Dr. Kastein has a relatively good word for it: “Islam allowed the infidel absolute economic freedom and autonomous administration . . . Islam certainly practised toleration towards those of other faith . . . Judaism was never offered such fine chances, such fine opportunities to flourish, from Christianity”.

These “opportunities to flourish” were provided by Islam for the Jews on the soil of Europe, in Spain, as previously told; this was the entrance into the West, made possible by Islam to “the most violent of all men”. In the wake of the Islamic conqueror the Talmudic government (after the Caliph Omar had taken Jerusalem in 637 and swept on westward with his armies) moved into Spain!

The Visigoth kings there had already developed similar feelings, about the Jews in their midst, to those expressed by Cicero, Muhammad and others. One of their last, Euric, at the Twelfth Council of Toledo, begged the bishops” to make one last effort to pull this Jewish pest out by the roots” (about 680). After that the Visigoth era quickly came to an end, the Islamic invader establishing himself in southern and central Spain in 712.

Dr. Kastein says, “The Jews supplied pickets and garrison troops for Andalusia”. Professor Graetz more fully describes this first encounter between the Jews and peoples of Northern European stock:

“The Jews of Africa . . . and their unlucky co-religionists of the Peninsula made common cause with the Mohammedan conqueror, Tarik . . . After the battle of Xeres, July 711, and the death of Roderic, the last Visigoth king, the victorious Arabs pushed onward and were everywhere supported by the Jews. In every city that they conquered, the Moslem generals were able to leave but a small garrison of their own troops, as they had need of every man for the subjection of their country; they therefore confided them to the safekeeping of the Jews. In this manner the Jews, who but lately had been serfs, now became the masters of the towns of Cordova, Granada, Malaga and many others. When Tarik appeared before the capital, Toledo, he found it occupied by a small garrison only . . . While the Christians were in church, praying for the safety of their country and religion, the Jews flung open the gates to the victorious Arabs, receiving them with acclamations and thus avenged themselves for the many miseries which had befallen them . . . The capital also was

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 89 —

entrusted by Tarik to the custody of the Jews . . . Finally when Musa Ibn Nossair, the Governor of Africa, brought a second army into Spain and conquered other cities, he also delivered them into the custody of the Jews . . .”

The picture is identical with that of all earlier historical, or legendary, events in which the Jews were concerned: a conflict between two “stranger” peoples was transformed into a Judaic triumph and a Judaic vengeance.

The Jews (as in Babylon and Egypt) turned against the people with whom they lived and once more “flung open the gates” to the foreign invader. The foreign invader, in his turn, “delivered” the cities taken by him to the Jews.

[114]

In war the capital city and the other great cities, the power and control over them, are the fruits of victory; they went to the Jews, not to the victor. The Caliph’s generals evidently paid as little heed to the Koran’s warnings as Western politicians of today pay to the teaching of the New Testament.

As to “the miseries” for which the Jews thus took vengeance, Professor Graetz specifically states that the cruellest of these was the denial of the right to keep slaves: “the most oppressive of them was the restraint touching the possession of slaves; henceforward the Jews were neither to purchase Christian slaves nor to accept them as presents”!

MHR HERE WE HAVE IT AGAIN LITERALLY FROM THE MOUTH OF A JEW…IT IS OPPRESSION NOT TO BE ALLOWED TO ENSLAVE NON-JEWS…FOR IT IS THE JEWS RIGHT TO ENSLAVE ALL OF HUMANITY…THAT IS THEIR DIVINE BIRTHRIGHT…DENYING THEM THIS IS OPPRESSION…’THE MOST OPPRESSIVE / CRUEL OF THE MISERIES / INJUSTICES / OPRESSION COMMITTED AGAINST JEWS WAS THIS…IMAGINE … CONSIDER THIS ANY TIME YOU ARE TOLD ABOUT ‘PERSECUTION OF JEWS THROUGHOUT HISTORY’…IT DOES NOT MEAN TO THE JEW WHAT IT MEANS TO YOU…IT IS THE MOST ARROGANT, ABSURD, REPUGNENT NOTION OF ‘JUSTICE’…BUT YOU ONLY HEAR THE WORDS, AND DO NOT COMPREHEND HOW THE JEW INTENDS IT…WHAT IT MEANS TO THEM…

Cicero:

“The Jews . . . have become great lords, and their pride and arrogance know no bounds . . . Take not such men for thy ministers . . . for the whole earth crieth out against them; ere long it will quake and we shall all perish . . . I came to Granada and I beheld the Jews reigning. They had parcelled out the provinces and the capital between them; everywhere one of these accursed ruled. They collected the taxes, they made good cheer, they were sumptuously clad, while your garments, O Muslims, were old and worn-out. All the secrets of state were known to them; yet is it folly to put trust in traitors!”

The Caliph, nevertheless, continued to select his ministers from among the nominees of the Talmudic government of Cordova. The Spanish period shows, perhaps more clearly than any other, that the Jewish portrayal of history may be nearer to historical truth than the narrative according to the Gentiles; for the conquest of Spain certainly proved to be Judaic rather than Moorish. The formal Moorish domination continued for 800 years and at the end, in keeping with precedent, the Jews helped the Spaniards expel the Moors.

Nevertheless, the general feeling towards them was too deeply distrustful to be assuaged. This popular suspicion particularly directed itself against the conversos, or Marranos. The genuineness of their conversion was not believed, and in this the Spaniards were right, for Dr. Kastein says that between the Jews and Marranos “a secret atmosphere of conspiracy” prevailed; evidently use was being made of the Talmudic dispensation about feigned conversion.

In spite of this public feeling the Spanish kings, during the gradual reconquest, habitually made Jews or Marranos their finance ministers, and eventually [115] appointed one Isaac Arrabanel administrator of the state finances with instructions to raise funds for the reconquest of Granada. The elders, at this period, were dutifully applying the important tenet of The Law about “lending to all nations and borrowing from none”, for Dr. Kastein records that they gave “financial help” to the Christian north in its final assault on the Mohammedan south.

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 90 —

After the reconquest the stored-up feeling of resentment against the Jews, born of the 800 years of Moorish occupation and of their share in it, broke through; in 1492 the Jews were expelled from Spain and in 1496 from Portugal.

Today’s Zionist historians show a remarkable hatred of Spain on this account, and a firm belief in a Jehovan vengeance not yet completed. The overthrow of the Spanish monarchy nearly five centuries later, and the civil war of the 1930’s, are sometimes depicted as instalments on account of this reckoning. This belief was reflected in the imperious words used by Mr. Justice Brandeis of the United States Supreme Court, a leading Zionist, to Rabbi Stephen Wise in 1933: “Let Germany share the fate of Spain!” The treatment accorded to Spain in the subsequent decades of this century, in particular its long exclusion from the United Nations, has to be considered in this light.

MHR FUCK YEH, WHAT BASIS FOR THE AMERICAN-SPANISH WAR? I.E ‘REMEMBER THE MAINE’ I.E ORIGINAL ‘FALSE FLAG’ LIKE U.S.S LIBERTY THEN 911…ALL FOR WARS FOR ISRAEL…THOUGH AT TIME CONNECTION WITH SPAIN NOT OBVIOUS…

fifteen hundred years of the Christian era had passed and events had conformed to the pattern of the pre-Christian era, as laid down in the historical parts of the Old Testament, and to the requirements of the Judaic Law. The Jews in their impact on other peoples had continued, under Talmudic direction, to act as a destructive force . . .

“Captive” and “persecuted” everywhere they went (under their own Law, not through the fault of the peoples with whom they sojourned) their part was always what this Law ordained that it should be: to “pull down and destroy”. They were indeed used by their rulers to “abet disorder” between others, as the Koran said, and through the disorders thus abetted their rulers achieved civil power, wreaked vengeances, supported invaders and financed counter-blows.

During all this time this was the behest of their Talmudic masters, and constantly Jews rose to protest against it; but The Law was too strong for them. There was no happiness or fulfilment for the Jews in this mission, but they could not escape it.

At the end of this first encounter with the West, after eight centuries, the land “spewed them out”.

This was the moment, so decisive for our present generation, to which a previous chapter alluded. But for the secret which was stored in the depths of Russia, this might have been the end of the catalytic force.

The experience of this expulsion was a very hard one for the body of Jews who experienced it, and they and their descendants gave many signs that they accepted the inference and would in time find some way to remain Jews and yet to become involved in mankind. That would have meant the end of the destructive [116] idea and of the sect that fostered it.

Instead, the destructive idea survived and was projected into the affairs of the world through a new group of people, who had no physical descent from any Hebrews, or “children of Israel”, or the tribe of Judah. They used the name “Jew” merely as a sign of allegiance to a political programme.

the Jews who entered Spain with the Moors were, racially, already a mixed throng. During the 800 years in Spain the racial teaching was more strictly enforced, the “government” having been transferred to Spain, and in this way the “Sephardic” Jews took shape as a distinct national type. Then, at the expulsion

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 91 —

from Spain, the government, as already told, was suddenly transplanted to Poland. What became, at that point, of these Sephardic Jews, who alone may have retained some faint trace of original Judahite or Judean descent?

The Jewish Encyclopaedia is explicit: “The Sephardim are the descendants of the Jews who were expelled from Spain and Portugal and who settled in Southern France, Italy, North Africa, Asia Minor, Holland, England, North and South America, Germany, Denmark, Austria and Hungary”. Poland is not mentioned; the Talmudic Government went there, but the mass of these Sephardic Jews distributed themselves in Western Europe; they moved westward, not eastward. The “government” was suddenly separated from the people and the mass began to dissolve.

The Jewish Encyclopaedia says, of the Sephardim who were thus dispersed: [117] “Among these settlers were many who were the descendants or heads of wealthy families and who, as Marranos, had occupied prominent positions in the countries they had left . . . They considered themselves a superior class, the nobility of Jewry, and for a long time their co-religionists, on whom they looked down, regarded them as such . . . The Sephardim never engaged in chaffering occupations nor in usury and they did not mingle with the lower classes. Although the Sephardim lived on peaceful terms with other Jews they rarely intermarried with them . . . In modern times the Sephardim have lost the authority which for several centuries they exercised over other Jews”.

The Sephardim, then, neither went to Poland nor mingled with other Jews, when they left the Spanish Peninsula and spread over Western Europe. They remained aloof and apart, “looked down” on others professing to be Jews, and lost their authority. (The Judaists reference works also give curious estimates of the decline in their proportion of Jewry, from a large minority to a small minority; these seem beyond biological explanation and probably are not trustworthy).

Thus, at this removal of “the centre”, the body of people, in whose name it had asserted authority for two thousand years, abruptly changed its nature as by magic.

The Talmudic government set out to prepare its second encounter with the West from a new headquarters, planted among an Asiatic people, the Khazars, converted to Jehovah worship many centuries before. The ruling sect was thenceforward to operate through this different body of people; they were wild folk who had not known the cautionary experience in Spain.

In 1951 a New York publisher who contemplated issuing one of the present writer’s books was strongly advised not to do this by the head of a Jewish political bureau, and was told, “Mr. Reed invented the Khazars”.

However, the Judaist authorities agree about their existence and conversion, and the historical atlases show the development of the Khazar kingdom, which at its greatest extent reached from the Black Sea to the Caspian (around 600 AD). They are described as a Tartar or Turco-Mongolian people and the Jewish Encyclopaedia says that their chagan, or chieftain, “with his grandees and a large number of his heathen people embraced Judaism, probably about 679 AD”.

The fact is attested by correspondence between Hasdai ibn Shapnet, Foreign Minister to Abdel Rahman, Sultan of Cordova, and King Joseph of the Khazars, exchanged about 960 AD. The Jewish Encyclopaedia says that the Judaist scholars had no doubts as to the genuineness of this correspondence, in which the word Ashkenazi first occurs as denoting this sharply-outlined, hitherto unknown group of “Eastern Jews” and as indicating Slav associations. [118] This community of Turco-Mongolian Ashkenazim, then, was distinct in every element save that of the creed from the Jews previously known to the Western world, the Sephardim.

The hold of the Talmudic government, in the centuries that followed, became looser over the scattered communities of the West; but it ruled this new compact community in the East with a rod of iron.

The Jew of Semitic physiognomy became ever rarer (today the typical countenance of the Jew has Mongolian traits, as is natural).

No Gentile will ever know why this one mass-conversion of a numerous “heathen” people to Talmudic Judaism was permitted, thirteen hundred years ago. Was it chance, or were these elders able to foresee every mortal possibility? At all events, when the Sephardim were scattered and the destructive idea received, in Spain, its sharpest setback, this reserve force lay ready to hand and for the purpose of the destructive mission it was the best possible material.

Long before their conversion to Judaism the Khazars were hostile to the immigrant Russ from the north who eventually conquered them, established the Russian monarchy and accepted Christianity.

MHR SO THE KAZAR BOLSHEVIKS GOT REVENGE UPON THE RUSSIANS WHO HAD CONQUERED THEM AND IMPOSED CHRISTIANITY UPON THEM, WHICH WAS WHY THEY DESTROYED CHRISTIANITY IN THE JEW.S.S.R … CALL IT THE ‘K.S.S.R’ THE KHAZAR (JEWISH CONVERT).S.S.R…

When the Khazars became converted the Talmud was complete, and after the collapse of their kingdom (in about 1000 AD) they remained the political subjects of the Talmudic government, all their resistance to Russia being governed by the Talmudic, anti-Christian Law. Thereafter they moved about in Russia, particularly to Kieff (the traditional “holy city” of Russian Christianity), elsewhere in the Ukraine, and to Poland and Lithuania.

Though they had no Judahite blood, they became under this Talmudic direction the typical nationwithin-the-nation in Russia. The areas where they congregated, under Talmudic direction, became the centres of that anti-Russian revolution which was to become “the world revolution”; in these parts, and through these people, new instruments of destruction were forged, specifically for the destruction of Christianity and the West.

These savage people from the inmost recesses of Asia lived within the Talmud like any Babylonian or Cordovan Jew and for centuries “observed the Law” in order that they might “return” to a “promised land” of which their ancestors probably never heard, there to rule the world. In the Twentieth Century, when the politicians of the West were all agog with this project of the return, none of them had ever heard of the Khazars. Only the Arabs, whose lives and lands were directly at stake, knew of them, and vainly tried to inform the Peace Conference of 1919 and the United Nations in 1947.

MHR SO ZIONISM BECAME A KHAZAR AFFAIR…WHY NOT JOIN THE CLUB THAT WILL SOON RULE THE WORLD…WHAT AN OFFER…REVENGE ON YOUR CONQUERORS…WORLD RULE…ALL YOU GOTTA DO IS ‘JOIN TEAM TALMUD’ … WHILE JEWS AROUND THE WORLD BEGAN INTEGRATING, FINALLY, AND EVOLVING, FREE FROM THE CULT MENTALITY, THE CULT LEADERS ADOPTED A NEW ‘VECTOR’ AND CHOSE A NEW ‘CHOSEN PEOPLE’ TO DO THEIR WORK…BE THEIR WEAPONS…HOW ‘TARTAR’ DOES PUTIN LOOK !!! I HAD A TATAR FRIEND IN MOSCOW…SAME VERY SHARP FEATURES…JUST ADD LOTS OF FAT…YOU COULD SO EASILY MAKE PUTIN LOOK LIKE AN ‘ASIAN’…

After 1500, therefore, the Jews fell into two distinct groups: the scattered communities of the West, who were Sephardic in origin, and this closely corralled mass of Talmudic, Slav “Jews” in the East. Time had to show if the Talmudic centre would be able to make out of the Ashkenazim a destructive force as potent in the future as the earlier one in the past, and whether it could keep its hold over [119] the communities in the West, with their different tradition and their memory of the Iberian expulsion.

About the year 1500, then, the Talmudic government moved from Spain to Poland, establishing itself among a body of “Jews” hitherto unknown to the West and relaxing its hold on the Sephardic Jews, who began to dwindle in numbers and to disintegrate as a cohesive force (in the judgment of the Judaic elders). Only about 450 years separate that event and that point in time from our present day, when the effects of the removal of the Talmudists to Poland have shown themselves, and have answered the two questions raised in the last paragraph.

These 450 years saw the visible Talmudic “centre” cease to exist (in Dr. Kastein’s words) and the destructive idea simultaneously enter Europe in a new form, which bore the name “revolution”.

The 450 years have seen three of these “revolutions” (counting only the chief ones). Each was more destructive than the last. Each was recognizable as the heir of the former one by its chief characteristics, and these, again, were the chief characteristics of the Judaic Law as laid down in the Torah-Talmud. The main assault in each case was on legitimate government, nationhood and Christianity. Under the Judaic Law the only legitimate government is that of Jehovah and the only legitimate nation is that of Jehovah’s chosen people; under the Talmudic supplement of that Law Christianity is specifically the chief of those “other gods”, after whom the chosen are for bidden to “go a-whoring”; and “destruction”, as has been shown, is a supreme tenet of that Law.

When these revolutions began they were supposed to be aimed at “kings and priests”, as the symbolic figures of oppression. Now that the power of kings and priests is gone, but the revolution is established in permanence, it may be seen that these were false words, chosen to delude “the multitude”. The attack was on nationhood (the murdered king being in each case the symbol) and on religion (the destruction of churches being the symbolic act).

“He shall deliver their kings into thine hand and thou shalt destroy their name from them . . . ye shall utterly destroy all the places wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods”. At the very moment when the Talmudic government vanished from sight, after setting itself among THE KHAZARS, this creed of destruction entered Western Europe and began its ruinous march.

These three revolutions, then, like the historic events of the pre-Christian era depicted in the Old Testament, and of the Christian era up to the expulsion from Spain, also conformed with and fulfilled the Judaic Law. All three of them bear the common hallmark of a Judaic triumph, as their outcome. Were they originally instigated, organized and directed by the Talmudists?

Talmudic incitement and control of the English and French revolutions cannot be discovered, at any rate by the present writer’s research. In each case the results bore the familiar signs of the Judaic triumph (the “return” of the Jews to England; the emancipation of the Jews in France), although at the start of both revolutions the Jewish question had not been present in the public mind as an issue at stake. As far as the student can ascertain at this distance of time, the projection of “the Jewish question” into these issues, and its elevation to a chief place among them, was something achieved while the revolutions went along, and the Judaic elders who accomplished this did not actually bring about the revolutions.

The third case, that of the Russian revolution, is entirely different. It culminated in the greatest Judaic triumph and Judaic vengeance on record, either in Old Testamentary history or in later history, and was organized, directed and controlled by Jews who had grown up in the Talmud-controlled areas. This is a fact of our present day, demonstrable and undeniable, and it is the most significant fact in the whole story of Zion, illuminating all the past and giving the key to all the future.

For our century, which produced that event has also seen the word “revolution” given a new meaning, or more accurately, given its true meaning: destruction without end until The Law is fulfilled. When the word “revolution” first became current in the West it was held to mean a limited thing: a violent uprising in a definite place caused by specific conditions there at a certain time. Unbearable oppression produced an explosive reaction, rather in the manner of a kettle blowing off its lid: that was the popular conception, instilled in “the multitude” by elders who knew better.

The Russian revolution revealed that the revolution had been organized as a permanent thing: a permanently destructive force, permanently organized with a permanent headquarters and staff, and worldwide aims.

Thus, it had nothing to do with conditions here or there, or now and then, or local oppression. It stood for destruction as an aim in itself, or as a means of removing all legitimate government from the world and putting in its place some other government, other governors. Who could these be but the Talmudists themselves, given the Talmudic nature of the revolution in Russia and the obviously Talmudic aims of “the world revolution”?

What was aimed at was plainly the final consummation of The Law, in its literal form: “Thou shalt reign over every nation but they shall not reign over thee . . . the Lord thy God shall set thee on high above all nations of the earth”.

Without this motive the three revolutions would never have taken the course they took; the course they took prefigures the shape of the future. They represent stages in and steps towards the fulfilment of The Law, and, once again, those who in their day seemed to be great or powerful men in their own right, like King Cyrus and the mysterious King Ahasuerus, now look like mere puppets in the [121] great drama of Judaic history as it moves towards its miraculous end in Jerusalem.

Cromwell was another such. To the average English schoolboy he lives only as the man who beheaded a king and brought back the Jews to England. Add to that his vaunted massacre of priests at Drogheda (an event which has not its like in British history) and what remains but a typical puppet-figure of Zionist history, created merely to help fulfil The Law?

Cromwell was one of the first of those many who since his day have called them selves Old Testamentary Christians, which figure of speech disguises the fact of anti-Christianity, as God and Mammon, on the best authority, cannot both be served. He forbade the celebration of Christmas Day, burned churches and murdered priors, and for an instant was a candidate for the Jewish Messiahship!

He was in power at the time when Sabbatai Zevi was whipping the Jewish masses into a frenzy of Zionist anticipation and shaking the Talmudic government to its foundations. Indeed, the alarm of the Talmudists about Sabbatai Zevi may have prompted the idea that they should use Cromwell to destroy him. In any case Jewish emissaries from Amsterdam were urgently despatched to England to discover whether Cromwell might be of Judaic decent! Had their research yielded positive results, Cromwell might have been proclaimed the Messiah, for he had one qualification most appealing to the elders: his zeal in “utter destruction”. (If ever a Messiah should be proclaimed, the choice may prove surprising; when I was in Prague in 1939 a rabbi there was preaching that Hitler was the Jewish Messiah, so that a worried Jewish acquaintance asked me what I thought of this.)

MHR IN REALITY WHO DID MORE FOR THE CAUSE OF ZIONISM AND THE JEWS THAN HITLER? GAVE THEM THE BASIS FOR THEIR HOLOCAUST, HATE SPEECH LAWS I.E CENSORSHIP OF ANYONE LIKE THIS AUTHOR REVEALING THE TRUTH ABOUT THE JEWS…DESTROYED GERMANY AND GAVE VICTORY TO THE KHAZAR JEWISH BOLSHEVISM…SET UP THE COLD WAR BALANCE OF POWER MYTH / ILLUSION…AND TODAY GIVES JEWS A ‘FREE HAND’ IN PALESTINE, AND TO TOTALLY DOMINATE … CENSOR… PUNISH TRUTH SEEKERS / HONEST REPORTERS / WRITERS / HISTORIANS ETC… SO WHO BETTER TO DEFINE AS A MESSIAH? WHO REALLY CREATED ISRAEL BUT HITLER? WHO GAVE ‘JEWS’ A SHARED HISTORY OF OPPRESSION BETTER THAN HITLER? NO HOLOCAUST, BUT ENOUGH MATERIAL TO CONSTRUCT THE PROPAGANDA FROM…IF HE WAS NOT WORKING FOR THEM DIRECTLY, HE CERTAINLY DID THEIR WORK…FOR THE TALMUDIC CULT…THE CULT OF THE PHARISEES…THOUGH IN REALITY IT WAS THE U.S WHO PROVIDED THE MILITARY AND ECONCOMIC FORCE TO DESTROY HITLER…IF HITLER HAD NOT EXISTED, THE JEWS WOULD HAVE INVADED I.E USING RUSSIA, AND CONTROLLED EUROPE…BUT THEY WOULDN’T HAVE THEIR ‘STORY’ I.E THE HOLOCAUST, TO GAIN SYMPATHY FOR ZIONISM, AND TO TOTALLY DOMINATE THE WEST FROM AMERICA TO GERMANY…

Cromwell’s pedigree disclosed no descent from David, or he would probably have been glad to play the part. His sword-and-Bible followers claimed by their bloodthirsty deeds to be fulfilling prophecy, and by restoring the Jews to England to be accomplishing the prescribed steps preparatory to the Millennium. They even proposed, on that account, that Cromwell’s Council of State should follow the model of the ancient Sanhedrin and be composed of seventy members! (Cromwell himself had some contempt for these his “Millenarians”, but as a “practical politician” of the kind familiar in our century he was glad to orate about “religious freedom” and the fulfilment of prophecy, while hunting down priests and clergymen).

For his part, Cromwell’s real purpose was to enlist the financial support of the rich Amsterdam Jews (the entire history of the West seems to have been made under that tenet of the Judaic Law which commands lending unto all nations and borrowing from none). Mr. John Buchan says of the Amsterdam Jews that “they controlled the Spanish, Portuguese and much of the Levant trade . . . they commanded the flow of bullion; they would help him in the difficult finances of his government”. Rabbi Manasseh ben Israel from Amsterdam (who had been [122] foretelling the advent of the Messiah and the return of the Jews to Palestine) came to London and the matter was arranged.

Manasseh ben Israel’s petition to Cromwell is reminiscent of the kind of argument, formally respectful and implicitly menacing, which was used in this century by Dr. Chaim Weizmann in his dealings with British Prime Ministers and American Presidents; he asked for “the readmission” of the Jews to England in one breath, alluded darkly in the next to the Jehovan retribution awaiting those who resisted such demands, and then depicted the rewards which would follow compliance. The picture is closely comparable with that of a New York Zionist informing an American presidential candidate in our generation that he can only expect the “New York State vote” if he commits himself to uphold the Zionist state in peace and war, by money and arms.

What was demanded from Cromwell was in fact an act of public submission to the Judaic Law, not “the readmission” of the Jews, for they had never left England! They had been expelled on paper but had remained where they were, and a formal legalization of that situation was required. Cromwell was prevented by public opposition from doing this (although according to a Judaist authority, Mr. Margoliouth, he was offered £500,000 to sell to the Jews England’s greatest Christian monument, Saint Paul’s Cathedral, with the Bodleian Library thrown in!)

Then Cromwell’s brief Interregnum came to an end (nevertheless, the popular mind insists on remembering him as the man who readmitted the Jews!) and at this first bid in the West the destructive idea gained little ground. England was able to digest its revolution as if nothing very much had happened and to go on its way, if not refreshed, at any rate little the worse. Legitimate government was at once restored and religion was at all events not damaged more by this alien attempt on it than by the native inertia which began to weaken it at that time.

Nevertheless, this new phenomenon “revolution” had entered Europe, and 150 years after the expulsion from Spain “the Jewish question” dominated the event.

The sequel to Cromwell’s Interregnum deserves brief comment because of the way the restored king was used for the Jewish purpose, as if nothing had happened. At Cromwell’s death the Jews transferred their financial aid to Charles II who, soon after his restoration, made the necessary amendments, formally legalizing the position of the Jews in England. This did not in the least avail his dynasty, for the Amsterdam Jews next financed the expedition of William of Orange against his brother and successor, James II, who was dethroned and fled to France, the Stuart dynasty then coming virtually to an end. Thus the answer to the question, “Who has won?”, as between Cromwell and the Stuarts, seems to have been, the Jews.

After a hundred and fifty years the revolution struck again, this time in France. It seemed a separate, different revolution at the time, but was it truly so? It bore the same distinctive features as the English revolution, earlier (and the Russian [123] revolution, later): nationhood and religion were attacked under the pretext of curbing the tyranny of “kings and priests”, and when that was done a much harsher despotism was set up.

At that time, after the partition of Poland, the Talmudic government had just “ceased to exist” (in Dr. Kastein’s words), but obviously was operating from concealment; its activity would not have so abruptly ended after more than 2,500 years. Because of this withdrawal into obscurity today’s student cannot trace what part it played, if any, in inciting and organizing the French revolution, through its followers in France. However, the revolution in Russia, 120 years later, gave proof of direct Talmudic-Jewish control in a measure never before suspected, so that this influence may have been greater, in the preparatory stages of the revolution in France, than history now reveals.

What is certain is that the French revolution, while it was brewing, was supposed to be for “the rights of man” (which presumably meant all men, equally), but when it began “the Jewish question”, as by magic, at once came to the fore. One of the earliest acts of the revolution (1791) was the complete emancipation of the Jews (just as the law against “anti-semitism” was one of the first acts of the revolution in Russia).

From the downfall of Babylon to the revolution in France the ruling Talmudic Jews always acted as a destructive force among the peoples “whither I have driven thee”. This was inevitable, given the creed to which they adhered and the fact that this religion was also The Law governing every act of their daily lives. Under the Judaic Law they could not act differently, and were indeed condemned to remain “the destroyers forever”: “See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdom, to root out, and to pull down and to destroy”.

The story of the Jews, under this control, was the same in Babylon, Persia, Egypt, Greece, Rome and Spain, and could not be anything else, given the unique Judaic Law.

Nevertheless not all “the Jews” wrote this story, nor is the story that of all “the Jews”; to omit this qualification would be like condemning “the Germans” for [124] National Socialism or “the Russians” for an essentially alien Communism.

Resistance to the Law of destruction has been continual in Jewry, as this account has shown. At all times and places the Jews have given out a more embittered protest against this destiny of destruction, forced on them, than the Gentiles have made against the threat of destruction, aimed at them.

The words, “the Jews”, wherever used in this discussion, need always to be read with this qualification.

NAPOLEON STRUGGLED WITH WHAT HE CALLED “the Jewish question”! It had racked the lives of the people for centuries; no sooner was the Pope persuaded, and the imperial crown on Napoleon’s head, than it popped up from behind Napoleon’s throne, to harass him.

In Napoleonic manner he took it by the throat and tried to extract an answer from it to the eternal question: did the Jews truly desire to become part of the nation and to live by its law, or did they secretly acknowledge another law which commanded them to destroy and dominate the peoples among whom they dwelt?

NAPOLEAN was the first European potentate (as supreme military commander he was really that) to court the favour of the Jewish rulers by promising them Jerusalem! he espoused the theory of separate Jewish nationhood .

from Constantinople on April 17, 1799, and published on May 22, 1799, THE OFFICIAL REPORT: “Buonaparte has published a proclamation in which he invites all the Jews of Asia and of Africa to come and place themselves under his flag in order to re-establish ancient Jerusalem. He has already armed a great number and their battalions are threatening Aleppo”.

This is explicit; Napoleon was undertaking to “fulfil prophecy” in the matter of “the return”.

The second report appeared in the Moniteur a few weeks later and said, “It is not solely to give Jerusalem to the Jews that Buonaparte has conquered Syria; he has vaster designs. . .”

Possibly Napoleon had received news of the effect which the first report had produced in France, where this intimation that the war against England (like the revolution against “kings and priests”) might be turned chiefly to Jewish advantage was not well received; alternatively, it may have done the English more good, among the other peoples of Arabia, than it could ever do Buonaparte among the Jews.

The bubble evaporated at that point, for Napoleon never reached Jerusalem. Two days before the first report was published by the distant Moniteur, he was already in retreat towards Egypt, thwarted by an obstinate Englishman at Acre.

In 1804 Napoleon was crowned Emperor; and by 1806 “the Jewish question” was POSED AS A DEMAND that the Jews choose publicly between separate nationhood and integration in the nation wherein they dwelt. he told the Council of State, “These Jews are locusts and caterpillars, they devour my France. . . They are a nation within the nation”. The State Council itself was divided and in doubt, so that Napoleon summoned 112 leading representatives of Judaism, from France, Germany and Italy, to come to Paris and answer a list of questions.

“Owing to the acceptance of the idea of the Chosen People and of salvation, the Jewish world was Judeocentric, and the Jews could interpret everything that happened only from the standpoint of themselves as the centre” (Dr. Kastein).

‘The Jew constructed a whole history of the world of which he made himself the centre; and from this moment, that is, the moment when Jehovah makes the covenant with Abraham, the fate of Israel forms the history of the world, indeed, the history of the whole cosmos, the one thing about which the Creator of the world troubles himself. It is as if the circles always become narrower; at last only the central point remains: the Ego” (Mr. Houston Stewart Chamberlain).

One of these authorities is a Zionist Jew and the other is what the first would call an anti-semite; the reader will see that they are in perfect agreement about the essence of the Judaic creed.

He knew that, according to the Judaic Law, the world had been created, at a date precisely determined, solely for the Jews and everything that happened in it (including such an episode as that of his own fame and power) was calculated simply to bring about the Jewish triumph.

Napoleon in his day comprehended the Judaic theory as it is expounded, in this century, by Dr. Kastein in relation to King Cyrus of Persia and his conquest of Babylon in 538 BC:

“If the greatest king of the age was to be an instrument in the hands of the Jewish God, it meant that this God was one who determined the date not only of one people but of all peoples; that he determined the fate of nations, the fate of the whole world”.

Napoleon had tentatively offered to make himself “an instrument in the hands of the Jewish God” in the matter of Jerusalem, but had been foiled by the defender of Acre. Now he was Emperor and was not ready to be “an instrument”, nor would he accept the proposition at all.

He set out to make the Jews stand up and declare their allegiance, and shrewdly devised questions which were equally impossible to answer without repudiating [128] the central idea, or to evade without incurring the later reproach of falsehood. Dr. Kastein calls the questions “infamous”, but that is only in the spirit earlier mentioned, that any question from a being outside the Law is infamous.

In another passage Dr. Kastein says, with involuntary admiration, that Napoleon in his questions “correctly grasped the principle of the problem”, and this is higher praise than that accorded by Dr. Kastein to any other Gentile ruler.

Also, it is true; had mortal man been able to find an answer to “the Jewish question” Napoleon would have found it, for his enquiries went to the very heart of the matter and left truthful men only with the choice between a pledge of loyalty and an open admission of inveterate disloyalty.

The delegates, elected by the Jewish communities, came to Paris. They were in a quandary. On the one hand, they were all bred in the age-old faith that they must ever remain a “severed” people, chosen by God to “pull down and destroy” other nations and eventually to “return” to a promised land; on the other hand, they had just been foremost among those emancipated by the revolution, and the most famous general of that revolution, who interrogated them, once had undertaken to “re-establish ancient Jerusalem”.

Now this man, Napoleon, asked them to say whether they were part of the nation he ruled, or not.

Napoleon’s questions went, like arrows to a target, straight to the tenets of the Torah-Talmud on which the wall between the Jews and other men had been built. The chief ones were, did the Jewish Law permit mixed marriages; did the Jews regard Frenchmen as “strangers” (foreigners) or as brothers; did they regard France as their native country, the laws of which they were bound to obey; did the Judaic Law draw any distinction between Jewish and Christian debtors?

All these questions turned on the discriminatory racial and religious laws which the Levites (as earlier chapters showed) had heaped upon the moral commandments, thus cancelling them.

Napoleon with the utmost publicity and formality put questions before the Jewish representatives, which the world for centuries had been asking.

With this fierce light beating on them the Jewish notables had only two alternatives: to repudiate the racial Law in all sincerity, or to profess repudiation while secretly denying it (an expedient permitted by the Talmud).

As Dr. Kastein says, “The Jewish scholars who were called upon to refute the charges found themselves in an extremely difficult position, for to them everything in the Talmud was sacred, even its legends and

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 100 —

anecdotes”. This is Dr. Kastein’s way of saying that they could only evade the questions by falsehood, for they were not “called upon to refute charges”; they were merely asked to answer truthfully.

The Jewish delegates ardently affirmed that there was no longer any such thing as a Jewish nation; that they did not desire to live in closed, self-governed communities; that they were in every respect Frenchmen and nothing more. They [129] hedged only on the point of mixed marriages; these, they said, were permissible “under the civil law”.

Even Dr. Kastein is constrained to call Napoleon’s next move “a stroke of genius”.

It established historically that if forced publicly to answer these vital questions (vital to the peoples with whom they live) the representatives of Judaism will give answers which are either untrue or to which they cannot give effect.

The events of the decades that followed showed that the claim to separate nationhood-within-nations was never renounced by those who truly wielded power in Jewry.

Thus Napoleon, in failure, achieved a historic victory for truth which retains its value in our day.

He sought to give the responses obtained by him the most binding public form, which would commit Jews everywhere and for all the future to the undertakings given by their elders, by desiring that the Great Sanhedrin be convened!

From all parts of Europe the traditional 71 members of the Sanhedrin, 46 rabbis and 25 laymen, hastened to Paris and met among scenes of great magnificence in February 1807. Though the Sanhedrin, as such, had not met for centuries, the Talmudic “centre” in Poland had but recently ceased publicly to function, so that the idea of a directing body of Jewry was real and live.

The Sanhedrin went further than the Jewish notables in the completeness and ardour of its declarations; (incidentally, it began by recording thanks to the Christian churches for the protection enjoyed in the past, and this tribute is worth comparing with the usual Zionist version of history in the Christian era, which suggests that it was all a long ordeal of “Jewish persecution” at Christian hands).

The Sanhedrin acknowledged the extinction of the Jewish nation to be an accomplished fact. This solved the central dilemma thrown up by the fact that the Law, which theretofore had always been held to be exclusively binding for Jews, allowed no distinction between religious and civil law. As “the nation” had ceased to exist, the Talmudic laws of daily life were proclaimed to be no longer effective, but the Torah, as the law of faith, remained immutable; thus said the Sanhedrists. If any clash or dispute were to occur, the religious laws were to be held subordinate to those of the state in which individual Jews lived. Israel thenceforward would exist only as a religion, and no longer looked forward to any national rehabilitation.

It was a unique triumph for Napoleon (and who knows how much it may have contributed to his downfall?). The Jews were liberated from the Talmud; the way to their re-integration in their fellow men, their involvement in mankind, was reopened where the Levites had closed it over two thousand years before; the spirit of discrimination and hatred was renounced and exorcised.

These declarations formed the basis on which the claim for full civil liberties was made and realized throughout the West in the years that followed. All [130] sections of Judaism, known to the West, supported them.

Thenceforth Orthodox Judaism, with the face it turned toward the West, denied any suggestion that the Jews would form a nation within nations. Reform Judaism in time “eliminated every prayer expressing so much as even the suspicion of a hope or a desire for any form of Jewish national resurrection” (Rabbi Moses P. Jacobson).

The ground was cut from beneath those opponents of Jewish emancipation in the British Parliament who contended that “the Jews look forward to the coming of a great deliverer, to their return to Palestine, to the rebuilding of their temple, to the revival of their ancient worship, and therefore, they will always consider England not as their country, but merely as their place of exile” (quoted by Mr. Bernard J. Brown).

Yet these warning voices spoke the truth. In less than ninety years the declarations of the Napoleonic Sanhedrin had in effect been cancelled, so that Mr. Brown was brought to write:

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 101 —

“Now, although civil equalities have been firmly established by law in nearly every land, Jewish nationalism has become the philosophy of Israel. Jews should not be surprised if people charge that we obtained equality before the law under false pretences; that we are still a nation within nations and that rights accorded us should be revoked”.

Napoleon unwittingly did posterity a service in revealing the important fact that the replies obtained by him were valueless. The one-and-only Law, of all thought and action, was in the remainder of the Nineteenth Century reinflicted on the Jews by their Talmudic rulers, and by Gentile politicians who gave them the same help as King Artaxerxes gave to Nehemiah.

Were the responses sincere or false when they were given? The answer probably may be divided, just as Judaism itself has always been divided.

No doubt the delegates had much in mind the accelerating effect which their responses, as they were framed, would have on the grant of full equality in other countries. On the other hand, many of them must earnestly have hoped that the Jews, at long last, might enter into mankind without secret denials, for in Jewry this impulse to break through the tribal ban has always existed, though it has always been beaten back by the ruling sect.

The probability is that some of the delegates sincerely intended what they said, and that others “secretly broke” (Dr. Kastein’s phrase) with the loyalties thus publicly affirmed.

Napoleon’s Sanhedrin had a basic flaw. It represented the Jews of Europe, and these (who were in the main the Sephardim) were losing authority in Jewry. The Talmudic centre, and the great mass of “Eastern Jews” (the Slavic Ashkenazi) were in Russia or Russian-Poland, and not even Napoleon gave much thought to that fact if he even knew of it. These Talmudists were not represented in the Sanhedrin and the responses given were by their Law heresy, for they were the [131] guardians of the traditions of the Pharisees and Levites.

The Sanhedrin’s avowals brought to an end the third Talmudic period in the story of Zion. It was that which began with the fall of Judea in AD 70, when the Pharisees bequeathed their traditions to the Talmudists, and at the end of these seventeen centuries the eternal question seemed, by the Sanhedrin’s responses, to have been solved.

The Jews were ready to join with mankind and to follow the counsel of a French Jew, Isaac Berr, that they should rid themselves “of that narrow spirit, of corporation and congregation, in all civil and political matters not immediately connected with our spiritual law. In these things we must absolutely appear simply as individuals, as Frenchmen, guided only by a true patriotism and by the general good of the nations”. That meant the end of the Talmud, “the hedge around the Law”.

It was an illusion. In the eyes of today’s Gentile student it seems to have been a great opportunity missed. In the eyes of the literal Jew it was an appalling danger narrowly averted: that of common involvement in mankind.

The fourth period in this narrative then began, the century of “emancipation”, the 19th Century. During it the Talmudists in the East set out to cancel what the Sanhedrin had affirmed, and to use all the liberties gained through emancipation, not to put Jews and all other men on one footing, but to corral the Jews again, to reaffirm their “severance” from others and their claim to separate nationhood, which in fact was one to be a nation above all nations, not a nation-within-nations.

The Talmudists succeeded, with results which we are witnessing in our generation, which is the fifth period in the controversy of Zion. The story of their success cannot be separated from that of the Revolution, to which this narrative now returns.

MHR SO NAPOLEON’S COUNCIL RESULTED IN EUROPEAN JEWS BEING GIVEN FULL CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS ETC…ON PRETEXT THAT THEY WERE NOW ‘LOYAL’ TO THEIR NATIONS, AND NOT THEIR CULT LEADERS / TALMUDIC JUDAISM… BUT WHEN THEY ‘REVOKED’ THIS LOYALTY A FEW DECADES LATER, THEY RETAINED THEIR ‘RIGHTS’…AND SO IT EMPOWERED THEM TO UNDERMINE / DESTROY THEIR HOST NATIONS EVEN MORE EFFECTIVELY… WE SEE GENUINE DESIRES AMONG ‘JEWS’ TO INTEGRATE, FREE THEMSELVES OF THEIR CULT SLAVERY…AND ALSO DISINGENUOUSITY ON THE PART OF MANY SIMPLY TO GAIN GREATER RIGHTS / POWERS I.E TO ABUSE THEIR HOST NATIONS CREDULITY / GOODWILL… THE ETERNAL PROBLEM IS HOW TO IDENTIFY THE ‘GOOD’ JEW FROM THE ‘DESTRUCTIVE’ I.E THE CULT ESCAPEE / FROM THE CULT PRISONER…MENTAL PRISON…AND REAL PRISON I.E COSTS OF REPUDIATION / EXILE FROM COMMUNITY VERY REAL..NOT JUST ACCEPTANCE AND APPROVAL OF OWN PARENTS / FAMILY / FRIENDS ETC…

the god who promised land to the nation to be gathered-in also promised to set it “above all people that are upon the face of the earth” and to destroy all other nations “with a mighty destruction until they be destroyed”. The world-revolution, which pursued the second of these aims, thus fulfilled the condition set for the first of them

In 1791 the great German historian Johann Gottfried von Herder, looking back on the hundred years behind him, wrote:

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 103 —

“The ruder nations of Europe are willing slaves of Jewish usury. . . The Jewish people is and remains in Europe an Asiatic people alien to our part of the world, bound to that old law which it received in a distant climate, and which according to its own confession it cannot do away with. . . It is indissolubly bound to an alien law that is hostile to all alien peoples”.

Mr. Houston Stewart Chamberlain, looked back on what Herder had written and recorded the further, continuing usurpation of power:

“A great change has taken place: the Jews play in Europe, and wherever European influence extends, a different part from that which they played a hundred years ago; as Viktor Hohn expresses it, we live today in a ‘Jewish age’; we may think what we like about the past history of the Jews, their present history actually takes up so much room in our own history that we cannot possibly refuse to notice them: The ‘alien’ element emphasized by Herder has become more and more prominent. . . The direct influence of Judaism on the 19th Century appears for the first time as a new influence in the history of culture; it thus becomes one of the burning subjects of the day. This alien people has become precisely in the course of the 19th Century a disproportionately important and in many spheres actually dominant constituent of our life …… Herder said that ‘the ruder nations of Europe were willing slaves of Jewish usury’. Today Herder could say the same of by far the greatest part of our civilized world……our governments, our law, our science, our commerce, our literature, our art, practically all branches of our life, have become more or less willing slaves of the Jews and drag the feudal fetter, if not yet on two, at least on one leg……. The direct influence of Judaism on the 19th century thus becomes one of the burning subjects of the day. We have to deal here with a question affecting not only the present, but also the future of the world…….. If the Jewish influence were to gain the upper hand in Europe in the intellectual and cultural sphere, we would have one more example of negative, destructive power.”

Such was the development in a hundred years from von Herder to Chamberlain. The last three sentences are a brilliant prognosis, for Chamberlain had not seen the proofs, which our century has brought, of the truth of what he [134] said; namely, that fantastic feat of international stage-management on the grand scale in October 1917 when Communism (the destroyer of nationhood) and Zionism (the creator of the dominant nation) triumphed at the same instant!

“Our governments”, in the half-century that has elapsed, have become such “willing slaves” of the Judaic master-sect that they are in fact the bailiffs or agents of a new, international ruling-class, and not true governors at all.

Communism and Zionism, the nation-destroying world-revolution and the new, nation-creating, ruling-class. The one has incited the mob; the other has gained mastery over rulers.

The “managers” of the revolution in Russia were nearly all Eastern Jews. On this occasion the significant, symbolic acts of regicide and sacrilege were committed by Jews and a law was enacted which in effect forbade all discussion of the part played by Jews, or by “the Jewish question”, in these events or in public affairs at all.

when the papers of Adam Weishaupt’s secret society of “Illuminati” were seized by the Bavarian Government in 1786 and published in 1787. The original blueprint of world-revolution, and the existence of a powerful organization with members in the highest places, were then revealed. From that moment on no doubt remained that all countries and classes of society contained men who were leagued together to destroy all legitimate government and all religion. The conspiratorial organization burrowed underground again after its exposure, but survived and pursued its plan, bursting into full public view in 1917. Since then, as Communism, it has openly pursued the aims disclosed by the Bavarian Government’s coup of 1786, by the methods then also revealed.

the Duke of Bavaria in 1785 issued an edict against the IIluminati; the order was indicted as a branch of Freemasonry, and government officials, members of the armed services, professors, teachers and students were forbidden to join it. A general ban was laid on the formation of secret societies (that is, bodies which banded together without making registration, as the law required).

An Illuminist emissary was struck by lightning on a journey to Silesia in 1785. Papers found on him caused the houses of two Illuminist leaders to be searched. Correspondence between “Spartacus” (Adam Weishaupt) and the “Areopagites” (his closest associates in the order), and other papers then found revealed the full plan for world-revolution with which we of the 20th Century have become familiar through its results and under the name of “Communism”.

The basic idea, made abundantly clear in the correspondence between “Spartacus” and his pseudonymous fellow-conspirators, was to destroy all established authority, nationhood and religion, and thus to clear the way for the rise of a new ruling class, that of the Illuminates. The society’s aims, as summed up by Henri Martin, were “the abolition of property, social authority and nationality, and the return of the

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 108 —

human race to the happy state in which it formed only a single family without artificial needs, without useless sciences, every father being priest and magistrate; priest of we know not what religion, for in spite of their frequent invocations of the God of Nature, many indications lead us to conclude that Weishaupt had no other God than Nature herself”.

This is confirmed by Weishaupt; “Princes and nations will disappear . . . Reason will be the only code of man”. In all his writings he completely eliminated any idea of divine power outside Man.

Weishaupt’s great skill in enlisting important people, who joined him in the belief that they were thus proving themselves “progressive” or “liberal”, is shown by the number of princes and priests who were found in his secret membership-lists.

“Spartacus’s” chief collaborator “Philo” (the Hanoverian Baron von Knigge) wrote, “We say then, Jesus wished to introduce no new religion, but only to restore natural religion and reason to their old rights . .

The Judaic Law also lays down that the Gentiles (who as such are excluded from the world to come) are entitled only to the religion of nature and of reason which Weishaupt taught. Moses Mendelssohn,* as quoted in his Memoirs, says:

“Our rabbis unanimously teach that the written and oral laws which form conjointly our revealed religion are obligatory on our nation only: ‘Moses commanded us a law, even the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob’. We believe that all other nations of the earth have been directed by God to adhere to the laws of nature . . . Those who regulate their lives according to the precepts of this religion of nature and of reason are called virtuous men of other nations . . .” God himself excluded the Gentiles from his congregation and commanded them to live merely according to the laws of nature and of reason. Thus Weishaupt was directing them to do just what the Jewish god directed them to do.

from the start of the Christian period Judaist hostility to conversion has been firm and even fierce (with the one exception of the mass-conversion of the Mongolian Khazars, from whom today’s Ashkenazi sprang) and the Talmud says that “proselytes are annoying to Israel like a scab”.

the aims of the Illuminati. They are those of Communism today, unchanged. As for the method, every baseness of which human beings are capable was listed for exploitation in the cause of recruitment. Among the papers were found two packets which particularly horrified public opinion at the time. They contained documents laying down the order’s right to exercise the law of life and death over its members, a eulogy of atheism, the description of a machine for the automatic destruction of secret papers, and prescriptions for procuring abortion, counterfeiting seals, making poisonous perfumes and secret ink, and the like. Today, again, the contents of a Communist laboratory are familiar to any who follow such matters, but in 1787 the effect of this disclosure, in Catholic Bavaria, was like a glimpse of the antechamber of Hades.

Weishaupt’s papers included a diagram illustrating the way in which he exercised control over his organization. It shows what might be a section of chain-mail, or of honeycomb, and is identical with the celebrated “cell” system on which Communism is built today. It is the product of an intelligence of the highest kind (and, obviously, of centuries of experience; methods of this sort cannot be devised without a long process of trial and error). The secret is that damage to such a structure cannot be more than local, the main fabric remaining always unimpaired and capable of repair. If a few links, or cells, are destroyed these can be made good in due time, and meanwhile the organization continues, substantially unharmed.

Weishaupt had in fact achieved the “extraordinary result” ascribed to Abdulla ibn Maymun in Islam: under him “a multitude of men of divers beliefs were all working together for an object known only to a few of them”.

The fact that each dupe only knew his two neighbour dupes would not alone have been enough to bring about that result. How were the Illuminates kept together? The answer is that Weishaupt discovered, or received from some higher intelligence the secret on which the cohesive strength of the world-revolution rests today, under Communism: terror!

All Illuminates took “illuminated” names, which they used in their dealings [144] with each other, and in all correspondence. This practice of the alias, or “cover name”, has been continued to the present-day. The members of the Communist governments which usurped power in Russia in 1917 were known to the world, for the first time in history, by aliases (and are so known to posterity also). The exposures of 1945-1955 in America, England, Canada and Australia showed that the men who worked as Communist agents in the governments of these countries used “cover-names”, in the way begun by Weishaupt.

Weishaupt organized his society in grades, or circles, the outer rings of which contained the new recruits and lesser dupes. Advancement through the grades was supposed to bring initiation into further chapters of the central mystery. Weishaupt preferred the enrolment of young men at their most impressionable ages, between 15 and 30. (This practice also was continued into our day; Messrs. Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, Whittaker Chambers, Donald Maclean, Guy Burgess and others were all “netted” at their American or English universities). Other grades or degrees were added as the circle of recruitment widened, or especial obstacles to it were discovered; the example of religion has already been given, and in this case also Communism, by making use of the suggestion that Jesus was the first Communist, has followed Weishaupt’s precedent, merely changing “Illuminist” to “Communist”. In this approach to prospective members the manner of the invitation, “Will you walk into my parlour?”, was varied to meet individual cases.

The young men who were recruited for the conspiracy were sworn in with much intimidating ceremonial, including a significant mockery of the Christian sacrament. They were required to supply a dossier about their parents, listing their “dominant passions”, and to spy on each other. Both these ideas are basic in Communism and one possibly original source of them is the “Mosaic Law”, where the obligation to denounce kinsfolk who incur suspicion of heresy, and to place “a guard upon my guard”, is included in the “statutes and judgments”.

The young Illuminate was made to feel that he would never know how many eyes of unknown superiors might be on him (he only knew his immediate superiors); he was taught to inform on those around him and inferred that they informed on him. This is the basic principle of terror, which can never be completely established merely by killing, torture or imprisonment; only the knowledge that he can trust no man, not his own son or father or friend, reduces the human victim to utter submission. Since Weishaupt’s day this secret terror has been resident in the West.

membership of the Illuminati, the papers discovered showed that, after ten years of existence, it had several thousand members, many of them in [145] important civil positions where they could exert influence on the acts of rulers and governments. They even included rulers: the contemporary Marquis de Luchet relates that some thirty reigning and non-reigning princes had gutlessly joined an order, the masters of which were sworn to destroy them! It included the Dukes of Brunswick, Gotha and Saxe-Weimar, princes of Hesse and Saxe-Gotha, and the Elector of Mainz; Metternich, Pestalozzi the educationist, ambassadors and politicians and professors.

The inference that Faust was in truth the story of Goethe and Illuminism is hard to resist

Weishaupt’s own diagram showed that the secret order was constructed in such a way that detection should never uncover or damage more than a segment. It is possible, for the same reason again, that Weishaupt was but a group or area leader, and that the high directorate of what demonstrably was a world-revolutionary organization was never unmasked.

The plan to acquire control of Freemasonry through Illuminist agents, and the success achieved, is plainly stated in Weishaupt’s papers. First he records that, “I have succeeded in obtaining a profound glimpse into the secrets of the Freemasons; I know their whole aim and shall impart it all at the right time in one of the higher degrees”. At a later stage he gave a general order for his “Areopagites” to enter Freemasonry: “Then we shall have a masonic lodge of our own. . . we shall regard this as our nursery garden. . . at every opportunity we shall cover ourselves with this . . .” (i.e., Freemasonry).

in concealment lies a great part of our strength. For this reason we must always cover ourselves with the name of another society. The lodges that are under Freemasonry are in the meantime the most suitable cloak for our high purpose . . . a society concealed in this manner cannot be worked against. . . In case of a prosecution or of treason the superiors cannot be discovered. . . We shall be shrouded in impenetrable darkness from spies and emissaries of other societies”.

the Duke of Brunswick, Grand Master of German Freemasonry…In 1794 he dissolved the order with THE words …. . . the plan they had formed for breaking all social ties and destroying all order was revealed in all their speeches and acts . . . they recruited apprentices of every rank and in every position; they deluded the most perspicacious men by falsely alleging different intentions. . . Their masters had nothing less in view than the thrones of the earth, and the government of the nations was to be directed by their nocturnal clubs. This is what has been done and is still being done. But we notice that princes and people are unaware how and by what means this is being accomplished. That is why we say to them in all frankness: the misuse of our Order . . . has produced all the political and moral troubles with which the world is filled today. You who have been initiated, you must join yourselves with us in raising your voices, so as to teach peoples and princes that the sectarians, the apostates of our Order, have alone been and will be the authors of present and future revolutions . . . So as to cut out to the roots the abuse and error, we must from this moment dissolve the whole Order. . . ”

Weishaupt’s success in his declared intention of capturing Freemasonry from within, and the part then played by Illuminist agents inside Freemasonry in directing the revolution, could not be attested by a better authority than the Grand Master of German Freemasonry himself.

Under this injected influence Freemasonry, which was very strong in France, took an extreme course and produced the Jacobin clubs; these, again under Illuminst influence, presided over the Reign of Terror, when the masked authors of the revolution revealed its true nature by their deeds. Like the Russian revolution 130 years later, the one in France then displayed its hatred of the poor and defenceless more than of the rich, of the peasants of the Vendee more than their supposed oppressors, of all beauty as sucH

Adam Weishaupt himself became a Freemason in 1777, the year after he founded the Illuminati, being received into a Munich lodge

The way to complete victory in the Masonic world was opened when the Illuminati enlisted the two most important personages in German Freemasonry, Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick (the later penitent) and Prince Carl of Hesse.

the Marquis de Luchet 1789 he wrote: “Learn that there exists a conspiracy in favour of despotism against liberty, of in capacity against talent; of vice against virtue, of ignorance against enlightenment . . . This society aims at governing the world . . . Its object is universal domination . . . No such calamity has ever yet afflicted the world . . . ”

De Luchet called on Freemasonry to cleanse its stable while time remained: “would it not be possible to direct the Freemasons themselves against the Illumines by showing them that, whilst they are working to maintain harmony in society, those others are everywhere sowing seeds of discord and preparing the ultimate destruction of their order?”

the [153] case of Messrs. Barruel, Robison and Morse is of especial interest.

What befell them proves more conclusively than any of their own words the very thing they strove to establish: the continued existence and strength of a secret society working, in all countries, for the destructive purpose which they described. Messrs. Barruel, Robison and Morse were smothered with vituperation. In their day newspapers were in their infancy, and were usually owned by one man, who also edited them. It must therefore have been much more difficult than it is today to gain control of a large proportion of them. The concentrated attack which was delivered against the three men from the moment when they said that Illuminism had brought about the French revolution and still existed shows that even in 1797 the Illuminés were in effective control of the press in America and England.

This was one of the most surprising discoveries yielded by the research which produced this book. In my own day I have been forced to realize that this control exists, and that a writer who writes about the world revolution in the vein of Edmund Burke will find all avenues of publication closing against him. Mrs. Nesta Webster relates the same experience. When she first began to write on revolution, in the early 1920’s, a well-known London publisher said to her, “Remember that if you take an anti-revolutionary line you will have the whole literary world against you”. She says she thought this extraordinary but then found through experience that the publisher was right and that has been my observation too. However, I thought it was a condition that had arisen during the last thirty years until I studied the story of Messrs. Barruel, Robison and Morse; then I saw that “the whole literary world” fell as one man on them in 1798, when the Reign of Terror was recent. Nothing else so clearly showed, to me, that the line from Illuminism in 1789 to Communism today is but a line of inheritance; the same organization pursues the same aim with the same methods and even with the same words.

That was another curious thing about the attack on those three writers who took “an antirevolutionary line”. Soon after they gained the public eye the attacks in the newspapers began; nearly always anonymous. They made use of exactly the same language (Doublespeak) as that which is employed in similar assaults today. The three men were accused of starting a “witch-hunt”, of being bigots and alarmists, of persecuting “freedom of opinion” and “academic freedom”, of misrepresenting “liberal” and “progressive” thought, and the like. From that, the attack continued to slander and scurrilous innuendo, and I often found phrases which recurred in the campaign waged against an American Cabinet member, Mr. James Forrestal, in 1947-9; their private lives were said to be immoral and their financial habits shady; and at the last came the familiar suggestion that they were “mad”. This suggestion is often made today, in the culminant stages of a campaign against any anti-revolutionary figure; it is evidently held to be especially strong medicine in defamation. This particular [154] form of attack might have its original source in the Talmud, which uses it against Jesus (the Jewish Encyclopaedia, in its article on Jesus, refers its readers to the work of a Jewish writer who “agrees that there must have been abnormal mental processes involved in the utterances and behaviour of Jesus”).

Washington was head of the Masonic fraternity. The defenders of

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 117 —

Freemasonry laid much emphasis on this (evidently on the principle of “innocence by association”), and on the occasion of Washington’s funeral in 1799 made a great parade of fellowship with the dead hero. Out of respect for him, rather than from satisfied curiosity, the public debate then waned, but at least two prominent Masons, Amos Stoddard and the Rev. Seth Payson, like the Duke of Brunswick in Europe publicly stated that the Illuminati had permeated Freemasonry and were working under its name. Washington’s successor, President John Adams, in 1798 addressed a stern warning to Freemasonry:

“. . . the society of Masons have discovered a science of government, or art of ruling society, peculiar to themselves, and unknown to all the other legislators and philosophers of the wodd; I mean not only the skill to know each other by marks or signs that no other persons can divine but the wonderful power of enabling and compelling all men, and I suppose all women, at all hours, to keep a secret. If this art can be applied, to set aside the ordinary maxims of society, and introduce politics and disobedience to government, and still keep the secret, it must be obvious that such science and such societies may be perverted to all the ill purposes which have been suspected . . .”

After this public rebuke nothing but the death of Washington in the next year, probably, could have appeased the public desire for a thorough investigation; as so often in these affairs, the opponents of investigation profited from an irrelevant event which distracted or disarmed public attention. Nevertheless, public suspicion continued through three decades and led to the formation of an Anti-masonic Party in 1827, which at its State convention in Massachusetts in 1829 declared “there is evidence of an intimate connexion between the higher orders of Freemasonry and French Illuminism”. That was almost the last kick of [156] the party of investigation, for the next State convention, in Vermont in 1830, recorded the sequel with which our century has been made familiar: “. . . the spirit of enquiry . . . was soon and unaccountably quelled; the press was mute as if the voice of the strangled sentinel and the mass of the people kept in ignorance that an alarm on the subject of Masonry had ever been sounded”.

the cry for investigation had been drowned, as in our generation, by the counter-cry of “witch-hunt” and the like. From that moment until today the American people have never succeeded in moving any government to a full investigation and the secret infestation of government and the public departments continued, with results only partially revealed by the exposures of 1948 and after.

By his Sedition Act of 1798 President Adams tried to safeguard the future of the Republic, but time has since shown that laws against secret societies and conspiracies

Illuminism had supplied the men who “stirred up revolt, devastation, assassination”: When Weishaupt died, in 1830, his order was probably stronger than it had ever been, but was about to change its name; the same organization, with the same aims, was in the 1840’s to emerge as Communism. That further story belongs to later chapters, and at this point the present narrative takes leave of Adam Weishaupt, the man whose name is forever identified with the emergence of world-revolution as a permanent idea and ambition, propagated by a permanent organization of secret conspirators in all lands, and having nothing whatever to do with remedying oppression or injustice; these evils it desired to aggravate and perpetuate.

Mirabeau, a leading Illuminate and revolutionary, identified himself with Judaist demands and pretensions, so that any restriction on the actual appearance of Jews in the Order may have been a “cover” device of the kind which Weishaupt held to be supremely important.

Alexandre Lambert fils then gave voice to this protest against the bondage of the Talmud:

“The bad faith, citizens, of which the Jewish nation is accused does not come from themselves but from their priests. when Alexandre Lambert fils so spoke the rabbinical period in Judaist history had just begun. Before 1772, when Poland was partitioned, there had always been a visible, central, governing or directing authority for all of Jewry. At the start this was the Levitical priesthood, in Jerusalem and Babylon. Under Rome it was the dominant political party, the Pharisees, who were in effect the government. After the fall of Jerusalem and the dispersion it was the Talmudic “movable government” in Palestine, Babylonia, Spain and Poland. After this sank from sight in 1772 the “rabbinical” period began, where authority over the entire congregation of Jewry, as far as it was wielded, was exercised through the rabbis everywhere. Among these, naturally, were men of every degree of belief and temperament, from the most extreme to the most temperate; but the present century has shown that the majority of them, as at all earlier periods in Jewish history, followed the literal “Law” of Judaism, which from the Gentile point of view, of course, is extremism at its most extreme.

the Jews who profited were the “Eastern Jews”, and that these non-Semitic converts to Judaism

Most of the Jews in France were Sephardim, descended from those Spanish and Portuguese Jews who had some tenuous tradition, at least, linking them with Palestine. Any disabilities still suffered by these longsettled Jews were ended by the decree of 1790, which gave them all the rights of French citizens. In Alsace a community of Ashkenazim, the Slavic Jews, had appeared and these visitors from Russia were greatly disliked, so that the proposal to bestow citizenship on them provoked stormy debates, in the revolutionary Assembly and an insurrection among the Alsatian peasants

This Jewish protest (a recurrent one through the ages down to our present day, and one always ignored by Gentile rulers) was as vain as that of the merchants of Paris thirty years before against the opening of their corporations to Jews:

“The French merchant carries on his commerce alone; each commercial house is in a way isolated; whilst the Jews are particles of quicksilver, which at the least slant run together into a block “. MHR MONOPOLIES / OLIGOPOLIES / CONSPIRACIES…

From this time on the ruling sect of Jewry bent all its efforts on reducing the authority of the original, Sephardic Jews and increasing that of their compact Ashkenazi in the East; from this moment on the Ashkenazi began to move into Europe (and later into America), to assume the leadership of the worldrevolution and to carry with them everywhere the assault on all legitimate government, religion and nationhood.

That development followed the French revolution, or first phase of the world-revolution, which was like the opening of a door or the breaking of a dyke. At the time all that could fairly be said of the Jews in relation to the revolution was that they had been involved in it like other men, and had benefited from it rather more than other men. The sequel turned a different light on all this, and began to show Judaist direction, not mere involvement.

For in the half-century following the revelation of the blueprint for world- [164] revolution and the outbreak in France, the historical processes of Jewry and of the world-revolution no longer remained separate or distinct; they converged. The continuing conspiracy and “the Jews” (in the sense of the dominant sect) then became identical and could no longer be considered apart. From the middle of the 19th Century the world-revolution was under Jewish leadership; whatever the fact had been before, it then passed into these hands.

Benjamin Disraeli, later Lord Beaconsfield, repeatedly warned Christendom against the worldrevolution. Like de Luchet, Alexander Hamilton and Edmund Burke fifty years before, he saw “the design” behind it; unlike Lord Acton, who fifty years later spoke only of anonymous “managers”, Disraeli identified these organizers as Jews. The century that has passed since he uttered the plainest of these warnings has justified him; whatever its origins, the organized world-revolution was under Judaist leadership by the middle of the 19th Century and continued under Judaist leadership

The Jewish Encyclopaedia says that the Cabala (the oral, traditional lore, in contradistinction to the written law, or Torah) from the 13th century on branched out into an extensive literature alongside of and in opposition to the Talmud, being entrusted only to the few elect ones. Mrs. Nesta Webster, however, quotes another passage from the Jewish Encyclopaedia as saying that “the Cabala is not really in opposition to the Talmud”.

Sidonia remarked in 1846 (the year when Coningsby was published): “That mighty revolution which is at this moment preparing in Germany and . . . of which so little is as yet known in England, is developing entirely under the auspices of the Jews”.

after the outbreaks of 1848, Disraeli returned to the subject, telling the House of Commons in 1852: “The influence of the Jews may be traced in the last outbreak of the destructive principle in Europe. An insurrection takes place against tradition and aristocracy, against religion and property. .. The natural equality of men and the abrogation of property are proclaimed by the secret societies who form provisional governments and men of Jewish race are found at the head of every one of them” (exactly the same thing recurred in Russia, in 1917, that is, seventy years after the 1848 outbreaks).

Disraeli added, “The most skilful manipulators of property ally them selves with Communists; the peculiar and chosen people touch the hands of all the scum and low castes of Europe”. This, he said, was because they wished to destroy Christianity.

Benjamin Disraeli, whose liberation from Talmudic bonds gave him this “absolute freedom from prejudice”. His name was significant, for he was of the breed of the Israelite prophets who denounced Judah. He was proud of his descent, and yet was enabled by his detachment to feel a love of England which those of native ancestry often cannot emulate. His ironical comments on public affairs and human events are refreshing to read today, when politicians shun the truth as the devil might shun holy water.

He candidly stated that “the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes”, and in these words he publicly affirmed that real government is by the Hidden Hand. All informed observers know that this is the truth of affairs, but any presentday American president or British prime minister would denounce the statement as “witch-hunting”. “I think”, said Sidonia, “that there is no error so vulgar as to believe that revolutions are occasioned by economical causes”. Thus spoke Disraeli; in our day the Lloyd Georges and Woodrow Wilsons, Roosevelts and Trumans have pretended that the revolutions in France and Russia and elsewhere were spontaneous mass-eruptions by “the people”, infuriate, against “tyranny”.

Talmudic Judaism is “the worship of Moloch” and Disraeli knew this when he chose the words. The whole dispute between ancient Israel and Judah of the Levites raged round this false deity and his demands, and Israel turned its back on Judah on this very account; this is the root of the controversy of Zion, three thousand years ago and now.

It is reflected in the two most significant passages in the Old Testament: Jeremiah’s charge that God had never commanded the children of Israel “to cause their sons and daughters to pass through the fire unto Moloch. . . neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin”; and Ezekiel’s answer that God had given Israel these “statutes that are not good” and the sacrifice of the firstborn. The god of love and mercy, the god of hatred, vengeance and human sacrifice: that was from the start the issue, and is today, and if Disraeli had lived a hundred years later Christendom might by this scion of Jewry have been spared the stigma of the Talmudic vengeance at Nuremberg.

Similarly, Disraeli cannot be imagined lending himself, his office and his country’s strength to the support and spread of the world-revolution, as the leaders of Britain and America lent themselves in the first and second world wars; his whole public life was spent in forewarning his country against the destructive conspiracy which their acts promoted.

MHR I NEVER CONSIDERED THAT WWI WAS TO ADVANCE THE JEWISH REVOLUTION IN RUSSIA…WHICH IT DID…PROTECTING THE BOLSHEVIKS BY ATTACKING GERMANY FROM THE WEST…SO THAT IT WAS HAPPY ENOUGH TO SETTLE FOR A ‘CEASE FIRE’ WITH THE BOLSHEVIKS AFTER THEY TOOK OVER RUSSIA…

Disraeli was the product both of Sephardic Jewry and of England at that period; he could not, without both of these influences, have achieved that “absolute freedom from prejudice”. His father, Isaac D’Israeli, wrote, “A religion which admits not toleration cannot be safely tolerated, if there is any chance of its obtaining a political ascendancy”, and the Encyclopaedia Britannica says Isaac’s reason for withdrawing from the synagogue was that Talmudic Judaism with its rigid laws “cuts off the Jews from the great family of mankind”. His son’s biographer, Mr. Hesketh Pearson, says the elders fined Isaac D’Israeli forty pounds when he declined election as Warden of the Congregation

Isaac would not have been able so to challenge the elders, had he lived in a Talmudic community in Russia or Poland; he would have been outlawed, possibly killed.

Thus the father and the son (who became a member of the Church of England at the age of twelve) were formed by the free air of England at that time. Benjamin Disraeli, was to achieve the removal of the last disabilities put on Jews in England, and then publicly to proclaim that (in the immediate sequence to this emancipation) Jews were taking over control of the world-revolution everywhere. To a man of “absolute freedom from prejudice” the campaign against Jewish disabilities and the candid statement of this result were duties equally inescapable, even though the second development bore out the warnings of the enemies of that Jewish emancipation, which Disraeli had fought to complete.

the world-revolution had nevertheless been firmly established and it had been given the imprint of the Eastern Jews, the Mongoloid Khazars, under their Talmudic rabbis.

Michel Bakunin and Karl Marx were as poles apart. Bakunin, “the father of Anarchy”, was “a disciple of Weishaupt”,

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 126 —

according to the French revolutionary socialist, Benoit Malon. He represented that early breed of idealist revolutionaries who thought that they had found in revolution an instrument to destroy tyranny. He saw the danger that the confiscatory State, set up on the ruins of private property, would merely reproduce the tyrannical propensities of the private capitalist in gargantuan shape; therefore he looked for ways to reconcile the communal ownership of land and capital with the utmost possible diminution in the powers of the State and ultimately even with the complete abolition of the State. Thus he was the very opposite of Karl Marx, whose similar proposal, for the communal ownership of land and capital, was aimed simply at setting up a supertyranny in place of petty tyrants.

The ruling passion (and original motive) of all Bakunin’s work was a horror of despotism; Marx planned to destroy a ruling class in order to establish such a despotism as the world had never known. This was the profound difference between the two men, and it throws up a question never to be answered: what would the effect on the world have been if Bakunin’s Anarchism, instead of Marx’s Communism, had assumed leadership of the world-revolution? For Anarchism was opposed to every kind of forcible government, and to the State as the embodiment of the force employed in the government of the community; Communism was the deification of force wielded by the State.

Everything about Bakunin is genuine: his struggle, sufferings and death. Everything about Marx is bogus: his thirty years of incitement from the British Museum reading-room, his comfortable life on Friedrich Engels’s bounty, his obviously calculated marriage to a “von”, his genteel funeral with graveside orations; all are typical of the petty bourgeois who so loudly declaimed against [170] the bourgeoisie. The most bogus thing of all was his Communist Manifesto, which diagnosed an ailment (“The proletarian is without property”) and prescribed suicide as the remedy (“The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property”).

This was a plain intimation to the proletariat that it had nothing to gain but chains from Communism, and if revolutionary outbreaks all over Europe followed the publication of the Manifesto in January 1848, the oppressed masses cannot have roused to them by its logic. Within a few weeks of publication, revolts occurred all over Germany, in Austria, Hungary, Italy, France and Denmark. This was proof that the individual “secret societies” in the various countries were fusing together, that some means had been found to co-ordinate and synchronise their outbreaks, and thus, for the first time, to demonstrate world-revolution in action, through simultaneous eruptions in numerous countries.

Probably only one organization, already existing at that time, had at its disposal the international network which could make this synchronization and co-ordination possible, and that was the Talmudic rabbinate in Eastern Europe. Theoretically, the vast organization of the Catholic Church could have been put to the same purpose, but the Church saw its deadliest enemy in the revolution and was not so used; on that point history is clear. What Disraeli had known and stated two years before became historical fact: “that mighty revolution which is at this moment preparing in Germany . . . is developing entirely under the auspices of the Jews”. Karl Marx and his Communist Manifesto were the outward and visible signs of a significant historic event: Talmudic Judaism had taken over the world-revolution.

Karl Marx, expelled from Prussia and France after 1848, settled comfortably in London until he died, thirty-four years [171] later. Only Bakunin ran to man the “barricades”. Bakunin was by birth a Russian aristocrat and had thrown up his ensignship in a Czarist regiment in 1832 after the suppression of the Polish insurrection of 1830; the spectacle of terrorized Poland inspired in the heart of this young Russian officer the horror of despotism which thenceforth dominated his life. He met Marx before 1848 and left a description of the difference between them: “Marx called me a sentimental idealist, and he was right; I called him a vain man, perfidious and crafty, and I also was right”.

Bakunin was in Paris for the fighting of 1848, and in May 1849 was a member of the provisional government set up by the revolutionaries in Saxony, leading the defence of Dresden until the Prussian troops prevailed, when he was captured while trying to escape (with Richard Wagner). He was sentenced to death, and reprieved, successively by the Saxon and Austrian governments. “He was kept in fetters and chained to a wall for a year and then surrendered to the Russian government. After six years imprisonment he was sent, toothless, scorbutic and prematurely aged, to “the comparative freedom of Siberia”, whence, in 1861, after twelve years of captivity, he escaped to Japan, America and eventually England. Unbroken by his experiences, he at once resumed preaching the spirit of anarchist revolt and in 1864, in Switzerland, founded his International (the Alliance Internationale Sociale Democratique).

About the same time, Karl Marx founded his International (the International Working Men’s Association) in London, and the next few years were filled with the decisive struggle between Bakunin and Marx for the soul of the revolution. During Bakunin’s long absence in Saxon, Austrian and Russian jails and in Siberia, Marx in London had established his hold on the international revolutionary organization (in several countries he had sons-in-law as lieutenants, on the Napoleonic model), but Bakunin’s renown was great and he was deprived of the leadership only by a series of tricks which Marx, through his control of the General Council, was able to use against his rival. In 1872 the General Council called a congress of the International at The Hague, where Bakunin and his friends could not go on account of governmental hostility. At this congress charges were made against Bakunin (reminiscent of those which sixty years later were to be raised against any Communist leaders of whom Stalin wished to rid himself and he was expelled from the International by vote of the Council, packed by Marx’s handpicked men.

Broken in health Bakunin died a few years later, and apparently brought on his end by refusing to take food. With him died any hope (if such hope ever existed) that the organized world-revolution might be used to overthrow tyranny and liberate men; from the moment that it came “entirely under the auspices of Jews” (Disraeli) its purpose was to enslave men and to establish an indestructible tyranny. Bakunin’s idea was to organize force against oppression, and the worst oppressor of all, in his eyes, was The State. These are his words: “The State is not [172] society, it is only an historical form of it, as brutal as it is abstract. It was born historically, in all countries, of the marriage of violence, rapine, pillage, in a word, war and conquest . . . It has been from its origin, and it remains still at present, the divine sanction of brutal force and triumphant inequality. The State is authority; it is force; it is the ostentation and infatuation of force . . .”

Precisely such a State as that, Karl Marx designed to set up through his international revolutionary movement, and it was to be a world State. Bakunin in 1869, when his contest with Karl Marx was reaching its climax, like Disraeli in 1846 and 1852 identified the leadership of the world-revolution as Jewish and in this he saw the cause of the perversion, as he considered it, of the revolutionary idea. His Polemique contre les Juifs, written in 1869, was mainly directed against the Jews of the International, and from what we have since seen of these affairs we may assume that his expulsion by the Marxist General Council in 1872 became certain at the moment of that publication in 1869.

when Disraeli died the thing he had striven to avoid had come about: the “secret societies” had been welded into one world-revolutionary movement under Jewish control, and this was preparing to blow up the foundations of the 20th Century. He had found the perfect description for this organization: “a network” which covered Europe “just as the superficies of the earth is now being covered with railroads”. Informed men began more and more frequently to use this expression, “the network”, and to speak of “the hidden hand” which ruled governments. In the years before the revolutions of 1848 the former Rabbi Drach, who like Disraeli foresaw what was coming, published his indictment of the Talmud as the source of this disruptive process; his ensuing persecution was described by a Jewish writer named Morel, who among other things said, “what can the wisest measures of the authorities of all countries do against the vast and permanent conspiracy of a people which, like a network as vast as it is strong, stretched over the whole globe, brings its force to bear wherever an event occurs that interests the name of Israelite”.

In 1772 Poland was partitioned and, after more than 2,500 years, the “centre” of Jewish Government “ceased to exist” (according to Dr. Kastein) or became a secret Jewish government (as the Russian authorities believed). In 1776 Adam Weishaupt founded his Illuminati. By 1846 Disraeli was writing that “the revo1ution is developing entirely under Jewish auspices”. In 1869 Michel Bakunin, the disciple of Weishaupt, attacked the Jews in the revolutionary movement. In 1872 Bakunin was expelled and the united Communist movement plainly emerged, under Karl Marx (in 1917 it produced an almost exclusively Jewish Bolshevist government).

During the 19th Century (as Dr. Kastein, again, records) the term “antisemitism” was born. As “persecution” could no longer be said to exist, some new word had to be found, capable of intimidating Gentiles and terrifying Jews, the second purpose being more important than the first, and “antisemitism” was invented. “Abracadabra” might have served as well, for the term “antisemitism” is patently absurd in relation to people who are demonstrably not Semites and whose Law commands the extirpation of Semites (the Arab peoples of Palestine; any expression of sympathy with the Semitic Arabs, expelled from their native land by the Zionist intruders in 1948, in time came to be attacked as “antisemitism”).

Presumably the authors of this term desired to keep such words as Jew, Jewish and anti-Jewish out of the public controversy and counted on intimidating the mass-mind by the introduction of an obscurantist word. What the dominant sect meant by “antisemitism” was in fact a combination of lese majesty (offences against the dignity of the sovereign power) and heresy (opposition to the paramount religious doctrine); and by the middle of the present century the mass-mind had to a great extent submitted to this idea; that numerous breed which in earlier times would have doffed its cap at the approach of the squire’s bailiff or have crossed itself when the priestly eye turned its way held its tongue and looked respectful when any Jewish affair was mentioned.

The word “antisemitism” was coined at the time when “men of Jewish race”, as Disraeli and Bakunin pointed out, took over the direction of the world-revolution, and the main object of its invention was by

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 129 —

intimidation to deter public discussion of that remarkable development; the events of the present century have abundantly proved that, as this book will show. In the recent time, a Jewish authority, Mr. Bernard Lazare, offered a definition of “antisemitism” in a book which bore the word as its title. This definition had nothing whatever to do with the prophet Shem and his tribe, with Semitic blood or speech or stock, or with anything Semitic whatsoever; Mr. Lazare related “antisemitism” entirely to an adverse opinion of the Jewish role in revolution. He wrote:

“This is what must separate the impartial historian from antisemitism. The antisemite says: ‘The Jew is the preparer, the machinator, the chief engineer of revolutions’; the impartial historian confines himself to studying the part which the Jew, considering his spirit his character, the nature of his philosophy, and his religion, may have taken in revolutionary processes and movements”.

Disraeli said (who may even have had a drop or two of Semitic blood, and in that differed from the Eastern Jews to whom he alluded): “that mighty revolution. . . is developing entirely under the auspices of [175] the Jews”, “the influence of the Jews may be traced in the last outbreak of the destructive principle”, “men of Jewish race are found at the head of every one of them” (i.e., the secret societies).

As he was himself racially Jewish, Disraeli presumably felt no need to labour the fact that many Jews were as stoutly opposed as he to the “mighty revolution” and to “the destructive principle”. In his day this would have been apparent, and he would not have had to armourplate his words against the propagandist who, today, would accuse him of incriminating all Jews by his allusions to “the auspices of the Jews” and “the influence of the Jews” (which by Mr. Lazare’s definition would make him “antisemitic”!).

From the French revolutionary period onward (when the long resident Jews of France gave warning against the newcomers from the East who were making trouble in Alsace) the Sephardic Jews of the West strongly resisted the ill wind that was blowing towards them from the East. Emancipation had loosened their bonds; they stood to lose all they had gained if “the destructive principle”, “engineered” by the Talmudic sect and the Ashkenazim in the East, were to prevail over the West.

The warnings of Disraeli were addressed to this, then the dominant section of Jewry as much as to the Gentiles; perhaps more. The Sephardic Jews may also be said to have paid more heed to them than the Gentile masses around them. Their punishment was to be excommunicated; by one of the most remarkable operations ever performed by statisticians on a body of people, the Sephardim were within a hundred years to be pronounced virtually extinct (like the “ten lost tribes” long before).

When Jewish direction of the world-revolution became discernible by the middle of the last century it was direction by the Ashkenazic (Eastern, or Slavic) Jews. The Sephardic (Western, or Iberian) Jews were in the mass strongly opposed to it. It was directed against them as much as against Christendom, for emancipation in Europe had led to a substantial measure of assimilation in their case; they were slipping from the grasp of the ruling elders of Judaism, who were faced with the loss of their power through Jewish integration in mankind. Segregation was vital to Talmudic Judaism, and integration was lethal.

At that point they threw the “Eastern Jews” into the contest, whose emergence as a separate body of Jews coincided with the start of the world-revolution. Before then the West knew only “Jews”, and these were the Sephardic Jews. Alluding to the period when Disraeli began to speak of Jewish leadership of the revolution, Dr. Kastein says, “From this time onwards it is possible to speak of Western and Eastern Jews”. In fact the separate breeds had existed for about a thousand years; what Dr. Kastein means is that the Eastern Jews at that moment emerged as a distinct body, mobilized by the rabbinical government for action against the emancipated Sephardic Jews of the West and against the West itself.

Up to that time the Western Jews had only been dimly aware of these Eastern Jews, and to the Christian West they were unknown. Their cohesion as a mass, and the energy which had been stored up in them by many centuries of rabbinical absolutism in the ghettoes, was to make of them, when they entered the West, the most powerful of all the forces which shaped the events of the 20th Century. They were good material for the purpose to which they were put. Racially of barbaric Asiatic origins, for centuries they had received a Talmudic training in a regimentation as strict as that of any ancient Oriental despotism.

In the grand strategy which unfolded during the 19th Century they were employed for a double purpose, and with skill were used to achieve ends, so contradictory, that their simultaneous accomplishment must have been held impossible, before it came about, by any rational observer. In Russia itself they were used, as a mass, to wreck emancipation (for there would have been no hope of reclaiming the emancipated Jews of Western Europe if these had seen that the Eastern Jews, too, were becoming emancipated). To the outer world they were simultaneously depicted, even while they blocked the process of emancipation in Russia, as being the victims of a cruel, “antisemitic” persecution which wantonly denied them emancipation!

Given the control of modern media of mass-propaganda and mass-suggestion it is possible to impress on the mind of the multitude these false images of what is happening elsewhere, and under the spell of such false notions to incite them into war itself. During the last century the politicians of the West began habitually to declaim against the persecution of the Jews in Russia, while those Jews, under a [177] rigorous leadership, were being prompted to destroy emancipation by every conceivable means.

Lest the reader doubt, I must add that the picture here given is historically authentic, and is confirmed by the Judaist authorities. Among others Dr. Kastein says, “The great majority of Jews offered bitter passive resistance to all ‘attempts at amelioration’ “. However, this resistance was not simply “passive” but also took lethal forms. Dr. Chaim Weizmann is probably the best authority on this period, and his work will be extensively cited in what follows. The ghettoized Ashkenazim (both in their Communist and their Zionist organizations) were inspired to obstruct emancipation by every possible device (including assassination in the last resort) while the story of their persecution was hammered, as an intimidatory warning, into the consciousness of the Western Jews and, as a rightful claim for succour, into that of the Christian West.

The Gentile politicians of the West presented these fictions to their peoples as truth, for they had found that powerful Jews, in all countries, were able to assist parties favoured by them with money, press support and votes; the return they required was support for the cause of the “persecuted” Jews in Russia and for the “return” to Palestine. In effect this meant that politicians who sought these favours had to subordinate national interest to two causes ultimately destructive of all nation-states: the revolution and the ambition to acquire territory for the dominant race. This was the process by means of which, as Disraeli said in Lothair (1870) “democracy has degraded statesmen into politicians”. In this way also that state of the massmind began to take shape which would not brook any confutation, no matter how fully proven, of the legend of a permanent Jewish persecution and of a disease endemic in Gentile man (an epidemic at that time in Russia called “antisemitism”). When it was dangerous to believe that the world was round, the multitude vocally agreed that it was flat; this condition was reproduced, in respect of Talmudic Judaism’s propaganda, in the 19th century, with the results which have been seen in this one.

The Western Jews were much less responsive than the Western politicians to these two currents from the East. These original Jews, in whom the Sephardic tradition and strain continued, were moving towards integration, or at least towards an involvement, with diminishing frictions, in mankind. They intuitively feared the growing pressure from Russia and, recalling the unhappy end of the long, prosperous centuries in Spain, were filled with foreboding by the thought of its possible consequences

the Western Jews distrusted and feared these Eastern Jews, in whom they saw the spectral threat of an enforced return to the ghettoes and to rabbinical absolutism. The German Jew then was wont to refer to “diese Ostjuden” (these Eastern Jews!) with aversion; the Eastern Jew for his part, when after the first world war he made his way from Russia and Poland into Germany, spoke with contempt of the settled Jews there as “diese Berliner” (these Berliners!).

The rabbinical directorate of Jewry, in its Eastern fastnesses, set out to use these Judaized Tartars from Russia against the emancipated Jews of the West and against the West itself. The secretive life of Jewry has made the counting of Jewish heads impossible at all periods. This lack of any trustworthy figures of Jewish populations enabled the ruling sect a century ago to begin, and in our day almost to complete, an astonishing biological operation: they have transformed nearly all Jews into Ashkenazim!

At the end of the 18th century the Jews known to the West were the Sephardim, who inherited at least a tenuous tradition, a frail thread leading back through Spain to Africa, and fading then into a legend of Canaanitish origins. By the middle of the present century these Jews were declared by the elders of Jewry to have become almost extinct! A report presented to the Second World Sephardic Conference held in New York in 1954 stated that the Jewish world population was 11,763,491; that only 1,744,883 (or 15 percent) of these Jews were Sephardim; and that merely 52,000 of these Sephardim lived in Europe (which formerly knew only Sephardic Jews) and the entire Western Hemisphere.

Normal processes of birth and death could not have worked this magic. Evidently the Sephardim, like the ten tribes of Israel nearly three thousand years ago, have been declared to have “vanished” because they “ceased to believe that they had a destiny apart from their neighbours”. The Ashkenazim have been awarded the inheritance of Judah, “an order of existence fundamentally different from that of the people about . . . no process of assimilation to others . . . absolute differentiation”; and nearly all Jews have now been declared to be Ashkenazim! Thus the elders of Judaism twice have expunged masses by strokes of the pen. The Sephardim have been excommunicated for the same reason as the Israelites, but obviously they live on in truth, some integrated in mankind, some segregated in original Judaism.

THE ‘CHOSEN PEOPLE’ WERE ‘CHOSEN’ BY THE PHARISEES, THE TALMUDIC ‘JEWS’ … BUT WHO CARES, MOSAIC JEWS REPUGNANT AS WERE … TALMUDIC JEWS JUST MORE TRANSPARENTLY TOTALLY NOTHING TO DO WITH ‘GOD’, THAT THE ‘CHOICE’ WAS MADE BY THE CULT LEADERS, THE TALMUDIC RABBIS …

The identification of the Eastern Jews with the world-revolution, a century ago, cannot have come about by chance or by individual leanings, for they were despotically ruled. The regime of the rabbis in the East was nearly absolute and the ghettoized communities obeyed their commands, as God-empowered lawgivers and magistrates, in every act of daily life. During the 1930’s, when I saw a good deal of such Eastern Jewish communities, in Poland and Ruthenia, they still lived a life of seclusion, unimaginable to the Western mind until it was beheld. A mass move of these Eastern Jews into the revolutionary camp (or any other camp) could not have occurred without rabbinical guidance, for the penalties of disobedience, in those Talmudic confines, were dire (I have quoted the Jewish authority who testifies that the rabbis sometimes encouraged lynching if local circumstances disabled them from openly pronouncing the death penalty [179] prescribed by the Law.)*

Therefore the mass move into the revolutionary camp must be regarded as one of high policy, directed after full consideration by that Jewish government which was transferred to Poland after the expulsion from Spain and sank from the sight of men at the dissection of Poland in 1772. Contemplated in that historical

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 132 —

perspective, the threefold purposes of the grand design become clear, and events have demonstrated them. First, through revolution the process of emancipation (and therewith of Jewish assimilation in the West) might be reversed and the supremacy of the ruling sect in Jewry maintained. Second, through revolution vengeance might be taken on Christendom for the expulsion from Spain, or perhaps for the existence of Christendom (for that is the affront to which the Talmud is in effect the answer). Third, revolution would promote the fulfilment of The Law, which ordained the ruination of the heathen and the triumph of the Chosen People, or at any rate of the sect which used that beguiling term.

The Old Testament contains a lofty law of righteousness and neighbourly behaviour and inspired glimpses of the universal “house of prayer of all peoples”. This Law was rejected by Judah, and the Torah includes the interpolations and cancellations which nullify it; but at any rate it contains both; it is two books, and any man may choose the one that seems to him to be the word of God. In fact that is what Christianity did; it took from the Old Testament, and applied to itself, those parts of the Torah which have a universal application, and it ignored the Levitical insertions which voided the moral commandments.

But the Judaic Law under which the Eastern rabbinate directed Eastern

* This rabbinical administration of the Judaic Law within Jewish communities continues today in America, England and other Western countries. In 1955 a Jewish merchant of Leeds, in England, came under Jewish suspicion of having allowed some of 223 old British tanks, disposed of by him, to reach Egypt, a neighbour of the Zionist state. No complaint was raised in respect of their sale to other countries, and the transaction, whatever their destination, was legal under British law. The alleged Egyptian sale, alone, was brought before a Jewish court, the president of which stated in the British Press that if the man were cleared the court’s findings “will be accepted without question by the Jewish community”, but if he were not “we have our ways as a community of dealing with a transgressor”.

The word “transgressor” relates to the Judaic rabbinical law, so that this was a public intimation that a man found to have “transgressed” that law would be punished, without regard to his innocence or guilt under the law of the country of which he was a citizen.

In this case the action taken cuts across State policy at its highest levels, those of foreign policy and national defence: for foreign policy and national defence cannot be conducted in the national interest if sections of the community are able to nullify governmental policy by dictating the choice of foreign countries to which arms may be sold, and punishing “transgressors”, This case, however, was exceptional only in the publicity it received. As to that, as far as I was able to judge it aroused no great public interest or feeling, or if it did, this was not allowed to find expression in the newspapers. This was an example of the extent to which public discussion or criticism of any action taken by the ruling powers of Jewry had been silenced in the West by 1955.

[180]

Jews into the revolutionary camp is that of the Talmud, of which “the modern Jew is the product” (Mr. Rodkinson, previously cited). The Talmud contains no lofty law of righteousness applicable to all men, but sets up the creed of Moloch, shorn of the universal applications; it is one book, not two. It is the uncompromising response to Christianity: “the precepts of justice, of equity, or charity towards one’s neighbour, are not only not applicable with regard to the Christian, but constitute a crime in anyone who would act differently. The Talmud expressly forbids one to save a non-Jew from death . . . to restore lost goods, etc. to him, to have pity on him” (the former Rabbi Drach, already quoted). This was The Law of the Slavic Ashkenazim in their ghettoes; the Ashkenazim, under stern direction, became the engineers of the world-revolution; and according to the Judaic authorities the Ashkenazim are now “the Jews”, or 85 percent of them.

MHR EXACTLY LIKE IN BRENDON O’CONNELLS TRIAL…AND THE WHOLE ‘MOCKERY’ CHARGE WAS UNNECESSARY AND UNFOUNDED, BUT THE PROSECUTOR ‘INTERPOLATED’ IT EFFECTIVELY, TO MAKE BRENDON LOOK LIKE A ‘TYPICAL / CONVENTIONAL / OFFICIAL ‘ANTI-SEMITE’ MAKING FUN OF ‘THE HOLOCAUST’ VICTIMS…THE INTERPOLATION E.G NON SEQUITURS AND SELF NEGATING ANSWERS THAT TURNED THE ‘YES’ TO THE QUESTION INTO A ‘NO’ IN THE JURY’S MIND / EAR…

Thus a formidable, secret sect, in parts of Russia little known to the outer world trained a compact mass of human beings for an onslaught on the nation-states of Christendom and the West, and in the 19th century began to unleash the force which it had generated. For the next hundred and fifty years (until the present day) the revolutionary force worked with spreading effect to disrupt the West, always following the plan originally disclosed in Weishaupt’s papers, and “men of Jewish race” were constantly found at the head of it. The results have shown: Europe, once a land-mass of prosperous and virile nation-states, is now a place

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 133 —

of bewildered peoples who struggle to make their way out of the new Dark Age and into the light again. The effects have spread far beyond Europe; Disraeli’s “destructive principle” today beats on the doors of all the world. Possibly another hundred years must pass before the force let loose expends itself and the Ashkenazim (like the Sephardim before them) find the pull of mankind too strong for them, so that the Cabalist’s dream of world dominion fades.

MHR THIS IS WHY THEY MUST ACT…VIOLENTLY…TO IMPOSE THEIR WILL…THEY WON’T LET THIS INTEGRATION HAPPEN…WILL PROBABLY LAUNCH THEIR OWN POGROMS, A REAL HOLOCAUST, BLAME IT ON GENTILES ETC…BUT THEY REALLY HAVE ALL THE POWER THEY NEED…THEY ARE EFFECTIVELY THE WORLD GOVT. AS I WRITE THIS…

The achievement is clear: the “return” has been accomplished and the nation-state of the chosen people has been founded; simultaneously the nation-states of other peoples, those breeds outside The Law, have been reduced or extinguished. The dominant-force corrupted the governments of these states at the top level; the revolutionary-force eroded their foundations at the bottom [181] level.

Dr. Kastein, having affirmed that the Jewish government (the “centre”, with its unbroken history of more than two thousand years) “ceased to exist” after the dissection of Poland in 1772, records that a hundred years later “a Jewish international” was in being. He evidently meant that the Jewish government of Jews had given way to a Jewish government of governments, and this is evidently the truth of our time.

Disraeli spoke of “a network” of revolutionary organizations which covered the earth like a system of railroads; it is the perfect description of the destructive mechanism which was constructed. To achieve the greater purpose there had to be another network at the top, and although Disraeli did not use the word in that case, he alluded to it when he said, “The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes”. This is presumably “the Jewish international” of which Dr. Kastein speaks, a league of powerful and wealthy men at the top, under whose authority kings and princes, first, and republican presidents and politicians, next, equally found themselves.

These two machines worked in synchronization, each promoting the aim of the other. In their dealings with the masses, the Gentile rulers were forced by the threat of revolution from below to yield ever more authority, until they fell; in their dealings with foreign countries, and in the wars to which these led, they were constrained by the power of the purse to support the plan of the symbolic “return” to Palestine. The Gentile often asks why men of wealth should promote revolution. Disraeli put the same question, in order to give the answer: they wish to destroy Christianity. He knew precisely what he meant; to the Gentile the answer may be made more comprehensible by saying that they obey the Talmudic Law, which requires the destruction of heathen nation-states as the prelude to the triumphant “return”.

MHR SIMPLE INVESTMENT…MONEY AS TOOL TO INCREASE POWER…AND LITERALLY NOW PRINT MONEY…WHEN HAVE THE ULTIMATE POWER, WILL LITERALLY OWN EVERYTHING…WON’T NEED TO BUY ANYTHING…ALREADY PRETTY MUCH DO OWN EVERYTHING…

Lord Shaftesbury proposed that the great powers should buy Palestine from the Sultan of Turkey and “restore it to the Jews”.

The scapegoat for the sins of the Jews was to become the symbol of the Jews themselves; its tormentors, the Levitical priests, were by implication to be changed into Gentile oppressors!)

MHR SAVE THE JEW, TO SAVE OURSELVES

two years before Monk saw Mr. Lincoln the Czar Alexander II had been assassinated when he announced a parliamentary constitution; in Prussia the Jews were emancipated and for this very reason were the objects of attack by the Jews in Russia; the Jews under Turkish rule (which oppressed all subject nationalities impartially) were already in Palestine and thus could not be restored thither.

what prophecy required God to do was first to put the Jews in possession of Palestine, and then to set up a worldwide organization with power to enforce the submission of nations to its law.

The idea of buying Palestine appealed to him, but he had no illusions about it. He wrote to Monk, “Any amount of money can be raised upon it, owing to the belief which people have that they would be fulfilling prophecy and bringing on the end of the world. I don’t know why they are so anxious for the latter event, but it makes the commercial speculation easy”.

a perplexed French politician at the Peace Conference of 1919, who asked Mr. Balfour why he was so eager to bring about “the return” of the Jews to Palestine; if this truly was the fulfilment of prophecy, then prophecy also decreed that the end of the world would follow. Mr. Balfour replied languidly. “Precisely, that is what makes it all so very interesting”.

In 1880 Holman Hunt, again enjoying deteriorated health, was so alarmed by small warlike episodes in Egypt and South Africa that he thought extinction at hand and joined with Monk in issuing a manifesto which anticipated the Zionist-ruled worldgovernment schemes of this century. It was headed “The abolition of national warfare”, called on all men of goodwill to subscribe a tenth of their income to the realization of “the Kingdom of God” in the form of a world government to be set up in Palestine and to be called “the United Nations”, and proposed that the money be given to Mr. Monk for the purpose of acquiring Palestine.

Dr. Chaim Weizmann’s book is the best single fount of information about the twin roots of Communism and Zionism and their convergent purpose. He was present at the birth of Zionism, he became its roving plenipotentiary, he was for forty years the darling of Western courts, presidential offices and cabinet rooms, [l94] he became the first president of the Zionist state, and he told the entire tale with astonishing candour.

He explains that the Jews in Russia were divided into three groups. The first group was that of the Jews who, seeking “the peace of the city”, simply wanted to become peaceable Russian citizens, as the Jews of the West, in the majority, at that time were loyal German, French or other citizens. Emancipation was for this group the final aim, and it chiefly contained those Jews who, by talent, diligence and fear of Talmudic rule, had escaped from the ghettoes. By the edict of the Talmudists it has “disappeared from the face of the earth”, or been excommunicated.

The remaining mass of Jews in Russia, (that is, those that lived in the ghettoes under Talmudic rule) were divided into two groups by a vertical line which split households and families, including Dr. Weizmann’s own house and family. Both groups were revolutionary; that is to say, they agreed in working for the destruction of Russia. The dissension was solely on the point of Zionism. The “Communist-revolutionary” group held that full “emancipation” would be achieved when the world-revolution supplanted the nationstates everywhere. The “Zionist-revolutionary” group, while agreeing that the world-revolution was indispensable to the process, held that full “emancipation” would only be achieved when a Jewish nation was established in a Jewish state.

MHR TODAY EVEN RUSSIAN CHRISTIANS BEING IMPORTED TO ISRAEL TO FILL HI TECH POSITIONS …

Communism was already an organized, though still a secret and conspiratorial party in the ghettoes when Zionism first took organized (though equally secret) form in the Chibath Zion (Love of Zion) movement. This was founded at Pinsk, where Dr. Weizmann went to school, so that as a boy his path led him into the Zionist-revolutionary wing of the anti-Russian conspiracy. In his childhood (1881) something happened which threatened to destroy the entire legend of “persecution in Russia” on which Talmudic propaganda in the outer world was based.

In 1861 Czar Alexander II, the famous Liberator, had liberated 23,000,000 Russian serfs. From that moment the prospect of liberty and improvement on the Western model opened out for Russian citizens of all nationalities (Russia contained about 160 nationalities and the Jews formed about 4 percent of the total population). Then, during the twenty years following the liberation of the serfs, the Jews began, under Talmudic direction, to offer “bitter passive resistance to all ‘attempts at improvements’ ” (Dr. Kastein). In March 1881, Alexander II moved to complete his life’s work by proclaiming a parliamentary constitution. Dr. Kastein’s comment speaks for itself: “It is not surprising to find a Jewess taking part in the conspiracy which led to the assassination of Alexander II” .

This event, the first of a similar series, was the first major success of the revolutionaries in preventing emancipation. It restored the ideal condition [196] depicted by Moses Hess (one of the earliest Zionist propagandists) in the year following the liberation of the serfs: “We Jews shall always remain strangers among the nations; these, it is true, will grant us rights from feelings of humanity and justice, but they will never respect us so long as we place our great memories in the second rank and accept as our first principle, ‘Where I flourish, there is my country’ “.

During this period Leon Pinsker, another herald of Zionism, published his book Auto-Emancipation. The title was a threat (to the initiated); it meant, “We will not accept any kind of emancipation bestowed on us by others; we will emancipate ourselves and will give ’emancipation’ our own interpretation”. He said, “There is an inexorable and inescapable conflict between humans known as Jews and other humans”, and he described the master-method to be used to bring about this “self-emancipation” and to “restore the Jewish nation”: the struggle to achieve “these ends, he said, “must be entered upon in such a spirit as to exert an irresistible pressure upon the international politics of the present “.

MHR TALMUDIC CULT DIDN’T WANT ITS MEMBERS ‘FREE’…IT NEEDED THE ILLUSION OF PERSECUTION, WHICH HITLER OFFERED…SO THEY FINANCED HIM…ENCOURAGED HIM…AND MURDERED THE TZAR THAT WOULD HAVE FREED THEM, AND MADE THEIR ‘ILLUSION OF PERSECUTION’ OBVIOUS…AND BROKEN DOWN THE STRICT CONTROL / DOMINATION THEY HAD AS A CULT…WITH AN EXTERNAL ‘ENEMY’ TO ‘UNITE’ THEM…WITHOUT THIS, WHAT WAS A ‘JEW’ BUT A CITIZEN WITH FULL RIGHTS…NOT PERSECUTED…HAPPY TO INTEGRATE AND ASSIMILATE…

Pinsker was an obscure Jewish emigré in Berlin, little known outside revolutionary circles, when he wrote these words, which would seem to be of the most foolish pretension if the events of the next seventy years had not proved that he knew exactly what he meant. He knew how Zionism would prevail. Clearly the conspiracy, long before its nature was even suspected in the

outer world, had powerful support far outside Russia and this unknown Pinsker was aware of the methods by which the affairs of the world were to be rearranged.

Such was the state of the two-headed conspiracy in Russia when Dr. Weizmann grew to manhood and began to play his part. The word “conspiracy”, frequently used here, is not the author’s; Dr. Weizmann candidly employs it. Loathing Russia, he went (without hindrance) to Germany. The sight of “emancipated” Jews there so repelled him that he longed for the ghettoes of Russia and returned to them during his holidays, then resuming his part in “the conspiracy”, as he says. Then, at various universities in the emancipated West he continued his “open fight” to de-emancipate the Jews of Europe. They recognized the danger and turned faces of fear and enmity to these Ostjuden.

Thus in Germany Gabriel Rieser told the Zionist-revolutionaries from Russia “We did not immigrate here, we were born here, and because we were born here, we lay no claim to a home anywhere else; we are either Germans or else we are homeless”. Similarly, the rabbis of Reform Judaism resolved that “the idea of the Messiah deserves every consideration in our prayers, but all requests that we may [197] be led back to the land of our fathers and the Jewish State be restored must be dropped out of them”.

MHR SO HITLER WAS SERVING THE ZIONIST PRONG OF THE CONSPIRACY…GIVING EUROPEAN JEWS A REASON TO BECOME ZIONISTS…THE ZIONISTS PROVOKED HOSTILITY WITH THEIR ‘WAR ON GERMANY’ AND ‘EXPORT BAN’ AND COMMUNIST UPRISINGS, AND MORE SUBTLE ‘CULTURAL’ WARFARE, AND ECONOMIC WARFARE I.E CRASHING WORLD ECONOMY ETC…SO EVEN IF HITLER NEVER INTENDED TO ASSIST THE JEW WORLD ORDER, HE DID THEIR WORK…WHAT MUST AMAZE ANYONE IS THAT JEWS STILL PREFERRED TO RETURN TO GERMANY, AND EUROPE, RATHER THAN GO TO ISRAEL, TO BE SLAVES TO THE CULT OF PHARISEE TALMUDIC JUDAISM / ZIONISM…WHICH MUST INDICATE MORE THAN ANYTHING THAT ‘THE HOLOCAUST’ WAS A LIE / PROPAGANDA…WORK CAMPS YES…BAD ENOUGH…BUT CLEARLY THE CONDITIONS WERE NOT BAD ENOUGH TO PROVOKE THE ‘SURVIVORS’ TO BE DESPERATE TO LEAVE GERMANY BEHIND THEM, TO LEAVE EUROPE, AND MOVE TO ISRAEL…SO FEW ACTUALLY DID…RELATIVELY…IF ANTISEMITISM AS BAD AS THE ADL TRY TO MAKE IT OUT, THEY WOULD HAVE LEFT AFTERWARDS, BUT THEY REMAIN…AND NOT IN THE GHETTOES THE TALMUDIC CULT CAN CONTROL, BUT RELATIVELY INTEGRATED / ‘COOLED’ / ‘ASSIMILATED’ … THAT IS THE CRIME THAT GERMANY MUST PAY FOR…THE TRUE CRIME IN THE TALMUDIC CULTS EYES OF HAVING ‘EMANCIPATED’ THE JEWS IN EUROPE FROM THEIR CULT MASTERS THE TALMUDIC CULT, FROM THEIR SELF-PRESCRIBED GHETTOES…AND ALSO WHY THE U.S.A MUST SUFFER, FOR ‘FREEING’ THE ‘JEWS’ THERE, WHO ESCAPED THEIR CULT MASTERS PERSECUTION IN EUROPE, AND ASSIMILATING / ACCEPTING THEM INTO THEIR SOCIETY…’COOLING’ THEM…FREEING THEM FROM THEIR CULT LEADERS MIND PRISONS… BUT WHAT GETS ME IS THEIR INSISTENCE ON ‘THE HOLOCAUST’ WHICH ONLY SERVES THE CULT AND NOT THE EMANCIPATED JEWS…IT PUSHES THEM BACK INTO THE ‘PROTECTION’ OF THE CULT LEADERS…AS INTENDED…DO THEY NOT REALISE THIS? A GREAT MONEY SPINNER NO DOUBT…SOURCE OF SYMPATHY MAYBE…BUT VERY STUPID FOR ‘FREE’ JEWS WHO ARE SUPPOSEDLY SO SMART…TO PROP UP THE ZIONISTS…WHICH GIVES ME PAUSE TO WONDER IF THE ‘FREE’ JEWS IN THE U.S.A ARE REALLY AS ‘INNOCENT’ AS WE WOULD LIKE THEM TO BE… THEY SUPPORT THE ADL…ETC…ARE THEY FOOLED BY IT ALL? SO NOT REALLY FREE AT ALL? LIVING IN FEAR? ABLE TO BE ‘REELED IN’ LIKE ANY OTHER FISH CAUGHT ON THE HOOK OF THE CULT PROPAGANDA / CONTROL GRID / MIND GAMES / MIND PRISON ? LET EM THINK THEY ARE FREE, LET THE LINE GO SLACK, THEN WHEN YOU WANT THEM, SIMPLY REEL THEM IN…CONSTRUCT SOME NEW THREAT, SOME FALSE FLAG OR FAKED MASSACRE…KEEP THE FEAR IN THE BACKGROUND, LIKE A HOOK STUCK IN THEIR GULLETS THAT THEY DON’T FEEL, BECAUSE THE TENSION IN THE LINE IS RELAXED…SLACK…BUT WHICH WILL PRODUCE THE DESIRED KNEE JERK, IRRATIONAL, EMOTIONAL REACTION, ONCE RE-ACTIVATED…A ‘SLEEPER’ FEAR MAINTAINED BY CONSTANT ‘HOLOCAUST’ AND ‘ADL ANTI-SEMITISM’ BACKGROUND NOISE…ALMOST SUBLIMINAL…BUT CONSTANT…SUBCONSCIOUS…READY TO BE ‘TRIGGERED’ LIKE A PHOBIC RESPONSE…BY AN APPROPRIATE STIMULUS / TRIGGER E.G CIA-MOSSAD JOINT OPERATION TARGETING JEWS, BLAMED ON ‘AMALEK’ I.E NON-JEWS…AND RESPONDING WITH ALL THEIR NUCLEAR ARSENAL…

These Jews struggled to keep faith with the Sanhedrin’s pledges. They had made peace with mankind, and it appeared impossible that the Talmudists could ever lead them back into a new Nehemiahan captivity. Dr. Kastein records with horror that towards the end of the 19th century “one Jew in five married a Gentile” and, with greater horror, that in war “on all fronts Jew stood opposed to Jew; this was a tragedy . . . which will be repeated . . . as long as Jews are compelled to fulfil their duties as citizens of the lands of their adoption”.

The shadow of the new Talmudic captivity was much nearer to the Jews of the West than even they could suspect. The elders in Russia had been organizing during all these decades and as the end of the century approached were ready to “exert irresistible pressure upon the international politics of the present”. The most successful specialist in this exertion of pressure; a roving Zionist prime minister, was young Chaim Weizmann, who during the last years of Monk’s life moved about the European cities and universities, from Darmstadt to Berlin, and later from Berlin to Geneva, planting therein the time-bombs of the future and preparing for his 20th Century task.

As the century closed came a sudden acceleration in this process, as if a machine long in construction were completed and began to run at high power, and its throbbing pulsations were at once felt throughout all Jewry, though the Gentile masses, less sensitive to such vibrations, remarked them not at all. In the succession to Moses Hess another Jew from Russia, Asher Ginsburg (Ahad Ha’am) proclaimed that the Jews not only formed a nation but must have a Jewish state in Palestine. However, this was but one more voice from remote Russia, and the weakness of the Jews in the West was that they did not realize the power and strength of the compact, organized mass in the Eastern ghettoes, or at any rate, they could not see how it could make itself felt in Europe.

MHR TO RESTATE…GHETTOES NOT CONSTRUCTION OF GENTILES, BUT OF THE CULT…REQUIRED CENTRALISED LOCUS … PREVENT JEWS FROM BECOMING FREE OF THE CULT…YOU DON’T NEED LARGE DISPERSED NUMBERS…THE GENTILES HAVE THEM…YOU NEED VERY CULTISH CENTRALISED LOCALISED CONDENSED HIGH PRESSURE HIGH MOTIVATION ISOLATED CULT SYSTEM… TO LITERALLY BREED AND INDOCTRINATE AND HIGHLY MOTIVATE AND TRAIN YOUR CULT MEMBERS FOR THE TASK…SO A FEW MILLION JEWS CAN RULE THE WORLD…BECAUSE SO MANY OF THEM ARE PURPOSE – BUILT / PURPOSE-TRAINED / CONDITIONED… THE OPPOSITE OF THE GENTILES, WHOM THE JEWS HAVE DELIBERATELY DIVESTED OF NATIONALISM, ‘RACISM’, SENSE OF IDENTITY, CONTROL OF THEIR OWN BORDERS, SENSE OF ETHNIC / NATIONAL / RELIGIOUS IDENTIFICATION I.E WHILE CONCENTRATING YOUR OWN CULT, MAKING IT MORE CULTISH, SOLIDARITY, DECISIVE, TARGETTED, UNIFIED, YOU ATOMISE YOUR VICTIM’S SOCIETY, YOU MAKE YOUR OWN PEOPLE MORE CULTISHLY RELIGIOUS, WHETHER MARXIST OR TALMUDIC JUDAISM, WHILE DESTROYING ANY SENSE OF IDENTITY / UNITY / PURPOSE OF YOUR TARGETTED ENEMY, BY REMOVING THEIR IDENTITY / SOLIDARITY I.E BASIS OF THIS BY WEAKENING RELIGION, ‘RACE’, NATIONALISM, IMPLYING THEIR CULTURE IS AS ‘GUILTY’ I.E AMALEK AS THE JEWS ARE ‘INNOCENT VICTIMS OF AMALEK’ …THEIR RELIGION SILLY AND BAD…AND SETTING UP ‘STRAW MAN’ CAPITALISM, RELIGION ETC TO DISCREDIT THEIR OWN ICONS / LEADERS / SYSTEMS / BELIEFS… SO WEAKEN THEM, ATOMISE THEM, DIVIDE THEM, WHILE INCREASING YOUR OWN UNITY OF PURPOSE / DOGMA / CENTRALISED POWER / RACIALSIM/ NATIONALISM / AGRESSIVE MILITARISM, SENSE OF UNITY / PURPOSE / AMBITION…THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED AND IS BEING PUSHED BY THE CULT JEWS…AT THE CENTER AND EVEN EDGES…WITTINGLY OR UNWITTINGLY…INNOCENTLY AND WITH THE BEST INTENTIONS, OR MALICIOUSLY, WITH BAD VIOLENT DESTRUCTIVE INTENTIONS…TO ENSLAVE AND DESTROY…

the words “contact exceeding neighbourly hostility” offer a good example of Zionist pilpulism MHR I.E ANTISEMITISM INCLUDES SELF DEFENCE WHEN THE CULT ATTACKED FELLOW NEIGHBOURING JEWISH STATES…THAT THEY DID NOT ACQUIESCE / OBEY / JOIN THE CULT ETC IS ‘ANTI-SEMITISM’ SO USING THEIR IMPLICIT DEFINITIONS, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ‘ARABIC’ SEMIITISM OR THE LANGUAGE, BUT ANY RESISTANCE TO THE CULTS AMBITIONS … WORST ‘PERSECUTION’ BEING ATTEMPTING TO FREE A CULT MEMBER FROM THE CULT…ASSIMILATING THEM / EMANCIPATING THEM FROM THEIR TALMUDIC CULT MASTERS… FROM THE IDEOLOGY OF THE CULT…WHICH MUST BE BY DEFINITION, USING THEIR OWN LANGUAGE ‘THE IDEOLOGY OF SEMITISM’…THUS ANTI-SEMITISM, IN THE REAL WAY THEY USE IT (NOT THE PROPAGANDISTIC/LEGALISTIC WAY THEY EMPLOY IT AS A WEAPON0N) IS TOTALLY RATIONAL AND GOOD … IT MEANS DEFYING THE CULT OF JUDAISM…WHICH EVEN IN ITS MOSAIC FORM IS A MONSTROSITY, AND IN ITS TALMUDIC FORM, DIVORCED FROM ANY OF THE ‘IMPROVEMENTS’ MADE BY PROPHETS, OR ‘NICEITES’ THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO BE ADDED / IMPLICED / TACKED ON / READ INTO / ‘INTERPOLATED’ / INTERPRETATIONS ADDED…I.E THE PURE CULT MALICIOUS INTENT, USING MEMBERS AS MERE MEANS TO THE CULT LEADERS EGOTISTICAL, MASSIVELY DELUSIONAL, BUT REALISABLE, CLAIM TO BE MASTERS OF THIS PLANET…TO ENFORCE A PLANET WIDE SUBMISSION TO THEIR WILL…THEIR CULT…HIDING BEHIND ‘GODS AUTHORITY’ AND ‘GODS WORD’ AND ‘THEIR HOLY BOOKS’…WHICH THEY WROTE…WITH ZERO AUTHORITY FROM ANY DIVINITY…AN EXPRESSION OF THEIR OWN MALICIOUS GENIUS…

MHR THERE WAS ALWAYS THE POSSIBILITY THEY WERE WELL INTENDED I.E LIKE MY OWN EDEN PROTOCOLS…USING NOBLE LIES ETC…WHICH MAYBE AT SOME POINT SOME FORM OF CHRISTIANITY, AS EXPRESSED BY THE ORIGINAL PEOPLE / JESUS, MIGHT HAVE HAD…BUT NOW CLEAR AFTER 911, U.S.S LIBERTY, MILLIONS SLAUGHTERED IN RUSSIA AND GERMANY, ‘THE HOLOCAUST’, GAZA ETC…THAT THEIR NEW WORLD ORDER IS SIMPLY THE WORST CULT WE COULD IMAGINE…NOTHING ‘NOBLE’ IN IT…THOUGH SOME PARTICIPANTS MAY BE MOTIVATED BY NOBLE SENTIMENTS…THE CORE IS EVIL…PURE EVIL….THE WORST IN HUMAN NATURE TRIUMPHING OVER THE BEST…AS THAT RABBI SAID…IT HAS HAD MILLENIA TO ‘DISTILL’ THE WORST, AND ‘FILTER OUT’ ANY NOBLE, MORAL, ETHICAL, HUMANE SENTIMENTS FROM ITS CORE MEMBERS…BECOMING MORE EVIL AND SINGLE MINDEDLY DELUSIONAL WITH EACH SUCCESSIVE GENERATION..PRODUCING MARXISM…THEN THE JEW.S.S.R, DRESDEN, FIREBOMBING OF JAPAN AND GERMANY… MILLIONS OF DEAD HUMANS IN THE MIDDLE EAST JUST RECENTLY…WITH BILLIONS TO FOLLOW…ALL TO REALISE THE MOST DISGUSTING AND DESPICABLY REPUGNANT CULT EVER DEVISED…FOR THE ‘BENEFIT’ OF A FEW CULT LEADERS… EVEN BEING ‘CHOSEN’ BY THIS CULT IS WORSE THAN BEING KILLED BY IT…A FATE WORSE THAN DEATH…LIVING THE RITUAL LIFE OF A SLAVE, A NEUROTIC SLAVE OF A MIND PRISON…WITH A CONCRETE AND STEEL AND HIGH TECH ‘OBJECTIVE’ PRISON TO TOTALLY ENFORCE IT…

The Dreyfus case gave the Jews complete proof of the validity of emancipation and of the impartiality of justice under it. Never was one man defended so publicly by so many or so fully vindicated. Today whole nations, east of Berlin, have no right to any process of [199] law and the West, which signed the deed of their outlawry, is indifferent to their plight; they may be imprisoned or killed without charge or trial. Yet in the West today the Dreyfus case, the classic example of justice, continues to be cited by the propagandists as the horrid example of injustice. If the case for or against Zionism stood or fell by the Dreyfus case, the word should have disappeared from history at that point.

MHR AUTHOR DIDN’T LIVE TO SEE TODAY’S POLICE STATE…DECADE LONG PRISON SENTENCES EVEN IN THE WEST, THE LOSS OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, THE PRISON STATE, THE RANDOM SEARCHES, THE CENSORSHIP, THE PATRIOT ACTS AND MARTIAL LAWS…THE LOSS OF ‘HABEUS CORPUS’, OF ALL THE RIGHTS SO PAINSTAKINGLGY ACHIEVED IN THE GENTILE NATIONS…FREEDOM…INCLUDING THE EMANCIPATION OF THE JEWS FROM THEIR CULT…WARRANTLESS SEARCHES, HOME INVASIONS, ARREST WITHOUT TRIAL, IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT TRIAL, INDEFINITE ‘DETENTION’…IF YOU NEED ANY MORE PROOF THAT THE FALL OF THE JEW.S.S.R WAS FAKED, A MEDIA STUNT, THEN COMPARE THE FREEDOMS / RIGHTS WE HAVE LOST RECENTLY SINCE 911 WITH THE ONES LOST BY RUSSIANS AND JEW.S.S.R CITIZEN-PRISONERS AFTER 1917… 911 AND 1917…THE JEW.S.S.R SIMPLY LET DOWN THE IRON CURTAIN TO EXPAND…NOT AS WE IMAGINED, TO DISSOLVE…WE LOST…THEY WON…IT IS OBVIOUS…WE ARE LIVING IN A WORLD-WIDE JEW.S.S.R SYSTEM…NOT PUBLICALLY ANNOUNCED YET…BUT EFFECTIVELY IN PLACE…

in March 1897, Jews “all over the world” were invited to send delegates to a “Zionist congress”, a counter-Sanhedrin, at Munich in August. The Western Jews were adamantly opposed. The rabbis of Germany, and then the Jews of Munich, protested, and the place of meeting was changed to Basel, in Switzerland. The Reform Jews of America two years earlier had announced that they expected “neither a return to Palestine. . . nor the restoration of any of the laws concerning the Jewish State”. (Most curious to relate today, when Rabbi Stephen Wise in 1899 suggested a book about Zionism to the Jewish Publication Society of America its secretary replied, “The Society cannot risk a book on Zionism”).

When Herzl’s congress met most of the 197 delegates came from Eastern Europe. This group of men then set up a “World Zionist Organization”, which proclaimed Jewish nationhood and “a publicly secured, legally assured home” to be its aims, and Herzl declared “The Jewish State exists”. In fact, a few Jews, claiming to speak for all Jews but vehemently repudiated by many representative bodies of Western Jewry, had held a meeting in Basel, and that was all.

Nevertheless, the proposal, for what it was worth in those circumstances, was at last on the table of international affairs. The congress was in fact a Sanhedrin summoned to cancel the avowals made by the Napoleonic Sanhedrin eighty years before. That Sanhedrin repudiated separate nationhood and any ambition to form a Jewish state; this one proclaimed separate nationhood and the ambition of statehood. Looking back fifty years later, Rabbi Elmer Berger observed, “Here was the wedge of Jewish nationalism, to be driven between Jews and other human beings. Here was the permanent mould of ghettoism into which Jewish

* At that time it hardly reached the mind of the Gentile multitude. In 1841 a Colonel Churchill, English Consul at Smyrna, at the conference of Central European States called to determine the future of Syria had put forward a proposal to set up a Jewish state in Palestine, but apparently it was dismissed with little or no consideration.

[200] life in the unemancipated nations was to remain compressed so that the self-generating processes of emancipation and integration could not come into play”.

1841 A CHURCHILL ALREADY PUSHING FOR A JEWISH STATE IN PALESTINE…IMAGINE THAT…!!!

CHURCH-ILL ?

The Napoleonic Sanhedrin had a basic flaw, now revealed, of which Napoleon may well have been unaware. It represented the Western Jews, and Napoleon cannot reasonably be expected to have known of the strength of the compact, Talmudic-ruled mass of Jews in Russia, for Dr. Herzl, who surely should have known of this, was ignorant of it! He made the discovery at that first World Zionist Congress, called by him in such confident expectation of mass-support: “and then. . . there rose before our eyes a Russian Jewry, the strength of which we had not even suspected. Seventy of our delegates came from Russia, and it was patent to all of us that they represented the views and sentiments of the five million Jews of that country. What a humiliation for us, who had taken our superiority for granted! ”

Dr. Herzl found himself face to face with his masters and with the conspiracy, which through him was about to enter the West. He had declared war on emancipation and, like many successors, was unaware of the nature of the force he had released. He was soon left behind, a bugler whose task was done, while the real “managers” took over.

He had forged the instrument which they were to use in their onslaught on the West. Dr. Weizmann, who became the real leader, clearly sees that: “It was Dr. Herzl’s enduring contribution to Zionism to have created one central parliamentary authority for Zionism . . . This was the first time in the exilic history of Jewry that a great government had officially negotiated with the elected representatives of the Jewish people. The identity, the legal personality of the Jewish people, had been re-established”.

Dr. Weizmann presumably smiled to himself when he included the words “parliamentary” and “elected”. The middle sentence contains the great fact. The Jews who met at Basel, shunned by the majority of Western Jews, and its declarations, could only be lent authority by one event, which at that time seemed unimaginable; namely, their recognition by a Great Power. This inconceivable thing happened a few years later when the British Government offered Dr. Herzl Uganda, and that is the event to which Dr. Weizmann refers. From that moment all the Great Powers of the West in effect accepted the Talmudists from Russia as representing all Jews, and from that moment the Zionist-revolution also entered the West.

MHR SO THE CHANGE IN THE DIRECTION OF JEWISH IDENTITY / HISTORY / LIFE CAME ABOUT WHEN THE TALMUDIC EASTERN CULT REASSERTED ITS RIGHT TO SPEAK FOR ALL JEWS… AND WON THIS RIGHT, AT THE EXPENSE OF THE ‘FREED’ CULT MEMBERS IN THE WEST… AND ALREADY THE BRITISH WERE OFFERING THESE JEWS A HOMELAND WHERE OTHER PEOPLE ALREADY HAD ONE…UGANDA…LONG BEFORE HITLER’S IDEA OF ‘MADAGASCAR’ ETC…

AND SO THE FREED CULT MEMBERS CAME BACK UNDER THE CULT AUTHORITY / POWER OF THEIR FORMER SLAVE MASTERS / PERSECUTORS… WHO’D A THUNK IT…

in 1956, when this book is concluded; from the start of that year the political leaders of the remaining great powers of the West, Britain and America, observed in tones of sad surprise that the next world war might at any time break out in the place where they had set up “the Jewish State”, and they hastened to and fro across the ocean in the effort to concert some way of preventing that consummation.

NOTE THE U.S.S LIBERTY INCIDENT INTENDED TO START WWIII … WITH JEW CONTROLLED JEW.S.S.R IN A WORLD WRESTLING FEDERATION ‘FIGHT’ WITH IT’S WWF ‘ENEMY’ ‘THE WEST’…IN WHICH EACH WOULD DESTROY EACH OTHER, LEAVING THE TALMUDIC CULT TO RULE THE WORLD…

For the six years from 1897 to 1903 Dr. Theodor Herzl of the Vienna Neue Freie Presse was a world figure of an entirely new kind. He had created Zionism as an organized political force

MHR NOTE THE IRONY ‘NEW FREE PRESS’ … NEW, ANCIENT CULT….FREE, INTENDED TO ENSLAVE, TOTALLY BIASED CULT PROPAGANDA … PRESS, AS IN ‘PRESS GANG’, TO RECRUIT YOU INTO THE CULT AS A SLAVE TO BE PERSECUTED BY YOUR CULT MASTERS…

He was like a man used for his “connections” by an astute company promoter and discarded when the flotation was well launched. He was never truly the leader and began to realize that, with a shock of alarm, at his first congress of 1897, when “there rose before our eyes a Russian Jewry, the strength of which we had not even suspected”; by 1904 the full realization of his captivity had killed him.

He once wrote that at Basel in 1897 “I founded the Jewish state . . . I hounded the people into the state sentiment and conveyed to them the emotion that they were the national assembly”. The next six years showed, in actual events, what Leon Pinsker had meant in 1882 by “exerting irresistible pressure upon the international politics of the present”.

EVEN THE ‘FATHER’ OF ZIONISM IN THE WEST REALISED HE’D BEEN USED BY THE CULT…TOO LATE…AND THEY KILLED HIM FOR ‘WAKING UP’ TO THE FACTS…

by this time Weishaupt’s secret society had grown, through Disraeli’s “network of secret societies”, into the Communist party organized in all countries.

Herzl’s method was to exploit this general fear for his particular end, the Jewish State. He offered domestic peace if it were supported and revolution if it were not and he claimed to speak in the name of all the Jews. It is, of course, implicit in this that he knew the revolutionary leadership to be Jewish, and he thus confirmed, several decades later, what Disraeli and Bakunin had said. His belief in the method he used is expressed in his famous phrase, “When we sink we become a revolutionary proletariat; when we rise there rises the terrible power of [203] our purse”.

Thus he told a Grand Duke of Baden that he would diminish revolutionary propaganda in Europe in proportion to the support that his territorial ambition received from high authority. Then he was received by the behelmeted Kaiser, mounted on a charger, at the very gates of Jerusalem, and the emperor agreed to present to the Sultan Herzl’s proposal for a Zionist chartered company in Palestine under German protection. When nothing came of this Herzl threatened the Kaiser, too, with revolution: “If our work miscarries, hundreds of thousands of our supporters will at a single bound join the revolutionary parties”.

MHR SO THE KAISER LONG BEFORE HITLER WAS TRYING TO APPEASE THE JEWS, GIVE THEM THEIR OWN HOMELAND…THREATENED INTO DOING SO…

Then in Russia he was received by the Czar himself, to whom he spoke in similar terms. About this time the third Word Zionist Congress was held and the decision was taken that every Jew who became a member acknowledged the sovereignty of the still mythical Jewish State. Rabbi Elmer Berger says despondently that therewith “ghettoized, corporate Jewish existence became a reality again and now existed upon a greater scale that it had ever before achieved” .

Next Herzl saw another potentate, the Sultan of Turkey. Nothing tangible came of all these journeys, but the great coup was at hand, for Herzl then transferred his activities to England. There, too, he evidently had access to the highest places, for one of the decisive actions of world history was prepared, British folk who were then in their cradles, and their children and grandchildren were to be caught up in the consequences of those unrecorded interviews.

Who enabled Dr. Herzl from Vienna to command reception by the great in all countries, and who ensured that they should listen to demands that were imperious, and intimidatory as well? Obviously “kingly portals” (his own phrase) would not have opened to him merely because he had called a meeting of 197 men at Basel and this had passed a resolution. Others, more powerful than he, must have interceded to set aside porters, doormen, footmen, secretaries, chamberlains and all those whose task it is to keep importuners from their masters.

MHR THIS IS THE MYSTERY…EVEN TODAY ADL GOES AROUND COMMANDEERING WORLD LEADERS…A BIG FAT STUPID IDIOT TREATING E.G UKRAINIAN LEADERS AS NAUGHTY CHILDREN…CHASTISING THEM FOR DARING TO MENTION THE REAL ‘HOLODOMOR’ IN THE SAME BREATH AS THE FAKED ‘HOLOCAUST’…AND THE LEADERS COWING…WHY EVEN LISTEN TO HIM? WHAT IS THE POWER THAT THEY KNOW OF BUT HTE PUBLIC DON’T? THAT THEY WOULD EVEN CONSENT TO SUCH A SITUATION ARISING, AND NOT SIMPLY IGNORE THE ADL…IT IS NOT A MORAL QUESTION…POWERFUL PEOPLE ARE NOT FEELING ‘GUILTY’ AND THUS BOWING TO THE ADL ETC…THEY FEEL COMPELLED TO DO SO BY MATERIAL / OBJECTIVE FORCES…JUST LIKE IN THE PAST…KAISERS, KINGS, PRINCES, PRIME MINISTERS ALL COWTOWING TO THIS CULT…IS THERE SOMETHING MISSING FROM ALL THE ANALYSIS? SOMETHING ‘ALIEN’ ??? OR SIMPLY THE MOST HUMAN OF ALL THINGS ‘MONEY’…GREED…FINANCIAL POWER…!!!

the most secret and jealously guarded field of all. The origins of the world-revolution, its aims and the Jewish assumption of its leadership may now be shown from the mass of documentary evidence which has accumulated; the existence of Disraeli’s “network”, spreading over the superficies of the earth, is known to all; the nature of the “revolutionary proletarist” is clear. But there is also that second network, of influential men at the higher level where “the power of the purse” may be used to exert “irresistible pressure on the international politics of the present” through rulers and politicians. This network of men, working in all countries to a common end, is the one which must have enabled Herzl to penetrate, with his demands, to the highest places.

the majority of Western Jews were at that time violently opposed to Zionism the minority contained rich and notable Jews. Only these can have enabled the spectre of Zionism, in the person of Dr. Herzl, to make its sudden, Nijinski-like leap into courts and cabinet-rooms, where he began to go in and out as if he were born to privilege. Those who helped him were plainly in alliance with the one compact, organized body of Zionists: the Talmudic communities in Russia.

A “Jewish international” was already in being and this was powerful enough to command royal, princely and ministerial audiences for Dr. Herzl everywhere.

Baron de Hirsch Count Carl Lonyay (quoting from documents in the secret archives of the Imperial Court at Vienna) says that Crown Prince Rudolf of Austria, wishing to make provision for a woman friend before his suicide at Mayerling, obtained 100,000 gulden “from the banker, Baron Hirsch, in return for an act of friendliness he had performed in December, when he invited the banker to meet the Prince of Wales” (the future Kind Edward VII).

Baron de Hirsch, in the sequence to this introduction, became an intimate of the Prince of Wales, and private banker and financial adviser to the future King of England. He was also brother-in-law of a Mr. Bischoffsheim of the Jewish financial house of Bischoffsheim and Goldschmidt in London, of which a very rich German-born Jew, Sir Ernest Cassel, was a member. Sir Ernest, as Mr. Brian Connell says in a biographical study, fell heir to Baron de Hirsch’s friendship with the future king: “where Hirsch had been an intimate, Cassel was to become Edward VII’s closest personal friend”. He was indeed the last of the king’s

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 149 —

intimates to see him alive, the king, on the day of his death, insisting on keeping an appointment with Sir Edward and rising to dress himself for the purpose.

In the sequence to this account Mr. Connell says: “The small international fraternity of which he” (Sir Ernest Cassel) “became perhaps the leading member [205] were all men with backgrounds similar to his own, people whom he approached in the course of his extensive travels. There was Max Warburg, head of the great private banking house in Hamburg; Edouard Noetzlin, honorary president of the Banque de Paris et des Pays Bas, in Paris; Franz Philippson in Brussels; Wertheim and Gompertz in Amsterdam and, above all, Jacob Schiff of the firm of Kuhn, Loeb and Company in New York. Ties of race and interest bound these men together. The web of their communications quivered at the slightest touch. They maintained between them an incredibly accurate network of economic, political and financial intelligence at the highest level. They could withdraw support here, provide additional funds there, move immense sums of money with lightning rapidity and secrecy from one corner to another of their financial empires, and influence the political decisions of a score of countries”.

“Ties of race and interest . . . web . . . network . . . intelligence at the highest level. . . move immense sums of money . . . influence political decisions . . .”: there can be no reasonable doubt that this was the “Jewish international” of which Dr. Kastein wrote and the mechanism which operated, across all national boundaries, to support Dr. Herzl. Nothing less could explain the action which the British Government took and if there was doubt earlier, about the concerted action of this force, above and distinct from nations, the events of our mid-century have removed it. With such a power behind him Dr. Herzl was in a position to make demands and utter menaces. The powerful men who formed this international directorate (the term is not too large) at that time may not, as individuals, have believed in Zionism, and may even have been privately opposed to it. In the present writer’s belief even they were not powerful enough to oppose, or to deny support to, a policy laid down by the elders of Jewry.

While the consequences of Dr. Herzl’s journeys were secretly taking shape, he continued his travels. He took an innocent pride in his sudden elevation and liked the elegance of society, the tailcoats and white gloves, the chandeliers and receptions. The Talmudic elders in Russia, who had grown up to the kaftan and earlocks and were preparing to overthrow him, disdained but made use of this typical figure of “Western emancipation”.

In 1903 he had astonishing experiences, resembling those of Sabbatai Zevi in 1666. He went to Russia and on his progress through Jewish cities was the object of Messianic ovations from the unenlightened masses. On this occasion he sought to persuade de Russia to bring pressure on the Sultan, in the matter of his proposal for a chartered company in Palestine. He made some impression on the Russian Minister of the Interior, von Plehve, to whom he said that he spoke for “all the Jews of Russia”.

If he believed that he was soon undeceived. He did something that shows him either to have been recklessly brave or else quite unaware of what truly went on around him (this happens sometimes with such men). Presumably in order to strengthen his case with von Plehve, with whom he must have used the “Zionism [206] or revolution” argument, he urged the Jews in Russia to abstain from revolutionary activities and discussed their “emancipation” with the Russian authorities!

Thus he wrote his own political death warrant, and indeed he soon died. To the Talmudic elders this was heresy; he had entered the forbidden room. They had been working to prevent Jewish emancipation in Russia, because they saw in it the loss of their power over Jewry. If his negotiations with the Russian Government succeeded, pacification in Russia would follow, and that would mean the end of the propagandist legend of “Jewish persecution” in Russia.

When he returned to address the Sixth Congress of his World Zionist Organization his fate rose to meet him in the form of a compact mass of Russian Jews no longer merely “humiliating” to him, but menacing. At this moment of his fiasco he thought he had the ace of trumps in his pocket and he produced it. As a result of those interviews in London and of the “irresistible pressure” which supported him, the British Government had offered Dr. Herzl of the Vienna Neue Freie Presse a territory in Africa, Uganda!

If history records a stranger thing, I have not discovered it. Yet the trump card proved to be a deuce. 295 delegates voted to accept the offer, but 175 rejected it; clearly Dr. Herzl did not speak for “all Jews”. The great majority of the 175 Noes came from the Jews of Russia. The huddled Jewish throngs there had hailed Herzl as the Messiah; these 175 emissaries of the Eastern rabbinate imprecated him, for Uganda meant the ruin of their plan. They cast themselves on the floor in the traditional attitude of mourning for the dead or

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 150 —

for the destruction of the temple. One of them, a woman, called the world-famous Dr. Herzl “a traitor” and when he was gone tore down the map of Uganda from behind the speakers’ dais.

If what he said and wrote was fully candid, Dr. Herzl never understood why the Jewish emissaries from Russia refused to consider any other place than Palestine, and if that is so he must have been most guileless. He had built up his entire movement on the claim that “a place of refuge” was directly needed for “persecuted Jews”, and these were the Jews of Russia; Jews were fully emancipated elsewhere. If that was true, then any good place would do, and he had now procured one for them; moreover, if any of them preferred to stay in Russia, and his negotiations with the Russian Government succeeded, they could have all they wanted in Russia too!

From the point of view of the Talmudic rabbinate in Russia the matter was entirely different. They, too, had built up the legend of “persecution in Russia”, while they worked against emancipation there, but this was for the purpose of fulfilling the ancient Law, which meant possession of Palestine and all subsequent things that the Law ordained. Acceptance of Uganda would have meant Doomsday for Talmudic Judaism.

MHR THIS EXPLAINS IDI AMIN’S COMMENTS IN THAT VIDEO OF HIM CRITICISING ISRAEL…HIS OWN NATION HAD BEEN OFFERED TO THE JEWS BY BRITAIN…HE REFERRED TO SOMETHING LIKE THIS, BUT I HAD NO CONTEXT TO UNDERSTAND HIS COMMENTS…OF COURSE HE WAS A GREAT ‘ANTI-SEMITE’ STATING THAT HE WOULD NEVER ALLOW ISRAELI / JEWS TO DO BUSINESS IN UGANDA…THEY WERE DECEITFUL ETC…

MHR YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW…THOUGH OF COURSE AT THE TIME OF SOWING YOU IMAGINE THAT YOU ‘OTHERS’ WILL BE REAPING E.G CHOSEN PEOPLE MENTALITY LEADS TO BEING ENSLAVED BY YOUR CULT LEADERS WHO ARE OFFERING YOU ‘EFFENDI’ STATUS…IN A JEW WORLD ORDER JEWTOPIA TO COME…BUT THE PRISON YOU ARE BUILDING FOR ‘GENTILES’ ‘GOYS’ ETC WILL BE YOUR NEW HOME…THE ONE YOUR ANCESTORS REJECTED AND ESCAPED FROM…YOU THINK HELPING THE CULT WILL PROTECT YOU FROM THE IMAGINARY THREATS THE SAME CULT LEADERS MANUFACTURED IN YOUR MIND E.G HOLOCAUST, ANTISEMITISM…THE REAL ANTISEMITES AND PERSECUTORS ARE YOUR CULT LEADERS….AND YOU ARE ‘FLOCKING’ BACK TO THEM…ANY TIME YOU SUPPORT ANY PART OF THEIR PROGRAM OR DEFINITIONS…SO STOP BEING ‘JEWS’ AND BECOME HUMANS, ONCE AND FOR ALL…ONLY ‘JEWS’ CAN DESTROY THE JEW WORLD ORDER… IF THEY DON’T, THEY WILL ONCE MORE BECOME SLAVES, THOSE WHO ARE CHOSEN TO SERVE THE TALMUDIC CULT LEADERSHIP…LIKE IN JEW.S.S.R… AND THE REST WILL BE ‘SACRIFICED’ IN WWWIII…6 MILLION AND MORE…. YOUR CHOICE…AS YOU SOW, SO SHALL YE REAP…AS YOU DO UNTO OTHERS, SO SHALL BE DONE UNTO YOU… LIVE BY THE SWORD / LIES OF THE CULT OF JUDAISM, AND DIE BY THEM…IF YOU SURVIVE, IT WILL ONLY BE AS A ZOMBIE SLAVE…A FATE WORSE THAN DEATH…

Dr. Weizmann describes Dr. Herzl’s final humiliation. After the vote Herzl [207] went to see the Jews from Russia, who had turned their backs on him and walked out, in their committee room. “He came in, looking haggard and exhausted. He was received in dead silence. Nobody rose from his seat to greet him, nobody applauded him when he ended. . . It was probably the first time that Herzl was thus received at any Zionist gathering: he, the idol of all Zionists”.

It was also the last time. Within the year Dr. Herzl was dead, at the age of forty-four. No conclusion can be offered about his death. Judaist writers refer to it in cryptic terms. The Jewish Encyclopaedia says it was the result of what he endured and other authorities make similarly obscure, though significant, allusions. Those who during the centuries have been the object of anathema or excommunication by the ruling sect often have died soon and wretchedly.

MHR SO CLEARLY THE QUESTION WAS NOT OF A SAFE, INDEPENDENT HOMELAND FOR WORLD JEWRY, BUT A REALISATION OF THE TALMUDIC PRINCIPLES…THE CULT AMBITIONS…A WORLD GOVERNMENT RULED BY TALMUDIC CULT LEADERS FROM PALESTINE …

After Dr. Herzl died Dr. Chaim Weizmann, the later Zionist leader, led the attack on the Uganda offer and at the Seventh Congress, of 1905, the acceptance, at his instigation, was revoked. From that moment Zionism was the instrument of the Talmudic rabbinate in the East.

MHR SO JEWS COULD HAVE HAD A HOMELAND IN UGANDA…LONG BEFORE WWI EVEN…AND LONG BEFORE THE FAKED ‘HOLOCAUST’…THE AMBITION WAS NEVER ‘SAFETY’ FROM ‘PERSECUTION’ FOR THE JEWS…THEY COULD HAVE HAD THAT, EVEN ASSUMING SUCH ‘PERSECUTION’ EXISTED ANYWHERE, IN A GENERALISED FORM, AND NOT DIRECTLY TARGETTED ON THE CULT TALMUDIC JEWS…WHO DESERVE TO BE HOUNDED OUT OF ANY SANE NATION WITH A SENSE OF SELF-PRESERVATION…DUE TO THEIR EXPLICIT AIMS / OBJECTIVES / IDEOLOGY / POWER/ AMBITIONS / DEFINITIONS / RECALCITRANCE / DELUSIONS / ETC… THEY WERE ARE BAD INFLUENCE OF EVERYONE, JEW OR GENTILE ALIKE, JEW OR HOST NATION ALIKE…AS THEY STILL ARE…

The story of the Uganda offer and its scornful rejection shows the indifference of the ruling sect to the welfare and the wishes of the Jewish masses, for whom they pretended to speak; indeed, when the matter is carefully considered “hostility” suggests itself as a truer word than “indifference”. This is seen by examining, in turn, the feeling expressed towards the offer by the three main [208] groups of Jews: those of the West, those of Russia, and (a section of Jewry never even mentioned in all these loud exchanges) the Jews already in Palestine.

The Jews of the West at that time were strongly opposed to Zionism as such, whether it led to Uganda, Palestine or anywhere else; they just wanted to stay where they were. The Jews of Russia were depicted as needing simply “a place of refuge” from “persecution”, and if that was true, Uganda might have appealed to them; anyway, the frenzied ovations with which they received Dr. Herzl suggest that they would

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 151 —

have followed any lead he gave, had the rabbinate allowed them. That leaves the Jews who were already in Palestine.

This one community of original Jews was ardently in favour of removal to Uganda, as research discovers, and for this reason they were denounced as “traitors” by the Judaized Chazars from Russia who had taken over Zionism! This is what the Zionist Organization at Tel Aviv still was saying about them in 1945:

“It was a degrading and distressing sight to see all these people who . . . had been the first to build up the Jewish Palestine of that day, publicly denying and repudiating their own past. . . The passion for Uganda became associated with a deadly hatred for Palestine. . . In the community centres of the first Jewish colonies young men educated in the Alliance Israelite schools denounced Palestine as ‘a land of corpses and graves’, a land of malaria and eye-diseases, a land which destroys its inhabitants. Nor was this the expression of a few individuals. Indeed, it was only a few individuals here and there . . . who remained loyal. . . The whole of Palestine was in a state of ferment. . . All opposition to Uganda came from outside of Palestine. In Zion itself all were against Zion”.

TRULY STUNNING FACTUAL QUOTES…THE JEWS IN PALESTINE IN 1945 WANTED THE UGANDAN OFFER…THE ‘REAL’ JEWS IF THERE COULD BE SAID TO BE ANY…IN PALESTINE…WANTING A HOMELAND IN UGANDA…AND THE CULT OF TALMUD REJECTING THESE ‘TRUE JEWS’ EXPRESSED WISHES…

In the community centres of the first Jewish colonies young men educated in the Alliance Israelite schools denounced Palestine as ‘a land of corpses and graves’, a land of malaria and eye-diseases, a land which destroys its inhabitants…MHR CONSIDER THIS IN LIGHT OF ‘THE HOLOCAUST’ LIE…WHY WOULD EUROPEAN JEWS OTHERWISE MOVE TO ISRAEL, GIVEN THIS MASSIVE REJECTION OF ISRAEL BY THE JEWS ALREADY THERE?

Zionism, as has been shown, used the threat of Communism in Europe to gain the ear of European rulers for its territorial demand outside Europe

According to Disraeli and Bakunin the world-revolution had come under Jewish leadership around the middle of the century, and its aims then changed. Bakunin’s followers, who sought to abolish the State as such because they foresaw that the revolutionary State might become more despotic than any earlier despotism, were ousted and forgotten. The world-revolution therewith took the shape of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, which aimed at the super-State founded in slave-labour and in “the confiscation of human liberty” (as de Tocqueville wrote in 1848).

This change in leadership and aims determined the course of the 20th Century. However, the methods by which the existing order was to be destroyed did not change; they continued to be those revealed by Weishaupt’s papers published in 1787. Many publications of the 19th Century showed that the original Illuminist plan continued through the generations to be the textbook of the revolutionaries of all camps, as to method.

in 1869 Bakunin published his Polemic Against The Jews..

destroying all legitimate govemment, religion and nationhood and setting up a universal despotism to rule the enslaved masses by terror and violence.

in 1905 one Professor Sergyei Nilus, an official of the Department of Foreign Religions at Moscow, published a book, of which the British Museum in London has a copy bearing its date-stamp, August 10, 1906. One chapter was translated into English in 1920. published in England and America as “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” It accurately depicts all that has come about in the fifty years since it was published, and what clearly will follow in the next fifty years unless in that time the force which the conspiracy has generated produces the counter-force.

The final aim is the destruction of all religion and nationhood and the establishment of the super State, ruling the world by ruthless terror.

The attack on the Protocols in the 1920’s proved above all else the truth of their contention; it showed that the standing organization for suppressing public discussion of the conspiracy had been perfected in the intervening 120 years. Probably so much money and energy were never before in history expended on the effort to suppress a single document.

The existence of the conspiracy had been recognized and affirmed by a long chain of high authorities, from Edmund Burke, George [212] Washington and Alexander Hamilton to Disraeli, Bakunin and the many others mentioned in an earlier chapter. Moreover, when the Protocols appeared in English conclusive proof had been given by the event in Russia. Thus the nature of the Jewish attack could only strengthen public doubts; it protested much too much.

It was brought to England by one of the two leading British correspondents of that day in Moscow, Victor Marsden of the Morning Post (the significant story of the other correspondent belongs to a later chapter). Marsden was an authority on Russia and was much under the enduring effect of the Terror. He was in effect its victim, for he died soon after completing what he evidently felt to be a duty, the translation of the Protocols at the British Museum.

Publication in English aroused worldwide interest. That period (1920 and onward) marks the end of the time when Jewish questions could be impartially discussed in public. The initial debate was free and vigorous, but in following years the attack succeeded in imposing the law of lese majesty in this matter and today hardly any public man or print ventures to mention the Protocols unless to declare them “forged” or “infamous” (an act of submission also foretold in them).

The Times (of London) on May 8, 1920 in a long article said, “An impartial investigation of these wouldbe documents and of their history is most desirable . . . Are we to dismiss the whole matter without inquiry and to let the influence of such a book as this work unchecked?” The Morning Post (then the oldest and [213] soberest British newspaper) published twenty-three articles, also calling for investigation.

In The Spectator on August 27, 1921, Lord Sydenham, a foremost authority of that day, also urged investigation: “The main point is, of course, the source from which Nilus obtained the Protocols. The Russians who knew Nilus and his writings cannot all have been exterminated by the Bolsheviks. His book . . . has not been translated, though it would give some idea of the man. . . What is the most striking characteristic of the Protocols? The answer is knowledge of a rare kind, embracing the widest field. The solution of this ‘mystery’, if it is one, is to be found where this uncanny knowledge, on which prophecies now literally fulfilled are based, can be shown to reside”. In America Mr. Henry Ford, declaring that “the Protocols have fitted the world situation up to this time; they fit it now”, caused his Dearborn Independent to publish a series of articles of which a million and a half reprints were sold.

Within two years the proprietor of The Times was certified insane (by an unnamed doctor in a foreign land; a later chapter will describe this episode) and forcibly removed from control of his publications, and The Times published an article dismissing the Protocols as a plagiarism of Maurice Joly’s book. The proprietor of the Morning Post became the object of sustained vituperation until he sold the newspaper, which then ceased publication. In 1927 Mr. Henry Ford published an apology addressed to a well-known Jew of America; when I was in the United States in later years I was told by credible informants that he was persuaded to do this, at a moment when a new-model Ford automobile was about to be marketed, by hostile threats from dealers on whom the fortunes of his concern depended.

The campaign against the Protocols has never ceased since then. In communized Russia all copies discoverable had been destroyed at the revolution and possession of the book became a capital crime under the law against “anti-semitism”. In the direct sequence to that, though twenty-five years later, the American and British authorities in occupied Germany after the Second World War constrained the Western German government to enact laws against “anti-semitism” on the Bolshevik model; and in 1955 a Munich printer who reproduced the Protocols had his business confiscated. In England at the time of publication the sale of the book was temporarily stopped by authority, under the pressure described, and in the course of the years the attack on it continued so violent that publishers feared it and only small local firms ever ventured to print it. In Switzerland, between the wars, a Jewish suit was brought against the book as “improper literature”; the case was won, but the verdict was set aside by a higher court.

The state of affairs thus brought about after 1920, and continuing today, was foretold by the Protocols in 1905: “Through the press we have gained the power to influence while remaining ourselves in the shade . . . The principal factor of [214] success in the political” (field) ” is the secrecy of its undertaking; the word should not agree with the deeds of the diplomat. . . We must compel the governments . . . to take action in the direction favoured by our widely-conceived plan, already approaching the desired consummation, by what we shall represent as public opinion, secretly prompted by us through the means of that so-called ‘Great Power’, the press, which, with a few exceptions that may be disregarded, is already entirely in our hands. . . We shall deal with the press in the following way: . . . we shall saddle and bridle it with a tight curb; we shall do the same also with all productions of the printingpress, for where would be the sense of getting rid of the attacks of the press if we remain targets for pamphlets and books? . . . No one shall with impunity lay a finger on the aureole of our government infallibility. The pretext for stopping any publication will be the alleged plea that it is agitating the public mind without occasion or justification . . . We shall have a sure triumph over our opponents since they will not have at their disposition organs of the press in which they can give full and final expression to their views owing to the aforesaid methods of dealing with the press . . .”

In one point I am able from my own experience to test Lord Sydenham’s dictum about fulfilled prophecies. The Protocols, speaking of control of published information, say: “Not a single announcement will reach the public [215] without our control. Even now this is already being attained by us inasmuch as all news items are received by a few agencies, in whose offices they are focused from all parts of the world. These agencies will then be entirely ours and will give publicity only to what we dictate to them”. That was not the situation in 1905, or in Lord Sydenham’s day, or in 1926, when I became a journalist, but it was developing and today is the situation. The stream of “news” which pours into the public mind through the newspapers comes from a few agencies, as if from half a dozen taps. Any hand that can control those valves can control “the news”, and the reader may observe for himself the filtered form in which the news reaches him. As to the editorial views, based on this supply of news, the transformation that has been brought about may be comprehended by referring to the impartially critical articles published in The Times, Morning Post, Spectator, Dearborn Independent and thousands of other journals some twenty-five years ago. This could not happen today. The subjugation of the press has been accomplished as the Protocols foretold, and by the accident of my generation and calling I saw it come about.

applies (in Weishaupt’s papers and the Protocols alike) to the knowledge of human weaknesses, which are singled out with analytical exactitude, the method of exploiting each of them being described with disdainful glee.

The instrument to be used for the destruction of the Christian nation-states and their religion is “the mob”. The word is used throughout with searing contempt to denote the masses, (who in public are flattered by being called “the people”). “Men with bad instincts are more in number than the good, and therefore the best results in governing them are attained by violence and terrorization . . . The might of a mob is blind, senseless and unreasoning force ever at the mercy of a suggestion from any side”. From this the argument is developed that “an absolute despotism” is necessary to govern “the mob”, which is “a savage”, and that “our State” will employ “the terror which tends to produce blind submission”. The “literal fulfilment” of these precepts in communized Russia must be obvious to all today).

The instrument to be used for the destruction of the Christian nation-states and their religion is “the mob”. The word is used throughout with searing contempt to denote the masses, (who in public are flattered by being called “the people”). “Men with bad instincts are more in number than the good, and therefore the best results in governing them are attained by violence and terrorization . . . The might of a mob is blind, senseless and unreasoning force ever at the mercy of a suggestion from any side”. From this the argument is developed that “an absolute despotism” is necessary to govern “the mob”, which is “a savage”, and that “our State” will employ “the terror which tends to produce blind submission”. The “literal fulfilment” of these precepts in communized Russia must be obvious to all today).

This “absolute despotism” is to be vested in the international super-State at the end of the road. In the meanwhile regional puppet-despots are depicted as essential to the process of breaking down the structure of states and the defences of peoples: “From the premier-dictators of the present day the peoples suffer patiently and bear such abuses as for the least of them they would have beheaded twenty kings. What is the explanation . . .? It is explained by the fact that these dictators whisper to the peoples through their agents that through these abuses [216] the are inflicting injury on the States with the highest purpose – to secure the welfare of the peoples, the international brotherhood of them all, their solidarity and equality of rights. Naturally they do not tell the peoples that this unification must be accomplished only under our sovereign rule”.

This passage is of especial interest. The term “premier-dictator” would not generally have been understood in 1905, when the peoples of the West believed their elected representatives to express and depend on their approval. However, it became applicable during the First and Second World Wars, when American presidents and British prime ministers made themselves, in fact, “premier-dictators” and used emergency powers in the name of “the welfare of peoples. . . international brotherhood . . . equality of rights”. Moreover, these premier-dictators, in both wars, did tell the peoples that the ultimate end of all this would be “unification” under a world government of some kind. The question, who would govern this world government, was one which never received straightforward answer; so much else of the Protocols has been fulfilled that their assertion that it would be the instrument of the conspiracy for governing the world “by violence and terrorization” deserves much thought.

MHR LITERALLY 911, WAR ON TERROR, AS ALWAYS TOTALLY IRONIC… USED ‘TERRRORISM’ THEY THEMSELVES CARRIED OUT TO JUSTIFY REMOVING ALL OUR RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, IN THE NAME OF LIBERTY, FREEDOM, AND NATIONAL INTEREST / DEFENCE…

The especial characteristic of the two 20th Century wars is the disappointment which each brought to the peoples who appeared to be victorious. “Uncanny knowledge”, therefore, again seems to have inspired the statement, made in 1905 or earlier, “Ever since that time” (the French Revolution) “we have been leading the peoples from one disenchantment to another”, followed later by this: “By these acts all States are in torture; they exhort to tranquillity, are ready to sacrifice everything for peace; but. we will not give them peace until they openly acknowledge our international Super-Government, and with submissiveness”. The words, written before 1905, seem accurately to depict the course of the 20th Century.

Again, the document says “it is indispensable for our purpose that wars, so far as possible, should not result in territorial gains”. This very phrase, of 1905 or earlier, was made the chief slogan, or apparent moral principle, proclaimed by the political leaders of America and Britain in both world wars, and in this case the difference between “the word” and “the deed” of “the diplomat” has been shown by results. The chief result of the First War was to establish revolutionary-Zionism and revolutionary-Communism as new forces in international affairs, the first with a promised “homeland” and the second with a resident State. The chief result of the Second War was that further “territorial gains” accrued to, and only to, Zionism and Communism; Zionism received its resident State and Communism received half of Europe. The “deadly accuracy” (Lord Sydenham’s words) of the Protocol’s forecasts seems apparent in this case, where a specious phrase used in the Protocols of 1905 became the daily language of American presidents and British prime ministers in 1914-1918 and 1939-1945.

The reason why the authors of the Protocols held this slogan to be so important, in beguiling the peoples, is also explained. If the nations embroiled in [217] wars are denied “territorial gains”, the only victors will then be “our international agentur. . . our international rights will then wipe out national rights, in the proper sense of right, and will rule the nations precisely as the civil law of States rules the relations of their subjects among themselves”. To bring about this

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 157 —

state of affairs compliant politicians are needed, and of them the Protocols say: “The administrators whom we shall choose from among the public, with strict regard to their capacities for servile obedience, will not be persons trained in the arts of government, and will therefore easily become pawns in our game in the hands of men of learning and genius who will be their advisers, specialists bred and reared from early childhood to rule the affairs of the whole world”.

In the First and Second World Wars, however, the non-elected, unofficial but imperious “adviser” became a familiar public figure. He emerged into the open (under “emergency powers”) and became known to and was passively accepted by the public masses; possibly the contempt which the Protocols display for “the mob” was justified by this submission to behind-the-scenes rule even when it was openly exercized. In the United States, for instance, “advisers on Jewish affairs” became resident at the White House and at the headquarters of American armies of occupation. One financier (who publicly recommended drastic measures for “ruling the affairs of the world”) was adviser to so many presidents that he was permanently dubbed “Elder Statesman” by the press, and visiting prime ministers from England also repaired to him as if to a supreme seat of authority.

The Protocols foretold this regime of the “advisers” when none understood what was meant and few would have credited that they would openly appear in the high places.

The Protocols repeatedly affirm that the first objective is the destruction of the existing ruling class (“the aristocracy”, the term employed, was still applicable in 1905) and the seizure of property through the incitement of the insensate, brutish “mob”. Once again, subsequent events give the “forecast” its “deadly accuracy”:

“In politics one must know how to seize the property of others without hesitation if by it we secure submission and sovereignty. . . The words, ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity’, brought to our ranks, thanks to our blind agents, whole [218] legions who bore our banners with enthusiasm. And all the time these words were canker-worms boring into the wellbeing of the people, putting an end everywhere to peace, quiet, solidarity and destroying all the foundations of the States. . . This helped us to our greatest triumph; it gave us the possibility, among other things, of getting into our hands the master card, the destruction of privileges, or in other words the very existence of the aristocracy . . . that class which was the only defence peoples and countries had against us. On the ruins of the natural and genealogical aristocracy . . . we have set up the aristocracy of our educated class headed by the aristocracy of money. The qualifications of this aristocracy we have established in wealth, which is dependent upon us, and in knowledge. . . It is this possibility of replacing the representatives of the people which has placed them at our disposal, and, as it were, given us the power of appointment …. . We appear on the scene as alleged saviours of the worker from this oppression when we propose to him to enter the ranks of our fighting forces; Socialists, Anarchists, Communists . . . By want and the envy and hatred which it engenders we shall move the mobs and with their hands we shall wipe out all those who hinder us on our way . . . The people, blindly believing things in print, cherishes . . . a blind hatred towards all conditions which it considers above itself, for it has no understanding of the meaning of class and condition. . . These mobs will rush delightedly to shed the blood of those whom, in the simplicity of their ignorance, they have envied from their cradles, and whose property they will then be able to loot. ‘Ours’ they will not touch, because the moment of attack will be known to us and we shall take measures to protect our own. . . The word ‘freedom’ brings out the communities of men to fight against every kind of force, against every kind of authority, even against God and the laws of nature. For this reason we, when we come into our kingdom, shall have to erase this word from the lexicon of life as implying a principle of brute force which turns mobs into bloodthirsty beasts. . . But even freedom might be harmless and have its place in the State economy without injury to the wellbeing of the peoples if it rested upon the foundation of faith in God. . . This is the reason why it is indispensable for us to undermine all faith, to tear out of the minds of the masses the very principle of Godhead and the spirit, and to put in its place arithmetical calculations and material needs . . .”

“. . . We have set one against another the personal and national reckonings of the peoples, religious and race hatreds, which we have fostered into a huge growth in the course of the past twenty centuries. This is the reason why there is not one State which would anywhere receive support if it were to raise its arm, for every one of them must bear in mind that any agreement against us would be unprofitable to itself. We are too strong, there is no evading our power. The nations cannot come to even an inconsiderable private agreement without our secretly having a hand in it . . . In order to put public opinion into our hands we must bring it into a state of bewilderment by giving expression from all sides to so many contradictory opinions and for such length of time as will suffice to make [219] the peoples lose their heads in the labyrinth and come to see that the best thing is to have no opinion of any kind in matters political, which it is not given to the public to understand, because they are understood only by him who guides the public. This is the first secret. The second secret requisite for the success of our government is comprised in the following: to multiply to such an extent national failings, habits, passions, conditions of civil life, that it will be impossible for anyone to know where he is in the resulting chaos, so that the people in consequence will fail to understand one another . . . By all these means we shall so wear down the peoples that they will be compelled to offer us international power of a nature that by its possession will enable us without any violence gradually to absorb all the State forces of the world and to form a SuperGovernment. In place of the rulers of today we shall set up a bogey which will be called the SuperGovernment administration. Its hands will reach out in all directions like nippers and its organization will be of such colossal dimensions that it cannot fail to subdue all the nations of the world”.

In order to put public opinion into our hands we must bring it into a state of bewilderment by giving expression from all sides to so many contradictory opinions and for such length of time as will suffice to make [219] the peoples lose their heads in the labyrinth and come to see that the best thing is to have no opinion of any kind in matters politica MHR THIS INCLUDES CONTROLLED OPPOSITION AND RUBBISH ALT MEDIA … TO DISCREDIT VERY IDEA OF ‘UNDERSTANDING WHAT IS GOING ON’ AS IF IT IS TOO COMPLEX, WHEN VERY SIMPLE… LIKE IDEA THAT ‘CONSPIRACIES WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO CO-ORDINATE I.E TOO MANY PEOPLE INVOLVED, SOME OF THEM ARE BOUND TO BETRAY THE CONSPIRACY…REALLY? HOW MANY PEOPLE DO YOU KNOW WOULD EVEN RISK THEIR JOB FOR A MOBBED CO-WORKER? OR BY ‘BLOWING THE WHISTLE’ ON WASTE, INJUSTICE ETC ??? ABOUT ZERO…SINCE WHEN WERE PEOPLE SO VIRTUOUS THAT THEY ‘DID THE RIGHT THING’ BY THEIR ‘SOCIETY’ AT THE COST TO THEMSELVES, LET ALONE THEIR FAMILY?

The Protocols say, “The aristocracy of the peoples, as a political force, is dead. . . but as landed proprietors they can still be harmful to us from the fact that they are self-sufficing in the resources upon which they live. It is essential therefore for us at whatever cost to deprive them of their land. . . At the same time we must intensively patronize trade and industry . . . what we want is that industry should drain off from the land both labour and capital and by means of speculation transfer into our hands all the money of the world.. …”

MHR THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED…SPECULATIVE CAPITAL I.E SHARE MARKETS, AND MUCH MUCH WORSE I.E DERIVATIVES, THE ULTIMATE IN ‘SPECULATION’ … DEVOID OF REAL VALUE / PRODUCTION… INFLATION AND DEFLATION TO SUCK UP ALL THE CAPITAL, MONEY, USE IT TO BUY UP REAL ASSETS…OVER AND OVER…

A passage of particular interest in the present, though it was written before 1905, says, “Nowadays if any States raise a protest against us, it is only proforma at our discretion and by our direction, for their antisemitism is indispensable to us for the management of our lesser brethren”. A distinctive feature of our era is the way the charge of “anti-semitism” is continually transferred from one [220] country to another, the country so accused becoming automatically the specified enemy in the next war. This passage might cause the prudent to turn a sceptical eye on today’s periodical reports of sudden “antisemitic” turns in communized Russia, or elsewhere.

The resemblance to Weishaupt’s documents is very strong in the passages which relate to the infiltration of public departments, professions and parties, for instance: “It is from us that the all-engulfing terror proceeds. We have in our service persons of all opinions, of all doctrines, restorating monarchists, demagogues, socialists, communists, and utopian dreamers of every kind. We have harnessed them all to the task: each one of them on his own account is boring away at the last remnants of authority, is striving to overthrow all established form of order. By these acts all States are in torture; they exhort to tranquillity, are ready to sacrifice everything for peace; but we will not give them peace until they openly acknowledge our international Super-Government, and with submissiveness”.

MHR THE ACTUAL SECRET CENTRAL AUTHORITY / WORLD GOVT, GROWS, AS THEIR AGENTS DIVIDE AND CONQUER THE EXISTING FORMS OF POWER / AUTHORITY … PEOPLE DON’T SEE THE ‘INVISIBLE HAND’ AND ‘HIDDEN HAND’ AND ‘WORLD GOVT.’ THAT EXISTS… THEY ONLY SEE THE NATIONAL / LESSER FORMS OF POWER THAT ARE VISIBLE…AND BLAME THEM FOR EVERYTHING, WORK TO THEIR DESTRUCTION, NOT REALISING THAT IT IS THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS…THE GREATER EVIL, THE INCREASING POWER OF THE ‘ONE WORLD GOVT. ‘JEW WORLD ORDER’, IS THUS RELATIVELY STRENGTHENED…IT IS THE WORST GOVT. EVER IMAGINED…THE WORST CULT EVER PRODUCED BY HUMANS… AND ALREADY THE MOST POWERFUL… BUT IF ALL THE NATIONS REVOLTED, THEY WOULD DEFEAT IT…BUT ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE NATIONS ARE THEMSELVES, THINKING THEY ARE ‘LIBERATING’ THEMSELVES OF ‘GOVERNMENT’, WILL BE WEAKENING THEIR ONLY LAST DEFENCE AGAINST THE WORST GOVT. THEY COULD IMAGINE…

Weishaupt’s documents speak of Freemasonry as the best “cover” to be used by the agents of the conspiracy. The Protocols allot the function of “cover” to “Liberalism”: “When we introduced into the State organism the poison of Liberalism its whole political complexion underwent a change. States have been seized with a mortal illness, blood-poisoning. All that remains is to await the end of their death agony”.

The term “utopian dreamers”, used more than once, is applied to Liberals, and its original source probably resides in the Old Testamentary allusion to “dreamers of dreams” with “false prophets”, are to be put to death. The end of Liberalism, therefore, would be apparent to the student even if the Protocols did not specify it: “We shall root out liberalism from the important strategic posts of our government on which depends the training of subordinates for our State structure”.

The “Big Brother” regimes of our century, are accurately foretold in the [221] passage, “Our government will have the appearance of a patriarchal paternal guardianship on the part of our ruler”.

Republicanism, too, is to be a “cover” for the conspiracy. The Protocols are especially contemptuous of republicanism, in which (and in liberalism) they see the weapon of self-destruction forged out of “the mob”: “. . . then it was that the era of republics became possible of realization; and then it was that we replaced the ruler by a caricature of a government, by a president, taken from the mob, from the midst of our puppet creatures, our slaves. This was the foundation of the mine which we have laid under the peoples”.

MHR THE PRE-SELECTED PUPPET LEADERS…IN EVERY NATION…SO EASY TO CORRUPT VIA CAMPAIGN FINANCE, BLACKMAIL, GREENMAIL, AND MANIPULATION OF PUBLIC PERCEPTION THAT THUS OPINION…

NOT IT DOES NOT MATTER WHO WROTE ‘THE PROTOCOLS’, FOR THEY HAVE PROVEN ACCURATE, PRECISE, AND ARE A WORK OF GENIUS…DESCRIBING WHAT HAS HAPPENED, AND THUS WE MUST TAKE ITS PREDICTIONS SERIOUSLY…LIKE A LAW OF PHYSICS…AT THE VERY LEAST…

Then the unknown scribes of some time before 1905 describe the position to which American presidents have been reduced in our century. The passage begins, “In the near future we shall establish the responsibility of presidents”. This, as the sequence shows, means personal responsibility, as distinct from responsibility curbed by constitutional controls; the president is to become one of the “premier-dictators” earlier foreseen, whose function is to be to break down the constitutional defences of states and thus prepare “unification under our sovereign rule”.

MHR TODAY WE HAVE PRESIDENTS RULING BY EMERGENCY DECREES AND ‘EXECUTIVE ORDERS’, AROUND THE WORLD…IMPOSING ‘PATRIOT ACT’S AND MARTIAL LAW AND CENSORSHIP, TOTALLY IN VIOLATION OF THE MAGNA CARTA, LET ALONE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE HOST NATIONS, FROM U.S.A TO AUSTRALIA TO GERMANY…ALL OCCUPIED NATIONS…

During the First and Second World Wars the American presidents did in fact become “premierdictators” in this sense, claiming that “the emergency” and the need for “victory” dictated this seizure of powers of personal responsibility; powers which would be restored to “the people” when “the emergency” was past. Readers of sufficient years will recall how inconceivable this appeared before it happened and how passively it was accepted in the event. The passage then continues:

“The chamber of deputies will provide cover for, will protect, will elect presidents, but we shall take from it the right to propose new, or make changes in existing laws, for this right will be given by us to the responsible president, a puppet in our hands. . . Independently of this we shall invest the president with the right of declaring a state of war. We shall justify this last right on the ground that the president as chief of the whole army of the country must have it at his disposal in case of need. . . It is easy to understand that in these conditions the key of the shrine will lie in our hands. and that no one outside ourselves will any longer direct the force of legislation. . . The president will. at our discretion, interpret the sense of such of the existing laws as admit of various interpretation; he will further annul them when we indicate to him the necessity to do so, besides this, he will have the right to propose temporary laws, and even new departures in the government constitutional working, the pretext both for the one and the other being the requirements for the supreme welfare of the state. By such measures we shall obtain the power of destroying little by little, step by step, all that at the outset when we enter on our rights, we are compelled to introduce into the constitutions of states to prepare for the transition to an imperceptible abolition of every kind of constitution, and then the time is come to turn every government into our despotism”.

MHR OF COURSE U.S INVOLVMENT IN ANY FOREIGN WAR WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL…AND THE LATEST ‘PEARL HARBOR’ WAS 911 … LIKE U.S.S LIBERTY FALSE FLAG ONLY THIS TIME ‘SUCCESSFUL’…BROUGHT U.S TO FIGHT ENEMIES OF THE TALMUDIC CULT… AND NOTE OBAMA WAS CONSTITUTIONAL SPECIALIST, EXACTLY AS HERE INDICATED…WHILE TRUMP IS JUST A PUPPET, WITH NO NEED TO DO ANYTHING BUT PANDER TO, IRONICALLY, THE CONSTITUTIONALISTS ETC…AS USUAL, JUST PROMISE ‘NO WAR’ THEN GET ON WITH THE WARS ETC…

This forecast of 1905 or earlier particularly deserves Lord Sydenham’s tribute of “deadly accuracy”. American presidents in the two wars of this century have acted as here shown. They did take the right of declaring and making war, and it has been used at least once (in Korea) since the Second World War ended; any attempt in Congress or outside to deprive them of this power, or curb them in the use of it meets with violently hostile attack. MHR THEN OF COURSE IRAQ, LIBYA, SYRIA, LEBANON, …

the Protocols continue. The peoples, on their progress “from one disenchantment to another”, will not be allowed “a breathing-space”. Any country “which dares to oppose us” must be met with war, and any collective opposition with “universal war”. The peoples will not be allowed “to contend with sedition” (here is the key to the furious attacks of the 1790’s, 1920 and today on all demands for “investigation”, “Witchhunting”, “McCarthyism” and the like). In the Super-State to come the obligation will fall on members of one family to denounce dissident s within the family circle (the Old Testamentary dispensation earlier mentioned). The “complete wrecking of the Christian religion” will not be long delayed. The peoples will be kept distracted by trivial amusements (“people’s palaces”) from becoming troublesome and asking questions. History will be rewritten for their delusion (another precept since fulfilled in communized Russia), for “we shall erase from the memory of men all facts of previous centuries which are undesirable to us, and leave only those which depict all the errors of the national governments”. “All the wheels of the machinery of all States go by the force of the engine, which is in our hands, and that engine of the machinery of States is Gold”.

And the end of it all: “What we have to get at is that there should be in all the States of the world, beside ourselves, only the masses of the proletariat, a few millionaires devoted to our interests, police and soldiers. . . The recognition of our despot. . . will come when the peoples, utterly wearied by the irregularities and incompetence. . . of their rulers, will clamour: ‘Away with them and give us one king over all the earth who will unite us and annihilate the causes of discords, frontiers, nationalities, religions, State debts, who will give us peace and quiet, which we cannot find under our rulers and representatives’ “.

In two or three of these passages I have substituted “people” or “masses” for “Goyim “, because the use of that word relates to the unproven assertion contained in the book’s title, and I do not want to confuse the issues; evidence about the identity of the authors of the conspiracy must be sought elsewhere than in an unsupported allegation. The authors may have been Jewish, non-Jewish or anti-Jewish. That is immaterial. When it was published this work was the typescript of a drama which had not been performed; today it has been running for fifty years and its title is The Twentieth Century. The characters depicted in it move on our contemporary stage, play the parts foretold and produce the events foreseen.

The conspiracy for world dominion through a world slave state exists and cannot at this stage be abruptly checked or broken off; of the momentum which it has acquired it now must go on to fulfilment or failure. MHR ACTUALLY IT CAN JUST CONTINUE FOREVER, UNTIL OUR WILL IS BROKEN…IT IS SO CONSISTENT WITH HUMAN NATURE…SO EASY TO BREAK DOWN AND REFORMULATE, AND CONTINUE…WE HAVE TO ROOT OUT THE FUNDAMENTAL ATTRACTION OF IT TO HUMAN NATURE…REQUIRES HONESTY, DESIRE FOR JUSTICE FOR ALL…REMEMBER THAT WHILE NATIONS / KINGS ETC MAY BE ‘LESSER OF TWO EVILS’, STILL EVIL…NOTHING TO GET EXCITED ABOUT…MOST PEOPLE DON’T CARE WHO IS TAKING ADVANTAGE OFF THEM…AND THEY DON’T SEEK TO DO AWAY WITH TAKING ADVANTAGE OF PEOPLE IN PRINCIPLE…JUST PARTICULAR I.E SEEK TO BE SLAVE MASTERS, JUST COMPLAIN WHEN THEY REAP THE HARVEST AS SLAVES…NOT MASTERS, AS PLANNED AT THE TIME OF SOWING … THAT THE PRISON / EXPLOITATION SYSTEM THEY BUILT FOR OTHERS BECOMES THEIR OWN HOME…

MHR WHAT IS MOST IRONIC IS THAT THE POTENTIALLY ‘REAL’ JEWS I.E THOSE WITH POTENTIALLY SOME ‘JUDEAN’ D.N.A HAD ACCEPTED THE UGANDAN DEAL…WHILE THE JEWS WITH ZERO CONNECTION WITH THE BIBLICAL JEWS, BIOLOGICALLY, REJECTED IT, AND INSISTED ON ‘PALESTINE’, A LAND WITH WHICH THEY HAD ZERO CONNECTION…IT WAS THE TALMUDIC JEW CULT LEADERSHIP THAT WANTED PALESTINE…USING THESE ‘NEW’ ‘JEWS’ I.E NEW CULT MEMBERS, AS THEIR MEANS… HAVING ENJOYED CONTROL OVER THEM IN THE GHETTOES FOR GENERATIONS…TIME TO INCULCATE / CONDITION / BRAINWASH THEM INTO THEIR CULT OBEDIENCE ETC… EVEN THE JEWS IN PALESTINE, WITH A POTENTIALLY UNBROKEN LINEAGE, HAD VOTED FOR UGANDA… JUST SPEAKS VOLUMES ABOUT ‘JUDAISM’…IT IS THE CULT OF THE PHARISEE / TALMUDIC JEW THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH IN ‘THE JEW WORLD ORDER’, WHILE THE GENERAL ‘JEWS’ PROVIDE THEM COVER / LEGITIMACY / SUPPORT / VALIDATION / RESPECT ETC…THOUGH THESE ‘PERIPHERAL CULT MEMBERS’ DUPED, WILL BE LITERALLY SACRIFICED TO THE TALMUDIC CULT’S AMBITIONS…AS ALWAYS…

Mr. Balfour’s prime-ministership ended in a fiasco for his party when in the 1906 election eight out of nine Manchester seats were lost to it. He then faded temporarily from office. At that moment another personage entered the present narrative. Among the triumphant Liberal candidates was a rising young man with a keen nose for political winds, a Mr. Winston Churchill. He also sought election in Manchester and commended himself to the Zionist headquarters there, first by attacking the Balfour government’s Aliens Bill (which set a brake on large-scale immigration from such places as Russia) and next by supporting Zionism. Thereon “the Manchester Jews promptly fell into line behind him as though he were a kind of latterday Moses; one of their leaders got up at an all-Jewish-meeting and announced that ‘any Jew who votes against Churchill is a traitor to the common cause’ ” (Mr. R.C. Taylor). Mr. Churchill, elected, became Under Secretary for the Colonies. His public espousal of Zionism was simply a significant episode at that time; three decades later, when Mr. Balfour was dead, it was to have consequences as fateful as Mr. Balfour’s own aberration. MHR I HAD NO IDEA CHURCHILL HAD BEEN A ZIONIST FROM THE START…I.E WHY THEY’D CHOSEN TO TIE THEIR WAGON TO CHURCHILL, LAVISHLY FINANCING HIS LIFESTYLE ETC…AN ALCOHOLIC, DRUG ADDICTED…

MHR THE IDEA THAT WE SHOULD ADMIRE AND RESPECT THE OLD TESTAMENT JEWS BAFFLES ME…ONLY SECT INDUCTEES / ZOMBIES COULD READ THE OLD TESTAMENT AND COME AWAY THINKING ‘WOW, WHAT MORAL PEOPLE, WE OWE SO MUCH TO THEM ??? AS IF ‘THOU SHALT NOT KILL’ IS SUCH A NOVEL IDEA, NO-ONE BUT THE JEWS WOULD EVER HAVE THOUGHT OF IT? AND THEN TO TOTALLY NEGLECT THE MASS MURDER THAT MOSES ORDERED DIRECTLY AFTER PRONOUNCING THIS NOVEL IDEA, AND THE GENOCIDE THAT FOLLOWED…INCLUDING ‘RIPPING UP PREGNANT WOMEN’…WHAT WAS THAT BUT A PRECEDENT / AN INSTRUCTION / AN EXAMPLE / ROLE MODEL FOR ALL ‘JEWS’ TO FOLLOW ? BECAUSE THE CULT LEADERS SAID SO? AS I NOTED EARLIER, IT TOOK 2 NEW GENERATIONS I.E 40 YEARS BEFORE THE CULT COULD BRAINWASH / CONDITION THEIR CULT MEMBERS TO COMMIT THAT GENOCIDE…AND LIKE IN ALL WARS, NO DOUBT ANY WHO REFUSED WERE SLAUGHTERED, JUST AS IN THE ‘GOLDEN CALF’ SCENARIO 40 YEARS EARLIER…

MHR THIS IS WHY I AM SURE THE VERSION OF ‘CHRISTIANITY’ WE INHERITED WAS CONNIVED / INTERPOLATED WITH ENOUGH ‘CULT’ IDEAS AND PROGRAMS / DIRECTIONS TO SERVE THE INTERESTS OF THE CULT… IF YOU JUST TOOK OUT THE ‘WISDOM’ AND ‘ETHICS’ OF JESUS, AND ELIMINATED ALL THE ‘JEWISH’ STUFF I.E SAUL / PAUL ETC…YOU’D HAVE A NICE ETHICAL SYSTEM / SPIRITUAL TEACHING…BUT ‘CHRISTIANITY’ IS AS NASTY AS TALMUDISM IN PART, AND OFTEN ABSURD…AND THE BEST WAS LOST / NEVER FOLLOWED, AND THE WORST EXAMPLES FOLLOWED…AND THE OLD TESTAMENT ‘REVERED’ … WHY? IF JESUS REPUDIATED IT? ??? SO I FIND THE 5 RELIGIONS WERE TALMUDIC JEW PRODUCTS…PART OF THEIR PLAN…TO TRICK THE ‘REFORMED’ JEWS AND ‘CHRISTIANS’ INTO RESPECTING / REVERING THE OLD TESTAMENT / MOSES … WHO FOR ANY ‘OUTSIDER’ IS A PSYCHOTIC FUCKER…DELUDED…GENOCIDAL MASS MURDERER…JOSHUA HIS ‘AGENT’…HIS PEOPLE A CULT, HIS CULT BELIEFS REPUGNANT…ONLY AS ‘THE TRADITION’ FROM WHICH THEIR ‘SAVIOUR’ EMERGED COULD IT EVER HAVE GAINED THE SUPPORT OF THE MASSES…EVEN ISLAM BUILT FROM IT…ETC…

the only body of [229] Jews whose interest he had any right to consider, those of England, had been working hard to dissuade him from getting entangled in Zionism, and he made a last feeble objection: “It is curious, Dr. Weizmann, the Jews I meet are quite different”. Dr. Weizmann replied, “Mr. Balfour, you meet the wrong kind of Jew”.

MHR ALWAYS THE TALMUDIC CULT ACTING AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF THE ‘REAL’ JEWS IN EUROPE…AND PALESTINE…AND OPERATING AS AGENTS OF THE CULT FROM EASTERN EUROPE BASE I.E TALMUDIC CULT…

the American people feared “foreign entanglements”; they wished to keep out of the war and had a president who promised he would keep them out of it. RE: WWI

MHR WAS WHOLE GALIPOLI ETC WAR AGAINST TURKEY SIMPLY TO GET PALESTINE FOR THE TALMUDIC CULT?

While Mr. Balfour and his associates in this still secret enterprise moved towards power in England during the First World War, a similar group of men secretly took shape in the American Republic. The political machine they built produced its full result nearly fifty years later, when President Truman in effect set up the Zionist state in Palestine.

In 1900 Americans still clung to their “American dream”, and the essence of it was to avoid “foreign entanglements”. In fact the attack on Spain in Cuba in 1898 had already separated them from this secure anchorage, and the mysterious origins of that little war are therefore of continuing interest. The American public was caused to explode in warlike frenzy, in the familiar way, when it was told that the Maine was blown up in Havana harbour by a Spanish mine. When she was raised, many years later, her plates were found to have been blown out by an inner explosion (but by then “the mob” had long lost interest in the matter).

The effect of the Spanish-American war (continuing American “entanglement” in the affairs of others) lent major importance to the question: who was to exercise the ruling power in America, for the nature of any “entanglements” clearly depended on that.

Before the Civil War the American population was predominantly Irish, Scots-Irish, Scottish, British, German and Scandinavian, and from this amalgam a distinctly “American” individual evolved. In the direct sequence to that war the era of unrestricted immigration began, which in a few decades brought to America many millions of new citizens from Eastern and Southern Europe. These included a great mass of Jews from the Talmudic areas of Russia and Russian Poland. In Russia the rabbinate had stood between them and “assimilation” and this continued when they reached America. The process of acquiring an ever-increasing measure of political power began, behind the scenes, about 1900 and was to become the major issue of American national life in the ensuing fifty years.

Mr. Edward Mandell House ; We often think an idea to be original with ourselves when, in plain truth, it was subconsciously absorbed from someone else”. Mr. House, aged fifty, was a president-maker. Until I read his Private Papers I was much impressed by the “uncanny knowledge” displayed by a leading American Zionist, Rabbi Stephen Wise, who in 1910 told a New Jersey audience: “On Tuesday Mr. Woodrow Wilson will be elected governor of your State; he will not complete his term of office as governor; in November 1912 he will be eleeted President of the United States; he will be inaugurated for the second time as president”. This was fore-knowledge of the quality shown by the Protocols, Leon Pinsker and Max Nordau, but further research showed that Rabbi Wise had it from Colonel House!

Evidently Mr. Wilson had been closely studied by the group of secret men which then was coalescing, for neither Mr. House nor Rabbi Wise at that moment had met him! But Mr. House “became convinced that he had found his man, although he had never met him . . . ‘I turned to Woodrow Wilson . . . as being the only man. . . who in every way measured up to the office’ ” (Mr. Howden). The standard measurement used is indicated by a later passage: “The trouble with getting a candidate for president is that the man that is best fitted for the place cannot be nominated and, if nominated, could not be elected. The People seldom take the best man fitted for the job; therefore it is necessary to work for the best man who can be nominated and elected, and just now Wilson seems to be that man”. (This description, again, is qualified by the allusion in Mr. House’s novel to the methods used by a powerful group to elect “its creature” to the presidency).

The Zionist idea coupled itself to the revolutionary idea, among the group of men which was secretly selecting Mr. Woodrow Wilson for the presidency, in the person of this Rabbi Stephen Wise (born in Budapest, like Herzl and Nordau). He was the chief Zionist organizer in America and as such still something of a curiosity among the Jews of America, who at that time repudiated Zionism and distrusted the “Eastern Jews”. Until 1900, as Rabbi Wise says, Zionism in America was confined to the immigrant Jews from Russia, who brought it with them from the Talmudic ghettoes there; the mass of American Jews were of German origins and would have none of it. Between 1900 and 1910, a million new Jewish immigrants arrived from Russia and under Zionist organization began to form an important body of voters; here was the link between Mr. House (whose election-strategy will be described) and Rabbi Wise. Rabbi Wise, who was known chiefly as a militant orator, if not an agitator, in labour questions, was not then a representative Jewish figure, and nevertheless (like Dr. Weizmann in England) he was the man to whom the political potentates secretly gave access and ear.

The strength of this secret group is shown by the fact that in 1910, when Mr. House had privately decided that Mr. Wilson should be the next president, Rabbi [235] Wise publicly proclaimed that he would be that, and for two terms. This called for a rearrangement of the rabbi’s politics, for he had always supported the Republican party; after Mr. House’s secret selection of Mr. Wilson, he changed to the Democratic one. Thus Mr. House’s confused “revolutionary” ideas and Zionism’s perfectly clear ones arrived together on the doorstep of the White House. Agreement between the group was cordial: Mr. Wise states that (after the election) “we received warm and heartening help from Colonel House, close friend of the president. . . House not only made our cause the object of his very special concern but served as liaison officer between the Wilson administration and the Zionist movement”. The close parallel between the course of these hidden processes in America and in England is here shown.

MHR THE GERMAN JEWS ‘EMANCIPATED’ FROM THEIR CULT, AND HAPPY TO BE ‘AMERICANS’… IT WAS THE TALMUDIC RUSSIAN CULT MEMBERS / THE ‘ASHKENDNAZISM’ WHO ARE THE JEW WORLD ORDER VECTORS…THOUGH THE OTHER ‘JEWS’ DON’T GET IT…THE REASON THEY SUFFERED DURING WWII WAS THE ASHKEDNAZISM POLICIES OF THE TALMUDIC CULT…AND THEY ARE VERY HAPPY TO SACRIFICE 6 MILLION FOR REAL NEXT TIME…IN WWIII

a plan to gain the vote of the “foreign-born”, the new immigrants, solidly for the Democratic party by making appeal to their racial feelings and especial emotional reflexes. It was worked out in great detail and was the product of a master hand in this particular branch of political science.

The unique, fantastic thing about this plan is that Mr. House published it, anonymously, in the very year, 1912, when Mr. Wilson, secretly “chosen”, was publicly nominated and elected. In that busy year Mr.

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 168 —

House found time to write, in thirty days, a novel called Philip Dru: Administrator (the unusual word recalls the allusion in the Protocols to “The Administrators whom we shall choose …”). The chapter entitled “The Making of a President”, which is obviously not fiction, makes this almost unreadable novel a historical document of the first importance.

In this chapter of his novel (which Mr. House was prompted to publish by his assiduous mentor, Dr. Sidney Mezes) an American Senator called Selwyn is depicted as setting about to “govern the Nation with an absolute hand, and yet not be known as the directing power”. Selwyn is Mr. House. Apparently he could not resist the temptation to give a clue to his identity, and he caused “Selwyn” to invite the man he selected as his puppet-president (“Selwyn seeks a Candidate”) to “dine with me in my rooms at the Mandell House”.

Before that, Selwyn has devised “a nefarious plan”, in concert with one John [236] Thor, “the high priest of finance”, whereby “a complete and compact organization”, using “the most infamous sort of deception regarding its real opinions and intentions”, might “elect its creature to the Presidency”. The financing of this secret league was “simple”. “Thor’s influence throughout commercial America was absolute . . . Thor and Selwyn selected the thousand” (millionaires) “that were to give each ten thousand dollars. . . Thor was to tell each of them that there was a matter, appertaining to the general welfare of the business fraternity, which needed twenty thousand dollars, and that he, Thor, would put up ten and wanted him to put up as much. . . There were but few men of business. . . who did not consider themselves fortunate in being called to New York by Thor and in being asked to join him in a blind pool looking to the safeguarding of wealth”. The money of this “great corruption fund” was placed by Thor in different banks, paid at request by Selwyn to other banks, and from them transferred to the private bank of Selwyn’s son-in-law; “the result was that the public had no chance of obtaining any knowledge of the fund or how it was spent” .

On this basis of finance Selwyn selects his “creature”, one Rockland, (Mr. Wilson), who on dining with Selwyn at “MandelI House” is told, that his responsibility as president will be “diffuse”: “while a president has a consitutional right to act alone, he has no moral right to act contrary to the tenets and traditions of his party, or to the advice of the party leaders, for the country accepts the candidate, the party and the party advisers as a whole and not severally” (the resemblance between this passage and the allusions in the Protocols to “the responsibility of presidents” and the ultimate authority of their “advisers” is strong).

Rockland humbly agrees to this. (After the election, “drunk with power and the adulation of sycophants, once or twice Rockland asserted himself, and acted upon important matters without having first conferred with Selwyn. But, after he had been bitterly assailed by Selwyn’s papers. . . he made no further attempts at independence. He felt that he was utterly helpless in that strong man’s hands, and so, indeed, he was”. This passage in Mr. House’s novel of 1912, written before Mr. Wilson’s inauguration, may be compared with one in Mr. House’s Private Papers of 1926, recording his actual relationship with the candidate during the election campaign. It states that Mr. House edited the presidential candidate’s speeches and instructed him not to heed any other advice, whereon Mr. Wilson admitted indiscretions and promised “not to act independently in future”. In the novel Selwyn is shown as telling Thor of Rockland’ s attempt to escape the thrall: “When he told how Rockland had made an effort for freedom, and how he brought him back, squirming under his defeat, they laughed joyously”; this chapter is called “The Exultant Conspirators”).

Another chapter shows how the election of the “creature” was achieved. The [237] plan described makes electioneering almost into an exact science and still governs electioneering in America. It is based on Mr. House’s fundamental calculation that about 80 percent of the electors would in any circumstance whatever vote for one of the two opposed parties in roughly equal proportions, and that expenditure of money and effort must therefore be concentrated on “the fluctuating 20 percent”. Then it analyzes this 20 percent in detail until the small residue is isolated, on which the utmost effort is to be bent. Every ounce or cent of wasteful expenditure is eliminated and a mass of energy released to be directed against the small body of voters who can sway the result. This plan has done so much to “deflect” the course of events in America and the world that it needs to be summarized here at some length.

MHR THIS IS EXACTLY THE SITUATION I DESCRIBED IN MY TROONATNOOR VOL I I.E SWINGING VOTERS ARE THE KEY…TO NOT LOSE THE MASS, BUT GAIN A ‘SWINGER’ WAS THE KEY TO VICTORY…

Selwyn begins the nomination campaign by eliminating all states where either his party or the other was sure to win. In this way he is free to give his entire thought to the twelve doubtful States, upon whose votes the election would turn. He divides these into units of five thousand voters, appointing for each unit a man on the spot and one at national headquarters. He calculated that of the five thousand, four thousand, in equal parts, probably could not be diverted from his own or the other party, and this brought his analysis down to one thousand doubtful voters, in each unit of five thousand in twelve States, on whom to concentrate. The local man was charged to obtain all possible information about their “race, religion, occupation and former party ties”, and to forward this to the national man in charge of the particular unit, who was then responsible for reaching each individual by means of “literature, persuasion or perhaps by some more subtle

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 169 —

argument”. The duty of the two agents for each unit, one in the field and one at headquarters, was between them to “bring in a majority of the one thousand votes within their charge”.

Meanwhile the managers of the other party were sending out “tons of printed matter to their State headquarters, which, in turn, distributed it to the country organizations, where it was dumped into a corner and given to visitors when asked for. Selwyn’s committee used one-fourth as much printed matter, but it went in a sealed envelope, along with a cordial letter, directed to a voter that had as yet not decided how to vote. The opposition was sending speakers at great expense from one end of the country to the other . . . Selwyn sent men into his units to personally persuade each of the one thousand hesitating voters to support the Rockland ticket”.

By means of this most skilful method of analysis, elimination and concentration Rockland, in the novel, (and Mr. Wilson, in fact) was elected in 1912. The concentrated appeal to the “one thousand hesitating voters” in each unit was especially directed to the “race, creed and colour” emotion, and the objects of attention were evidently singled out with that in mind. “Thus Selwyn won and Rockland became the keystone of the arch he had set out to build”.

THE first major actionOF President Wilson’s WAS to introduce “a graduated income tax exempting no income whatsoever” (Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto demanded “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax”; the Protocols, “a progressive tax on property”).

What prompted Mr. House (or his prompter) to publish this exact picture of what was going on at the very moment when “the creature” was being nominated and elected? Considered in that light the book becomes a work of sadistic mockery. MHR THEY ALWAYS FEEL OBLIGED TO TELL US WHAT THEY HAVE DONE / ARE DOING / PLAN E.G SIMPSONS ETC 911 PREDICTIONS ETC…

Mr. House later wrote of the man he had “chosen” and had elected (“the only one who in every way measured up to the office”), “I thought at that time” (1914) “and on several occasions afterwards, that the President wanted to die; certainly his attitude and his mental state indicated that he found no zest in life”. When Mr. Wilson had not long been president Sir Horace Plunkett, the British

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 170 —

Ambassador, wrote to Mr. House, “I paid my respects to the President, and was shocked to see him looking so worn; the change since January last is terribly marked”. Six years later Sir William Wiseman, a British governmental emissary, told Mr, House, “I was shocked by his appearance . . . His face was drawn and of a grey colour, and frequently twitching in a pitiful effort to control nerves which had broken down” (1919)*.

MHR GET THE QUOTES OF WILSON, REGRETTING EVERYTHING, WARNING US…BUT HE DID NOT HAVE THE COURAGE TO STATE THE FACTS…COWARD…

Rabbi Wise once asked him, “When did you first think or dream of the presidency?” As the rabbi knew so much more than the President of the way in which the dream had been realized, he may have spoken tongue in cheek, and was evidently startled out of his customary deference when Mr. Wilson answered, “There never was a time after my graduation from Davidson College in South Carolina when I did not expect to become president”, so that the rabbi asked sardonically, “Even when you were a teacher in a girls’ college!” Mr. Wilson, apparently still oblivious, repeated, “There never was a time when I did not expect and prepare myself to become president”.

Strong resemblances occur in contemporary descriptions of Mr. Roosevelt, whom Mr. House also believed that he chose as a “figurehead”. Mr. Robert E. Sherwood says with emphasis that Mr. Roosevelt was ever haunted “by the ghost of Wilson”, When Mr, Roosevelt had been president two years his party manager, Mr. James Farley, wrote, “The President looked bad. . . face drawn and his reactions slow” (1935), and two years later he was “shocked at the President’s appearance” (1937). In 1943 Madame Chiang Kai-shek was “shocked by the President’s looks”; in 1944, says Mr. Merriman Smith, “he looked older than I have ever seen him and he made an irrelevant speech”, and Mr. John T. Flynn says the President’s pictures “shocked the nation”. In 1945 Miss Frances Perkins, a member of his cabinet, emerged from his office saying, “I can’t stand it, the President looks horrible”.

SO BOTH PRESIDENTS THAT PROMISED PEACE, AND THEN CONSCRIPTED THEIR NATIONS SONS TO WAR, TO DIE FOR THE TALMUDIC CULT, PAID THE PRICE…LIKE LITERAL ‘THRALLS’ TO SOME DEMON…LIKE GOETHE’S MEPHISTO…SOLD THEIR SOUL TO THE TALMUDIC DEVIL, FOR POWER…ONLY TO FIND THEY WERE MERE PUPPETS…GUILTY OF MASSIVE CRIMES THAT DESTOYED THEIR SOULS AND THEIR MINDS AND HEALTH…

Mr. Wilson, under coaching for the campaign, made a speech on “The rights of the Jews”, in which he said, “I am not here to express our sympathy with our Jewish fellow-citizens but to make evident our sense of identity with them. This is not their cause; it is America’s”.

This could only have one meaning; it was a declaration of foreign policy, if Mr. Wilson were elected. No need existed to “make evident the sense of identity” between Americans and Americans, and Jews in America were in every respect free and equal; only a refusal to identify themselves with America could alter that and Mr. Wilson in effect proclaimed this refusal. He was specifically stating that Jewish “identity” was different and separate and that America, under him, would support this self-segregation as a cause.

To the initiates it was a pledge to Zionism. It was also an oblique allusion and threat to Russia, for the implication of Mr. Wilson’s words was that he recognized the Jews in Russia (who were then the only organized Zionists) as representing all Jews. Thus he took the Balfourean part in the American production of this drama.

At that time all the Zionist propaganda was directed against Russia. Some thirty years had passed since the assassination of Czar Alexander II, who had incurred the enmity of the revolutionaries by his attempt to introduce a parliamentary constitution (Dr. Kastein remarked that Jewish participation in the assassination was “natural”). His successor, Alexander III, was forced to devote himself to combating the revolution. In Mr. Wilson’s time Czar Nicholas II was resuming Alexander the Liberator’s attempt to pacify and unify his country by enfranchising the people, and once more was being fiercely opposed by the Talmudic Zionists.

Then, at the very moment when Mr. Wilson made his implicit attack on Russian “intolerance”, assassination was again used in Russia to destroy Nicholas II’s work. During the revolution of 1906 he had issued an imperial decree making Russia a constitutional monarchy, and in 1907 he introduced universal suffrage. The revolutionaries feared this liberating measure more than they feared any Cossacks and used the People’s Assembly, when it first met, for riotous uproar, so that it had to be dissolved. The Czar then chose as his prime minister an enlightened statesman, Count Stolypin, who by decree enacted a land reform followed by new elections. The result was that in the second parliament he received a great ovation and the revolutionaries were routed (some 3,000,000 landless peasants became owners of their land).

The future of Russia at that moment looked brighter than ever before. Stolypin was a national hero and wrote, “Our principal aim is to strengthen the agricultural population. The whole strength of the country rests on it . . . Give [241] this country ten years of inner tranquility and you will not know Russia”.

Those ten tranquil years would have changed the course of history for the better; instead, the conspiracy intervened and produced the ten days that shook the world. In 1911 Count Stolypin went to Kieff, where the Czar was to unveil a monument to the murdered Liberator, Alexander II, and was shot at a gala performance in the theatre by a Jewish revolutionary, Bagroff (in 1917 a Jewish commissar, discovering that a girl among some fugitives was Count Stolypin’s daughter, promptly shot her).

That happened in September 1911; in December 1911 Mr. Wilson, the candidate, made his speech expressing “a sense of identity” with the Jewish “cause”. In November 1911 Mr. Wilson had for the first time met the man, Mr. House, who had “chosen” him in 1910 (and who had then already “lined up all my political friends and following” on Mr. Wilson’s behalf).

MHR COMPARE THESE FACTS TO THE PROPAGANDA WE ARE FED BY HOLLYWOOD ETC PROPAGANDA…OF A HATED TZAR BEING KILLED BY HIS PEOPLE… A DESPOT AND TYRANT…IN FACT THE OPPOSITE…LIKE HITLER’S PORTRAYAL LATER…AFTER FIRST GRANTING HIM ‘MAN OF THE YEAR’ STATUS, TO GET HIM INTO POWER…ETC…

Before the election Mr. House drew up a list of cabinet ministers (see Philip Dru) in consultation with a Mr. Bernard Baruch, who now enters this tale. He might be the most important of all the figures who will appear in it during the ensuing fifty years, for he was to become known as “the adviser” to several Presidents and in the 1950’s was still advising President Eisenhower and Mr. Winston Churchill: In 1912 he was publicly known only as a highly successful financier. His biographer states that he contributed $50,000 to Mr. Wilson’s campaign.

Then during the election campaign Mr. Wilson was made to feel the bit. After initial indiscretions he promised Mr. House (as earlier quoted, and compared with Philip Dru) “not to act independently in future”. Immediately after the election he received Rabbi Stephen Wise “in a lengthy session” at which they discussed “Russian affairs with special reference to the treatment of Jews” (Mr. Wise). At the same moment Mr. House lunched with a Mr. Louis D. Brandeis, an eminent jurist and a Jew, and recorded that “his mind and mine are in accord concerning most of the questions that are now to the fore “.

Thus three of the four men around Mr. Wilson were Jews and all three, at one stage or another, played leading parts in promoting the re-segregation of the Jews through Zionism and its Palestinian ambition. At that time Mr. Brandeis and Rabbi Wise were the leading Zionists in America, and Mr. Brandeis, at his entrance into the story, deserves a paragraph.

He was distinguished in appearance and in intellect, but neither he nor any other lawyer could have defined what constituted, in him, “a Jew”. He did not practise the Judaist religion, either in the Orthodox or Reformed versions, and once wrote, “During most of my life my contact with Jews and Judaism was slight and I gave little thought to their problems”. His conversion was of the irrational, romantic kind (recalling Mr. Balfour’s): one day in 1897 he read at [242] breakfast a report of Dr. Herzl’s speech at the First Zionist Congress and told his wife, “There is a cause to which I could give my life”.

Thus the fully assimilated American Jew was transformed in a trice. He displayed the ardour of the convert in his subsequent attacks on “assimilation”: “Assimilation cannot be averted unless there be reestablished in the Fatherland a centre from which the Jewish spirit may radiate”. The Zionists from Russia never trusted this product of assimilation who now wanted to de-assimilate himself. They detested his frequent talk about “Americanism”. He said, “My approach to Zionism was through Americanism”, and to the Talmudists this was akin to saying that Zionism could be approached through “Russianism”, which they were bent on destroying. In fact it was illogical to advocate the fiercest form of racial segregation while professing to admire American assimilationism, and Mr. Brandeis, for all his lawyer’s skill, seems never truly to have understood the nature of Zionism. He became the Herzl of American Zionists (Rabbi Stephen Wise was their Weizmann) and was rudely dropped when he had served his turn. However, at the decisive moment, in 1917, he played a decisive part.

Such was the grouping around a captive president as the American Republic moved towards involvement in the First World War, and such was the cause which was to be pursued through him and through his country’s involvement. After his election Mr. House took over his correspondence, arranged whom he should see or not receive, told Cabinet officers what they were to say or not to say, and so on. By then he had also found time to write and publish that astonishing novel. He wanted power, and achieved it, but what else he wanted, in the sequence, he never decided. Thus his ambition was purposeless, and in retrospect

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 172 —

he now looks like Savrola, the hero of another politician’s novel, of whom its author, Mr. Winston Churchill, said “Ambition was the motive force, and Savrola was powerless to resist it”. At the end of his life Mr. House, lonely and forgotten, greatly disliked Philip Dru.

“It was invariably my intention, with the President as with all other men I sought to influence, to make him think that ideas he derived from me were his own.

someone “steered” Mr. House, who steered Mr. Wilson, to the [243] conclusion that a body of men in the Talmudic areas of Russia ought to be put in possession of Palestine, with the obvious consequence that a permanent source of world warfare would be established there, and that the Jews of the world ought to be re-segregated from mankind. In this plan the destruction of Russia and the spread of the world-revolution also were foreseeably involved.

At that period (1913) an event occurred which seemed of little importance then but needs recording here because of its later, large consequence. In America was an organization called B’nai B’rith (Hebrew for “Children of the Covenant”). Founded in 1843 as a fraternal lodge exclusively for Jews, it was called “purely an American institution”, but it put out branches in many countries and today claims to “represent all Jews throughout the world”, so that it appears to be part of the arrangement described by Dr. Kastein as “the Jewish international”. In 1913 B’nai B’rith put out a tiny offshoot, the “Anti-Defamation League”. It was to grow to great size and power; in it the state-within-states acquired a kind of secret police

The Protocols of 1905 said that resistance to the plan therein unfolded would be met by “universal war”; Max Nordau in 1903 said that the Zionist ambition in Palestine would be achieved through “the coming world war”.

The American president was already (i.e., from 1912) the captive of secret “advisers”, as has been shown; and if Mr. House’s depictment of him (alike in the anonymous novel and the acknowledged Private Papers) is correct, he fits the picture given in the earlier Protocols, “. . . we replaced the ruler by a caricature of a president, taken from the mob, from the midst of our puppet creatures, our slaves”.

However, Mr. Wilson was not required to take much active part in furthering the great “design” in the early stages of the First World War; he fulfilled his function later. At its start the main objective was to gain control of the British Government

Lord Kitchener was sent to Russia by Mr. Asquith in June 1916. The cruiser Hampshire, and Lord Kitchener in it, vanished. Good authorities concur that he was the one man who might have sustained Russia. A formidable obstacle, both to the world-revolution there and to the Zionist enterprise, disappeared. Probably Zionism could not have been foisted on the West, had he lived. I remember that the soldiers on the Western Front, when they heard the news, felt that they had lost a major battle. Their intuition was truer than they knew.

After that only Asquith, Robertson, Haig and the Jews of England stood between Zionism and its goal. The circle of intrigue widened. The Times and Sunday Times joined the Manchester Guardian in its enthusiasm for Zionism, and in or around the Cabinet new men added themselves to Balfour and Lloyd George. Lord Milner (about to join it) announced that “if the Arabs think that Palestine will become an Arab country they are much mistaken”; at that moment Colonel Lawrence was rousing the Arabs to revolt against an enemy of the Allies, the Turk. Mr. Philip Kerr (Later Lord Lothian, at that time Mr. Lloyd George’s amanuensis) decided that “a Jewish Palestine” must come out of the chastisement of “the mad dog in Berlin” (as the Kaiser was depicted to “the mob”). Sir Mark Sykes, Chief Secretary of the War Cabinet, was “one of our greatest finds” (Dr. Weizmann), and broadened the idea into “the liberation of the Jews, the Arabs and the Armenians”.

By means of such false suggestions is “the multitude” ever and again “persuaded”. The Arabs and Armenians were where they always had been and did not aspire to be removed elsewhither. The Jews in Europe were as free or unfree as other men; the Jews of Palestine had demonstrated their eagerness to go to Uganda, the Jews of Europe and America wanted to stay where they were, and only the Judaized Khazars of Russia, under their Talmudic directors, wanted possession of Palestine.

Another recruit, Lord Robert Cecil, also used this deceptive formula, “Arabia for the Arabs, Judea for the Jews, Armenia for the Armenians” (Armenian liberation was quite lost sight of in the later events), and his case also is curious, for statesmanship is inborn in the Cecils. Zionism had strange power to produce aberrations in wise men. Mr. Balfour (a half Cecil) had a Cecilian wisdom in other matters; he produced a paper on the reorganization of Europe after the war which stands today as a model of prudent statesmanship, whereas in the question of Zionism he was as a man drugged.

Dr. Weizmann says specifically of Lord Robert, “To him the re-establishment of a Jewish Homeland in Palestine and the organization of the world in a great federation were complementary features of the next step in the management of human affairs. . . One of the founders of the League of Nations, he considered the Jewish Homeland to be of equal importance with the League itself”.

Here the great secret is out; but did Lord Robert discern it? The conquest of Palestine for the Zionists from Russia was but “the next step” in “the management of human affairs” (Lord Acton’s dictum about “the design” and “the managers” recurs to mind). The “world federation” is depicted as a concurrent part of the same plan. The basic theory of that league, in its various forms, has proved to be that nations should surrender their sovereignty, so that separate nationhood will disappear (this, of course, is also the basic principle of the Protocols). But if nations are to disappear, why should the process of their obliteration begin with the creation of one new nation, unless it is to be the supreme authority in “the management of human affairs” (this conception of the one supreme nation runs alike through the Old Testament, the Talmud, the Protocols and literal Zionism).

Thus Lord Robert’s espousal of Zionism becomes incomprehensible, for his inherited wisdom made him fully aware of the perils of world-despotism and at that very period he wrote to Mr. House in America:

“That we ought to make some real effort to establish a peace machinery when this war is over, I have no doubt. . . One danger seems to me to be that too much will be aimed at . . . . . Nothing did more harm to the cause of peace than the breakdown of the efforts after Waterloo in this direction. It is now generally forgotten that the Holy Alliance was originally started as a League to Enforce Peace. Unfortunately, it allowed its energies to be diverted in such a way that it really became a league to uphold tyranny, with the consequence that it was generally discredited, besides doing infinite harm in other ways . . . The example shows how easily the best intended schemes may come to grief”.

The obstructive prime minister, Mr. Asquith, was removed at the end of 1916. The pages of yesterday now reveal the way this was done, and the passage of time enables the results to be judged. The motive offered to the public masses was that Mr. Asquith was ineffective in prosecuting the war. The sincerity of the contention may be tested by what followed; the first act of his successors was to divert forces to Palestine and in the sequence to that Mr. Lloyd George nearly lost the war entirely.

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 177 —

On November 25, 1916 Mr. Lloyd George recommended that his chief retire from the chairmanship of the War Council in favour of Mr. Lloyd George.

Lloyd George then became Prime Minister and appointed the incompetent Mr. Balfour Foreign Secretary. Thus the two men privily committed to support Zionism moved into the highest political offices and from that moment the energies of the British Government were directed to the procurement of Palestine for the Zionists above all other purposes. (In 1952 I read a letter in the Jewish [251] journal Commentary, of New York, intimating that the Jews of North Wales had by their votes played the decisive part in effecting Mr. Lloyd George’s election

As to the diversion of British military strength to an alien purpose, one stout resistant alone remained after the death of Lord Kitchener and removal of Mr. Asquith. The sturdy figure of Sir William Robertson faced the group around Mr. Lloyd George. Had he joined it, he could have had titles, receptions, freedoms, orders, gilt boxes, and ribbons down to his waistbelt; he could have had fortunes for “the rights” of anything he wrote (or any ghost for him); he could have had boulevards named after him and have paraded through cheering cities in Europe and America; he could have had Congress and the House of Commons rise to him and have entered Jerusalem on a white horse. He did not even receive a peerage, and is rare among British field marshals in this.

He was the only man ever to have risen to that highest rank from private. In England of the small professional army this was a great achievement. He was simple, honest, heavy, rugged in feature; he was of the people and looked like a handsome sergeant-major. His only support, in his struggle, lay in the commander in France, Sir Douglas Haig, who was of the cavalry officer caste, goodlooking and soldierly, the private soldier’s ideal of what an officer should bee.

On this last man felt the task of thwarting the diversion of British armies to [252] Palestine, if he could. He considered all proposals exclusively in their military bearing on the war and victory; if it would help win the war, motive was to him indifferent; if it would not, he opposed it without regard for any other consideration. On that basis he decided that the Zionist proposal was for a dangerous

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 178 —

“sideshow” which could only delay and imperil victory. He never discussed and may not even have suspected any political implications; these were irrelevant to him.

He had told Mr. Asquith in 1915, “Obviously the most effective method” (of defeating the Central Powers) “is to defeat decisively the main German armies, which are still on the Western Front”. Therefore he counselled urgently against,”auxiliary campaigns in minor theatres and the depletion of the forces in France. . . The one touchstone by which all plans and proposals must be tested is their bearing on the object of the war”.

Peoples engaged in war, are fortunate if their leaders reason like this, and unfortunate if they deviate from this reasoning. By that conclusive logic the Palestinian enterprise (a political one) was out. When Mr. Lloyd George became prime minister he at once bent all his efforts on diverting strength to a major campaign in Palestine: “When I formed my government I at once raised with the War Office the question of a further campaign into Palestine. Sir William Robertson, who was most anxious to avert the danger of any troops being sent from France to Palestine. . . strongly opposed this and for the time being won his point” .

Sir William Robertson corroborates: “Up to December 1916” (when Mr. Lloyd George became prime minister) “operations beyond the Suez Canal had been essentially defensive in principle, the government and General Staff alike. . . recognizing the paramount importance of the struggle in Europe and the need to give the armies there the utmost support. This unanimity between ministers and soldiers did not obtain after the premiership changed hands. . . The fundamental difference of opinion was particularly obtrusive in the case of Palestine. . . The new War Cabinet had been in existence only a few days when it directed the General Staff to examine the possibility of extending the operations in Palestine. . . The General Staff put the requirements at three additional divisions and these could only be obtained from the armies on the Western Front. . . The General Staff said the project would prove a great source of embarrassment and injure our prospects of success in France. . . These conclusions were disappointing to Ministers, . . . who wished to see Palestine occupied at once, but they could not be refuted . . . In February the War Cabinet again approached the Chief of the General Staff, asking what progress was being made with the preparation of an autumn campaign in Palestine”.

Mr. B.K. Long (a Smuts Member of Parliament and earlier of the London Times) wrote that “the substantial Jewish vote, which was firmly loyal to Smuts and his party”, greatly helped him to such electoral victories. His biography mentions a large legacy from “a rich and powerful Jew” (an example of the falsity of Dr. Weizmann’s charge against rich and powerful Jews; apropos, the same Sir Henry Strakosch bequeathed a similar gift to Mr. Winston Churchill) and gifts from some unnamed quarter of a house and car. Thus the party-political considerations which weighed with him were similar to those of Mr. Lloyd George, Mr. House and later others, and material factors are reasonably apparent in his case.

However, the religious (or pseudo-religious) motive is frequently invoked in his biographies (as it was sometimes claimed by Mr. Lloyd George). They state that he preferred the Old Testament to the New, and quote him as saying, “The older I get the more of an Hebraist I become”. I met him many years later, when I knew how important a part he played in this earlier story. He was then (1948) much troubled about the declining situation in the world, and the explosive part of Palestine in it. He was of fine appearance, fit and

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 179 —

erect when nearly eighty, keen-eyed, and wore a little beard. He was ruthless and on occasion could have been depicted in a cruel light (had the mass-newspapers been arrayed against instead of behind him) and his political astuteness equalled Mr. Lloyd George’s. Propaganda portrayed him as the great architect of AngloBoer reconciliation; [254] when he died at his lonely Transvaal farm the two races were more at variance than ever, so that true reconciliation remained for later generations to effect. In South Africa he was a divisive force and all knew that the real power behind his party was that of the gold and diamond mining group, not of England; Johannesburg was the base of his political strength. In 1948, when the test came, he was the first to support Zionism against a hard-pressed British Government.

On March 17, 1917 General Smuts reached London, amid unprecedented ovations, and the overthrow of Sir William Robertson at last loomed near. General Smuts’s triumphant reception was an early example of the now familiar “build-up” of selected public figures by a push-button press. The method, in another form, is known among the primitive peoples of his native Africa, where “M’Bongo”, the Praisemaker, stalks before the chief, proclaiming him “Great Elephant, Earth Shaker, Stabber of Heaven” and the like.

General Smuts was presented to the Imperial War Cabinet as “one of the most brilliant generals of the war” (Mr. Lloyd George). General Smuts had in fact conducted a small colonial campaign in South West Africa, and when he was summoned to London was waging an uncompleted one in East Africa against “a small but efficiently bush-trained army of 2,000 German officers and 20,000 native askaris” (his son, Mr. J.C. Smuts). The tribute thus was generous (Mr. Lloyd George’s opinion of professional soldiers was low: “There is no profession where experience and training count less in comparison with judgment and flair”) .

By that time, the better to seclude themselves from “the generals” (other than General Smuts) Mr. Lloyd George and his small war-waging committee had taken a private house “where they sit twice a day and occupy their whole time with military policy, which is my job; a little body of politicians, quite ignorant of war and all its needs, are trying to run the war themselves” (Sir William Robertson). To this cloistered body, in April 1917, General Smuts by invitation presented his recommendations for winning the war. It was couched in this form: “The Palestine campaign presents very interesting military and even political possibilities . . . There remains for consideration the far more important and complicated question of the Western Front. I have always looked on it as a misfortune. . . . that the British forces have become so entirely absorbed by this front”. (When this advice was tendered Russia was in collapse, the transfer of German armies to the Western Front was an obvious and imminent event, and the threat to that front had suddenly increased to the size of a deadly peril).

This recommendation gave Mr. Lloyd George the high military support (from East Africa) which he needed, and he at once had the War Cabinet order the military commander in Egypt to attack towards Jerusalem. General Murray objected that his forces were insufficient and was removed. Thereon the command was offered to General Smuts, whom Mr. Lloyd George considered “likely to prosecute a campaign in that quarter with great determination”.

[255]

Sir William Robertson then won his greatest victory of the war. He had a talk with General Smuts. His visitor’s qualities as a general can never be estimated because he never had an opportunity to test them, in the small campaigns in which he served. His qualities as a politician, however, are beyond all doubt; he was the wariest of men, and strongly averse to exchanging the triumphs of London for the risk of a fiasco in the field which might destroy his political future in South Africa. Therefore, after his talk with Sir William Robertson, he declined Mr. Lloyd George’s offer. (As events turned out he would have been spared the fiasco, but that was unforeseeable, and thus one more conqueror missed the chance of entering Jerusalem on a charger. As politicians habitually love such moments, despite the comic aspect which time often gives them, he later regretted this: “To have entered Jerusalem! What a memory!”). At the time he told Mr. Lloyd George, “My strong conviction is that our present military situation does not really justify an offensive campaign for the capture of Jerusalem and the occupation of Palestine”.

Mr. Lloyd George was not to be deterred even by this volte-face, or by the collapse of Russia and the new danger in the West. In September 1917 he decided that “the requisite troops for a big campaign in Palestine could be spared from the Western Front during the winter of 1917-1918 and could complete the task in Palestine in time to be back in France for the opening of active work in the spring”.

Only God can have preserved Mr. Lloyd George’s fellow countrymen from the full penalties of this decision. The war could not be won in Palestine; it still could be lost in France, and the danger was grave. But Mr. Lloyd George, failed even by General Smuts, had found military support at last, for at this moment another figure, crying “mud-months”, advanced from the wings of the central stage.

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 180 —

This was one Sir Henry Wilson, who thus portrays himself during a wartime mission to Russia in January 1917: “Gala dinner at the Foreign Office. . . I wore the Grand Officer of the Legion of Honour and the Star and Necklace of the Bath, also Russian shoulder-straps and grey astrakhan cap, and altogether I was a fine picture of a man. I created quite a sensation at the Foreign Office dinner and the reception afterwards. I was much taller than the Grand Duke Serge and altogether a ‘notable’, as I was told. Superb!”

To this man, posturing against the tragic Russian background, Mr. Lloyd George and Zionism owed their golden opportunity, arrived at last, and England very nearly a catastrophe. Sir Henry Wilson was very tall, thin, smooth and smiling; one of those dapper, polished-leather-bound, red-tabbed, beribboned and brass-edged elegants of the Staff who discouraged the muddied, trenchweary soldiers in France. He spoke native French (by the chance of a French governess) and on this account “Henri” was beloved by the French generals, who thought him refreshingly free from English stiffness (indeed, he was an Irishman and on Irish questions disagreed with other Irishmen, by two of whom he was shot on his London doorstep in 1922, they being hanged).

[256]

Sir Henry earlier had agreed with all other military leaders about the paramountcy of the main front and the madness of wasteful “sideshows” and excelled others in the vigour with which he stated this principle: “The way to end this war is to kill Germans, not Turks. . . The place where we can kill most Germans is here” (France) “and therefore every pound of ammunition we have in the world ought to come here. All history shows that operations in a secondary and ineffectual theatre have no bearing on major operations except to weaken the forces there engaged” (1915).

No staff graduate, or any fighting private, would dispute that. Sir Henry cannot by 1917 have discovered any military reason to abandon this basic principle of war for its opposite. The explanation of his volt-face can only be the obvious one. He had observed the rise of Zion and the nature of Mr. Lloyd George’s dispute with his own chief, Sir William Robertson. Sir Henry saw the way to occupy Sir William’s shoes. Hence Dr. Weizmann’s account of his “discoveries of friends” at that period include an allusion to the “sympathy” of General Wilson, “a great friend of Lloyd George”. On August 23, 1917 Sir Henry reported to Mr. Lloyd George “the strong belief that if a really good scheme was thoroughly well worked out, we could clear the Turks out of Palestine and very likely knock them completely out during the mud-months without in any way interfering with Haig’s operations next spring and winter” (in France).

In this report Mr. Lloyd George at long last found the support he needed for his order of September 1917, quoted six paragraphs back. He seized on the alluring phrase “mud-months”; it gave him a military argument! General Wilson explained to him that these “mud-months” in France, which by bogging down the armies would preclude a major German offensive while they continued, comprized “five months of mud and snow from the middle of November to the middle of April” (1918). On this counsel Mr. Lloyd George founded his decision to take from France “the requisite troops for a big campaign in Palestine” and to have them back in France in time for any emergency there. As to that, General Wilson, alone among military leaders, advised Mr. Lloyd George that the big German attack probably would never happen (it came in the middle of March).

Sir William Robertson vainly pointed out that the time-table was illusory; the movement of armies entailed major problems of transport and shipping, and by the time the last divisions landed in Palestine the first ones would be re-embarking! In October he again warned that troops taken from France could not be back there in time for summer fighting: “the right military course to pursue is to act on the defensive in Palestine. . . and continue to seek a decision in the West . . . all reserves should be sent to the Western Front”.

At that fateful instant chance, ever the arch-conspirator in this story, struck in favour of the Zionists. Cabinet Ministers in London (who apparently had almost forgotten the Western Front) were badgering Sir William Robertson to “give us Jerusalem as a Christmas box” (the phrase appears to reveal again the [257] “extraordinary flippancy” about the war which Dr. Weizmann earlier attributed to Mr. Lloyd George). In Palestine General Allenby, under similar pressure, made a probing advance, found to his surprise that the Turks offered little opposition, and without much difficulty marched into Jerusalem.

The prize was of no military value, in the total sum of the war, but Mr. Lloyd George thenceforward was not to be restrained. Troops were diverted from France without regard to what impended there. On January 6, 1918 Sir Douglas Haig complained of the weakening of his armies in France on the eve of the greatest battle; he was “114,000 infantry down”. On January 10,1918 the War Office was forced to issue orders to reduce all divisions from 12 to 9 battalions of infantry.

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 181 —

A free press might at that period have given Sir William Robertson the backing he needed, in public opinion, to avert all this. He was denied that, too, for at that stage the state of affairs foretold by the Protocols of 1905 was being brought about: “We must compel the governments . . . to take action in the direction favoured by our widely-conceived plan. . . by what we shall represent as public opinion, secretly prompted by us through the means of that so-called ‘Great Power’, the Press, which, with a few exceptions that may be disregarded, is already entirely in our hands”. Writers of great repute were ready to inform the public of the imminent danger; they were not allowed to speak.

Colonel Repington, of The Times, was the best-known military writer of that day; his reputation in this field was the highest in the world. He noted in his diary, “This is terrible and will mean the reduction of our infantry in France by a quarter and confusion in all our infantry at the moment of coming crisis. I have never felt so miserable since the war began. . . I can say very little because the editor of The Times often manipulates my criticisms or does not publish them. . .If The Times does not return to its independent line and act as watchdog of the public I shall wash my hands of it”.

MHR GREAT QUOTES FROM AN INSIDER, THAT THE MEDIA HAD ALREADY BY THEN BEEN ‘OCCUPIED’ AND ‘CO-OPTED’ BY THE TALMUDIC CULT…THESE QUOTES / REEDS COMMENTS, VERY ARTICULATE EXPRESSION OF THE FACTS THAT EVEN TODAY ARE BEING ‘DENIED’ BY MOST PEOPLE…ESPECIALLY ‘JEWS’…WHICH DOES NOT REFLECT WELL ON THEM, I MEAN THE ‘PERIPHERAL’ JEWS, NOT THE CORE CULT PHARISAIC / TALMUDIC JEWS…THE JEW WORLD ORDER ITSELF…

When the fulfilment of his warnings was at hand, Sir William Robertson was removed. Mr. Lloyd George, resolved to obtain authority for his Palestinian adventure, put his plan to the Supreme War Council of the Allies at Versailles, whose technical advisers, in January 1918, approved it “subject to the Western Front being made secure”. Sir William Robertson, at M. Clemenceau’s request, restated his warning that it would mortally endanger the Western Front. When the meeting broke up Mr. Lloyd George angrily rebuked him and he was at once supplanted by Sir Henry Wilson.

Before he left his post he used his last moments in it to make a final attempt to avert the coming disaster. He went (also in January) to Paris to ask help from General Pershing, the American commander, in replenishing the depleted front (only four and a half American divisions then had reached France). General Pershing, a soldier true to his duty, made the reply which Sir William expected and would himself have made in General Pershing’s place: “He shrewdly [258] observed that it was difficult to reconcile my request for assistance in defence of the Western Front with Mr. George´s desire to act offensively in Palestine. There was, unfortunately, no answer to that argument, except that, so far as I was personally concerned, not a man or gun would be sent to Palestine from anywhere”.

one man in England who was able and willing to publish the truth. Mr. H.A. Gwynne, of the Morning Post, printed Colonel Repington’s article, which exposed the weakening of the French front on the eve of its attack, without submitting it to the censor. He and Colonel Repington then were prosecuted, tried and fined (public opinion was apparently too much on their side for harsher

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 182 —

[259] retribution). Sir William Robertson wrote to Colonel Repington, “Like yourself, I did what was best in the general interests of the country and the result has been exactly what I expected . . . But the great thing is to keep on a straight course and then one may be sure that good will eventually come of what may now seem to be evil”. *

MHR AND PEOPLE WILL CLAIM, ‘THERE IS NO WAY YOU COULD ARRANGE SUCH A CONSPIRACY, SOMEONE WOULD BE BOUND TO SPEAK UP’…WELL LOOK WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THEY DO…NO-ONE IS ALLOWED TO ‘HEAR’ THEM, AND THEY ARE PUNISHED… SENDING A CLEAR SIGNAL TO ALL OTHER WOULD BE ‘WHISTLE-BLOWERS’…YOU WILL BE PUNISHED, AND YOUR ‘WHISTLE-BLOWING’ WILL NOT BE HEARD ANYWAY…SO WHY SACRIFICE YOURSELF TO ZERO EFFFECT? THAT IS THE TRUE WAY THE CONSPIRACY THRIVES…

Mr. Lloyd George On March 7, 1918 he gave orders for “a decisive campaign” to conquer all Palestine, and sent General Smuts there to instruct General Allenby accordingly.

On March 21, 1918 the long-awaited German attack in France began, embodying all the men, guns and aircraft released from the Russian front.

The “decisive campaign” in Palestine was immediately suspended and every man who could be squeezed out of Palestine was rushed to France. The total number of men employed in Palestine was 1,192,511 up to October 1918 (General Robertson).

On March 27, 1918 Colonel Repington wrote, “This is the worst defeat in the history of the army”. By June 6 the Germans claimed 175,000 prisoners and over 2,000 guns.

At that point the truth was shown of the last words above quoted from Sir William Robertson’s letter to Colonel Repington, and they are of continuing hopeful augury to men of goodwill today. By keeping on a straight course he had saved enough for the line to hold, at breaking point, until the Americans began to arrive in strength. Therewith the war was virtually at an end. Clearly, if Russia had been sustained, the Palestinian excursion avoided, and strength concentrated in France it could have been concluded earlier, and probably without the “entanglement” of America. However, that would not have furthered the great plan for “the management of human affairs”.

Sir Edward Carson, who had unwittingly helped Mr. Lloyd George into the premiership, resigned from the government and told the editor of The Times that it was but Mr. Lloyd George’s mouthpiece, the Morning Post being the truly independent paper. Mr. Gwynne told Colonel Repington that the government wished to destroy the Morning Post “as it is one of the few independent papers left”. Before the Second War came it ‘was “destroyed”, as already related. After that only one weekly publication survived in England which, in my opinion, for many years sought to uphold the principle of impartial and independent reporting, but in 1953 Truth too, was by a change of ownership brought into line.

As a result of the victory in Europe the coveted territory in Palestine was at length acquired, BUT HOW TO LEGALLY HAND OVER SOMEONE ELSE’S NATION TO THE EAST EUROPEAN TALMUDIC CULT?

In President Wilson’s America the real president was Mr. House (“liaison officer between the Wilson administration and the Zionist movement”, Rabbi Wise). Mr. Justice Brandeis, who had decided to “give his life” to Zionism, was the president’s “adviser on the Jewish question” (Dr. Weizmann); this is the first appearance in the Presidential household of an authority theretofore unknown in it and now apparently permanent. The chief Zionist organizer was Rabbi Wise, constantly in touch with the two other men.

Mr. House (and Mr. Bernard Baruch), chose the president’s cabinet officers, so that one of them had to introduce himself to Mr. Wilson thus: “My name is Lane, Mr. President, I believe I am the Secretary of the Interior”. The president lived at the White House in Washington but was frequently seen to visit a small apartment in East 35th Street, New York, where a Mr. House lived. In time this led to pointed questions and one party-man was told, “Mr. House is my second personality; he is my independent self. His thoughts and mine are one”. Mr. House was often in Washington, where he conducted the president’s interviews and correspondence, and, stopping cabinet officers outside the cabinet room, instructed them what to say inside it. Even from New York he directed America by means of private telephone lines linking him with Washington: “it is only necessary to lift off the receiver and I reach the Secretary of State’s desk immediately”.

In 1914 Mr. House, who in 1900 had resolved to extend his power from Texan to national politics, prepared to take over international affairs: “he wanted to exercise his energy in a broader field. . . From the beginning of 1914 he gave more and more thought to what he regarded as the highest form of politics and [262] that for which he was peculiarly suited: international affairs”. In fact, Texan upbringing did not so qualify Mr. House. In Texas the words “international affairs’ had, in the public mind, a sound akin to “skunk”, and there, more than anywhere in America, “the traditions of the 19th century still held the public mind; traditions which laid down, as the primary principle of American policy, a complete abstention from the political affairs of Europe” (Mr. Seymour). Mr. House, who somewhere in Texas had absorbed “the ideas of the revolutionaries of 1848” was to destroy that tradition, but this did not prove him “peculiarly suited” to intervene in “international affairs”.

Mr. House was of different type from the languid Mr. Balfour, with his background of Scottish hills and mists, and Mr. Lloyd George, the Artful Dodger of Zionism from Wales, but he acted as if he and they had together graduated from some occult academy of political machination. In 1914 he began to appoint

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 185 —

American ambassadors (as he says) and made his first calls on European governments as “a personal friend of the President”.

Mr. Seymour, his editor, says: “It would be difficult in all history to find another instance of diplomacy so unconventional and so effective. Colonel House, a private citizen, spreads all the cards on the table and concerts with the Ambassador of a foreign power the despatches to be sent to the American Ambassador and Foreign Minister of that power”. Mr. Howden, his confidant, expatiates: “Mr. House had the initiative in what was done. . . The State Department was relegated to the status of an intermediary for his ideas, a depository of public records. Much of the more confidential diplomatic correspondence passed directly through the little apartment in East 35th Street. The Ambassadors of the belligerents called on him when they wanted to influence the Administration or sought assistance in the web of intrigue that was being spun across the Atlantic”.

Mr. House: “The life I am leading transcends in interest and excitement any romance. . . Information from every quarter of the globe pours into this little, unobtrusive study”. Mr. Seymour again: “Cabinet members in search of candidates, candidates in search of positions made of his study a clearing house. Editors and journalists sought his opinion and despatches to the foreign press were framed almost at his dictation. United States Treasury officials, British diplomats. . . and metropolitan financiers came to his study to discuss their plans” .

A rising man across the Atlantic also was interested in “financiers”. Mrs. Beatrice Webb says that Mr. Winston Churchill, somewhat earlier, at a dinner party confided to her that “he looks to haute finance to keep the peace and for that reason objects to a self-contained Empire as he thinks it would destroy this cosmopolitan capitalism, the cosmopolitan financier being the professional peacemaker of the modern world and to his mind the acme of civilization”. Later events did not support this notion that leading financiers (“metropolitan” or [263] “cosmopolitan”) were “professional peacemakers”.

MHR NOTE MY OWN HOPE THAT INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS WOULD MAKE WAR UNPROFITABLE FOR BUSINESS, HENCE LESS LIKELY, LITTLE UNDERSTANDING THAT WAR IS THE NUMBER ONE BIG BUSINESS, MOST PROFITABLE BUSINESS, MOST INTERNATIONAL OF BUSINESSES, AND THUS HAD AN INCENTIVE TO MAKE MORE WAR, RATHER THAN LESS…

Mr. Asquith was overthrown in the pretext that his incompetency imperilled victory; Mr. Lloyd George risked total defeat by diverting armies to Palestine. Mr. Wilson was re-elected in the pretext that he, in the old tradition, would “keep America out of the war”; elected, at once involved America in the war. “The diplomat’ s word” and his “deed” were different.

Mr. House privately “concluded that war with Germany is inevitable” on May 30, 1915, and in June 1916 devised the election-winning slogan for Mr. Wilson’s second campaign: “He kept us out of the war”. Rabbi Stephen Wise, before the election, supported Mr. House’s efforts: in letters to the President the rabbi “deplored his advocacy of a preparedness programme” and from public platforms he preached against war. All went as planned: “the House strategy worked perfectly” (Mr. Howden), and Mr. Wilson was triumphantly re-elected.

MHR EXACTLY AS TRUMP AND OBAMA AND ROOSEVELDT LATER…ALL PUPPETS…KNOWINGLY OR UNWITTING PUPPETS…WHO BROKE THE U.S CONSTITUTIONAL LAW…MADE WAR WITH GERMANY…FOR THE TALMUDIC CULT…WITH ZERO BENEFIT TO THE U.S, PUTTING THE U.S INTO ETERNAL DEBT, MAKING IT HATED AROUND THE WORLD … THEN ALLOWING THE TALMUDIC JEW.S.S.R A FREE HAND IN EUROPE, TO INVADE AND OCCUPY AND ENSLAVE…THEN ALLOWING THE ‘JEWS’ IN PALESTINE THE SAME FREE HAND / SUPPLYING BOTH WITH ARMS AND THEIR MILITARY SPONSORSHIP AND JEW.N SPONSORSHIP…VETOING U.N RESOLUTIONS…AT BEST ABSTAINING IN THE VERY LATEST…WAR WITH GERMANY, THEN WITH ISLAM, AS THE ‘MAZZINI’ LETTERS EXPLAIN…WORKING FOR THE TALMUDIC CULT…WHOSE REAL WEAPON WAS WORLD FINANCE AND THUS CORRUPTION OF THE WORLD ‘POLITICIANS’ WHO WERE ‘ONCE STATESMEN’, BUT NO STATESMEN WOULD BE ALLOWED TO EMERGE EVER AGAIN IN THE WEST…IF THEY DID, LIKE JFK, THEY’D BE ASSASSINATED…

Mr. Wilson’s informing Mr. House on January 4, 1917, “There will be no war. This country does not intend to become involved in the war. . . It would be a crime against civilization for us to go in ” MEANT NOTHING…HE WAS PUPPET, HIS STRINGS WOULD BE PULLED…HE THOUGHT HIMSELF PRESIDENT, HE WAS JUST A TOOL…

Then on March 27, 1917 President Wilson asked Mr. House “whether he should ask Congress to declare war or whether he should say that a state of war exists”, and Mr. House “advised the latter”, so that the American people were informed, on April 2, 1917, that a state of war existed.

MHR TYPICAL ‘FAIT ACCOMPLI’ THAT SUGGESTED NO DECISION HAD BEEN MADE BY WILSON, SO HE HADN’T BROKEN HIS PLEDGE…ANY EXCUSE WOULD SUFFICE…IN FACT A STATE OF WAR CANNOT JUST ‘EXIST’…THE U.S HAD NOT BEEN ATTACKED … ??? CHECK IF GERMANY HAD DECLARED WAR ON U.S BEFORE THIS I.E DUE TO THE BLOCKADE AND U.S SUPPORT OF IT / SUPPLIES TO ITS ENEMIES…

the “Protocols” of about 1900, INCLUDED THIS passage, “. . . We shall invest the president with the right of declaring a state of war. We shall justify this last right on the ground that the president as chief of the whole army of the country must have it at his disposal in case of need”. The situation here described became established practice during the present century. In 1950 President Truman sent American troops into Korea. “to check Communist aggression”, without consulting Congress. Later this was declared to be a “United Nations” war and they were joined by troops of seventeen other countries under an American commander, General MacArthur. This was the first experiment in a “world government”-type war and its course produced Senator Taft’s question of 1952. “Do we really mean our anti-Communist policy?” General MacArthur was dismissed after protesting an order forbidding him to pursue Communist aircraft into their Chinese sanctuary and in 1953, under President Eisenhower, the war was broken off, leaving half of Korea in “the aggressor’s” hands. General MacArthur and other American commanders later charged that the order forbidding pursuit was made known to the enemy by “a spy ring responsible for the purloining of my top secret reports to Washington” (Life, Feb. 7, 1956), and the Chinese Communist commander confirmed this (New York Daily News, Feb. 13, 1956). In June 1951 two British Foreign Office officials, Burgess and Maclean, disappeared and in September 1955 the British Government, after refusing information for four years, confirmed the general belief that they were in Moscow and “had spied for the Soviet Union over a long period”. General MacArthur then charged that these two men had revealed the non-pursuit order to the Communist “aggressor” (Life, above-quoted). On April 4, 1956 President Eisenhower was asked by a reporter at his regular news conference whether he would order a United States marine battalion, then recently sent to the Mediterranean, into war “without asking Congress first” (by that time war in the Middle East was an obvious possibility). He answered angrily. “I have announced time and time again I will never be guilty of any kind of action that can be interpreted as war until the Congress, which has the constitutional authority”. On January 3, 1957, the first major act of his second term, he sent a draft resolution to Congress designed to invest him with unlimited, standing authority to act militarily in the Middle East “to deter Communist armed aggression”.

MHR TYPICAL DOUBLE SPEAK…I WOULDN’T DO X, BECAUSE OF Y, BUT THEN I’LL DO Z TO NEUTRALISE Y, AND APPEAR TO BE KEEPING MY LITERAL WORD ON X… SELF NEGATING NON SEQUITURS IN BRENDON O’CONNELL’S TRIAL…

the overthrow of Mr. Asquith WHO WAS AGAINST THE PALESTINIAN DIVERSION OF ALLIED TROOPS FROM THE WESTERN FRONT IN EUROPE in favour of Mr. Lloyd George TO ESURE the commitment of British armies to the Palestinian diversion, the re-election of a president who would be constrained to support that enterprise, and ALLOW THE U.S TO ‘DRIFT INTO WWWI’…

The statement of existing war made to Congress said the purpose of the war (which Mr. Wilson, a few weeks before, had declared in his draft to be “obscure”) was “to set up a new international order”. Thus a new purpose was openly, though cryptically revealed. To the public masses the words meant anything or nothing. To the initiates they carried a commitment to support the plan, of which Zionism and Communism both were instruments, for establishing a “world federation” founded on force and the obliteration of nationhood, with the exception of one “nation” to be recreated.

MHR SO THE U.S HAS BEEN THE WEAPON OF THE TALMUDIC CULT A.K.A ZIONISM AND COMMUNIST WORLD GOVT RULED BY THE ‘JEWS’ OPENLY SINCE AT LEAST PUPPET PRESIDENT WILSON…BEFORE WWI…FULFILLING THE PROTOCOLS AND ‘MAZZINNI’S LETTER PREDICTIONS’ THEN, AS NOW…

From this moment the power-groups in America and England worked in perfect synchronization, so that the two stories become one story, or one “web”. The apparently powerful men in Washington and London co-ordinated their actions at the prompting of the inter-communicating Zionists on both sides of the ocean.

the Zionists could not possibly, even in a Palestine conquered [265] for them, have set up “a commonwealth” against the native inhabitants. They could only do that behind the protection of a great power and its armies. Therefore Dr. Weizmann (foretelling in 1915 exactly what was to happen in 1919 and the following two decades) considered that a British “protectorate” should be set up in Palestine (to protect the Zionist intruders). This would mean, he said, that “the Jews take over the country; the whole burden of organization falls on them, but for the next ten or fifteen years they work under a temporary British protectorate” .

Dr. Weizmann adds that this was “an anticipation of the mandate system”, so that today’s student also learns where the notion of “mandates” was born. The idea of ruling conquered territories under a “mandate” bestowed by a self-proclaimed “league of nations” was devised solely with an eye to Palestine. (Events have proved this. All the other “mandates” distributed after the 1914-1918 war, to give the appearance of a procedure generally applicable, have faded away, either by relinquishment of the territory to its inhabitants or by its conversion, in fact, into a possession of the conqueror. The concept of the “mandate” was maintained for just as long as was needed for the Zionists to amass enough arms to take possession of Palestine for themselves).

Thus, after the elevation of Mr. Lloyd George and the second election of Mr. Wilson, the shape of the future, far beyond the war’s end, was fully known to Dr. Weizmann at the web’s centre, who went into action.

Mr. Brandeis (as Mrs. Dugdale records) “became’ increasingly emphatic about the desire of the Zionists to see a British administration in Palestine”. Mr. Balfour, his biographer adds, “pledged his own personal support to Zionism; he had done it before to Dr. Weizmann, but now he was British Foreign Secretary”.

(The part played in all this by non-Jews was so great, even if it was the part of puppets, that one is constantly reminded of the need to regard with suspicion the attribution of the Protocols to solely Jewish authorship

The only remaining opposition, apart from that of generals and a few high Foreign Office or State Department officials, came from the Jews of England and America. It was ineffective because the leading politicians, in both countries, were even more hostile to their Jewish fellowcitizens than were the Zionists.

MHR AGAIN CLEAR THAT THE ‘EMANCIPATED’ JEWS I.E LIVING OUTSIDE THE CONTROL OF THE TALMUDIC CULT THAT HAD TAKEN OVER THE JEW.S.S.R, AND ‘OWNED’ THE U.S AND BRITISH ‘DEMOCRATIC’ LEADERSHIP AS MERE PUPPETS, VASSALS, DEPENDENCIES (FOR MONEY / LOBBYING ETC TO WIN ELECTIONS), PRE-SELECTED CULT CANDIDATES/REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CULTS INTERESTS…THE BULK OF EUROPEAN AND AMERICAN ‘JEWS’ WERE OPPOSED TO THE TALMUDIC CULT’S AMBITIONS TO AGAIN ENSLAVE ALL ‘JEWS’ AND HUMANITY… IRONICALLY IT MAY HAVE BEEN GENUINE IRRATIONAL ANTI-SEMITISM AGAINST THESE ‘HARMLESS’ ‘GOOD’ ‘FREE’ JEWS WHO WERE GOOD CITIZENS, LOYAL, DEMOCRATIC ETC…THAT PLAYED INTO THE HANDS OF THE BAD TALMUDIC CULT ‘JEWS’…AS USUAL…THE CULT PROVOKES ANIMOSITY TOWARDS THEIR ‘FREED’ CULT MEMBERS, TO DRIVE THEM BACK INTO THE CULT’S FOLD…IN DESPERATION / FEAR / DESPAIR ETC AS AN APPARENT LESSER OF TWO EVILS I.E PERSECUTION DUE TO THEIR CULT LEADERS ACTIONS, OR MENTAL ENSLAVEMENT BY THE SAME CULT LEADERS…GETTING HITLER TO PUT THEM IN CAMPS, THEN MAKE THE ‘HOLOCAUST’ FICTION SEEM PLAUSIBLE / REAL, WAS THE FINAL CLIMAX…FOLLOWED BY FAKED ‘WE WILL DESTROY ISRAEL’ PROPGANDA CREDITED TO SYRIA / IRAN / EGYPT / ISLAM ETC… I.E AMALEK 2.0 AFTER ‘THE HOLOCAUST’ AMALEK 1.0 AFTER THE ORIGINAL ‘STORIES’ OF PERSECUTION IN THE BIBLE WHICH NO-ONE CAN VERIFY AT ALL…AND MOST LIKELY MERE PROPAGANDA…TO BUILD UP VERY IDEA OF ‘PERSECUTED PEOPLE’ I.E ‘UNITY IN VICTIMHOOD’ AND ‘IDENTITY OF VICTIMHOOD’…A ‘SHARED BELIEF IN A HISTORY OF PERSECUTION’ TO PROVE THEIR ‘CHOSEN PEOPLE’S STATUS I.E BIBLE WRITERS BLAME JEWS THEMSELVES, LIKE ORIGINAL SIN, IN CASE OF JEWS THE ORGINAL SIN ADAM / EVE’S DISOBEDIENCE TO ‘GOD’…LATER IT IS DISOBEDIENCE TO THE TALMUDIC CULT PRIESTS WHO CLAIM THE DIVINE AUTHORIITY TO SPEAK FOR GOD…LIKE CATHOLIC POPES ETC LATER CLAIM FOR THEIR OWN CULT…ETC…AS ALL ‘TRANSFERRED AUTHORITY’ DOGMAS / CULTS SINCE… I.E ‘WE SPEAK FOR GOD/ ANGELS / GOLDEN TABLETS ETC…NOT FOR MYSELF…LITTLE HUMBLE ME, WHO YOU’D TOTALLY IGNORE…NO, GOD SPEAKS THROUGH ME, SO FUCKING LISTEN, OR MY ‘FOLLOWERS’ WILL FUCKING RIP UP YOUR PREGNANT WOMEN ETC…

In 1917, as the irrevocable moment approached, the Conjoint Committee again declared that the Jews were a religious community and nothing more, that they could not claim “a national home”, and that Jews in Palestine needed nothing more than “the assurance of religious and civil liberty, reasonable facilities for immigration and the like”.

In America, Mr. Brandeis and Rabbi Stephen Wise were equally vigilant against the Jews there. The rabbi (from Hungary) asked President Wilson, “What will you do when their protests reach you?” For one moment only he was silent. Then he pointed to a large wastepaper basket at his desk. “Is not that basket capacious enough for all their protests?”

In England Dr. Weizmann was enraged by “outside interference, entirely from Jews”. At this point he felt himself to be a member of the Government, or perhaps the member of the Government, and in the power he wielded apparently was that. He did not stop at dismissing the objections of British Jews as “outside interference”; he dictated what the Cabinet should discuss and demanded to sit in Cabinet meetings so that he might attack a Jewish minister! He required that Mr. Lloyd George put the question “on the agenda of the War Cabinet for October 4, 1917” and on October 3 he wrote to the British Foreign Office protesting against objections which he expected to be raised at that meeting “by a prominent Englishman of the Jewish faith”.

Mr. Edwin Montagu was a cabinet minister and a Jew. Dr. Weizmann implicitly urged that he be not heard by his colleagues, or that if he were heard, Dr. Weizmann should be called in to reply! On the day of the meeting Dr. Weizmann appeared in the office of the prime minister’s secretary, Mr. Philip Kerr (another “friend”) and proposed that he remain there in case the Cabinet “decide to ask me some questions before they decide the matter”. Mr. Kerr said, “Since the British Government has been a government, no private person has been admitted to one of its sessions”, and Dr. Weizmann then went away.

MHR LIKE NO GUNS ALLOWED IN BRITISH / AMERICAN COURTS…BUT WHEN DAVID IRVING IN COURT, ARMED ISRAELI’S SAT IN THE AUDIENCE…

IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ENTIRE JEW WORLD ORDER HAS BEEN IMPOSED ON ‘FREE’ JEWS I.E NON CULT MEMBERS, AS MUCH AS IT HAS BEEN IMPOSED ON THE REST OF US, IF NOT MORE SO…BUT THEN WHY WERE THEY SO STUPID AS TO SUPPORT ‘THE HOLOCAUST’ FRAUD AS IF IT SERVED THEIR INTERESTS? OR THE ADL? OR ‘HATE SPEECH’ LAWS…WOULDN’T JEWS WHO HAD ESCAPED THE CULT BE THE BEST INFORMED ABOUT THE CULT, AND ITS PLANS? WHY DO THEY ‘GO ALONG WITH’ THE JEW WORLD ORDER? THIS IS SO FRUSTRATING FOR THOSE OF US WHO REALLY CARE ABOUT JUSTICE, AND ARE NOT WILLING TO FOLLOW THE ‘ENDS JUSTIFIES THE MEANS’ RULE…AND TO AUTOMATICALLY INCLUDE ALL ‘JEWS’ IN OUR CRITICISM…LIKE THE NAZI’S PRETTY MUCH DID…DID THE FREE JEWS IN GERMANY WORK HARD ENOUGH AGAINST THE TALMUDIC CULT? OR JUST LET IT SLIDE? AND WHO PAID? THE TALMUDIC CULT LEADERS? OF COURSE NOT…THEY ALWAYS PULL THE STRINGS FROM A SAFE DISTANCE…AND LEAVE THEIR OWN ‘CULT MEMBERS’ TO PAY…TO LEARN FEAR, TO COME BACK TO THE CULT WITH HEARTS FULL OF FEAR AND HATRED…PERFECT CULT TOOLS…

The draft experienced revealing adventures between October 9 and November 2, when it was published. It was sent to America, where it was edited by Mr. Brandeis, Mr. Jacob de Haas and Rabbi Wise before being shown to President Wilson for his “final approval”. He simply sent it to Mr. Brandeis (who had already had it from Dr. Weizmann), who passed it to Rabbi Stephen Wise, “to be handed to Colonel House for transmission to the British Cabinet”.

In this way one of the most fateful actions ever taken by any British Government was prepared. The draft, incorporated in a letter addressed by Mr. Balfour to Lord Rothschild, became “the Balfour Declaration”. The Rothschild family, like many leading Jewish families, was sharply divided about Zionism. The name of a sympathetic Rothschild, as the recipient of the letter, was evidently used to impress Western Jewry in general, and to divert attention from the Eastern Jewish origins of Zionism. The true addressee was Dr. Weizmann. He appears to have become an habitué of the War Cabinet’s antechamber and the document was delivered to him, Sir Mark Sykes informing him, “Dr. Weizmann, it’s a boy!” (today the shape of the man may be seen).

No rational explanation for the action of leading Western politicians in supporting this alien enterprise has ever been given, and as the undertaking was up to that point secret and conspiratorial no genuine explanation can be given; if an undertaking is good conspiracy is not requisite to it, and secrecy itself indicates motives that cannot be divulged. If any of these men ever gave some public reason, it usually took the form of some vague invocation of the Old Testament. This has a sanctimonious ring, and may be held likely to daunt objectors. Mr. Lloyd George liked to tell Zionist visitors (as Rabbi Wise ironically records), “You shall have Palestine from Dan to Beersheba”, and thus to present himself as the instrument of divine will. He once asked Sir Charles and Lady Henry to call anxious Jewish Members of Parliament together at breakfast “so that I may convince them of the rightfulness of my Zionist position”. A minyan (Jewish religious quorum of ten) was accordingly assembled in the British Prime Minister’s breakfast room, where Mr. Lloyd George read a series of passages which, in his opinion, prescribed the transplantation of Jews in Palestine in 1917: Then he said, “Now, gentlemen, you know What your Bible says; that is the end of the matter”.

On other occasions he gave different, and mutually destructive, explanations. He told the Palestine Royal Commission of 1937 that he acted to gain “the support of American Jewry” and that he had “a definite promise” from the Zionist leaders “that if the allies committed themselves to giving facilities for the establishment of a national home for the Jews in Palestine, they would do their best to rally Jewish sentiment and support throughout the world to the Allied cause”. .

This was brazen untruth at the very bar of history. America was already in the [270] war when Mr. Balfour went there to agree the Balfour Declaration, and Mr. Balfour’s biographer scouts the notion of any such bargain. Rabbi Elmer Berger, a Jewish commentator, says the alleged promise by Zionist leaders inspires in him, “. . . an irrepressible indignation, for myself, my family, my Jewish friends, all of whom are just ordinary Jews . . . it constitutes one of the most obscene libels in all history. Only callousness and cynicism could imply that Jews in the Allied nations were not already giving their utmost to the prosecution of the war” .

Mr. Lloyd George’s third explanation (“Acetone converted me to Zionism”) is the best known. According to this version Mr. Lloyd George asked Dr. Weizmann how he could be requited for a useful chemical discovery made during the war (when Dr. Weizmann worked for the government, in any spare time left by his work for Zionism). Dr. Weizmann is quoted as replying, “I want nothing for myself, but everything for my people”, whereon Mr. Lloyd George decided to give him Palestine! Dr. Weizmann himself derides this story (“History does not deal in Aladdin’s lamps. Mr. Lloyd George’s advocacy of the Jewish homeland long predated his accession to the premiership”). For that matter, it is British practice to make cash awards for such services and Dr. Weizmann, far from wanting nothing for himself, received ten thousand pounds. (If chemical research were customarily rewarded in land he might have claimed a minor duchy from Germany in respect of a patent earlier sold to the German Dye Trust, and presumably found useful in war as in peace; he was naturally content with the income he received from it for several years).

The conclusion cannot be escaped: if any honest explanation of his actions in this matter could be found Mr. Lloyd George would have given it. From this period in 1916-1917 the decay of parliamentary and representative government can be traced, both in England and America. If secret men could dictate major acts of American state policy and major operations of British armies, then clearly “election” and “responsible office” were terms devoid of meaning. Party distinctions began to fade in both countries, once this hidden, supreme authority was accepted by leading Western politicians, and the American and British electors began to be deprived of all true choice. Today this condition is general, and now is public. Leaders of all parties, before elections, make obeisance to Zionism, and the voter’s selection of president, prime minister or party makes no true difference.

In November 1917 the American Republic thus became equally involved with Great Britain in Zionism, which has proved to be a destructive force. However, it was only one agency of “the destructive principle”. The reader will recall that in Dr. Weizmann’s Russian youth the mass of Jews there, under their Talmudic directors, were united in the revolutionary aim, and only divided between revolutionary-Zionism and revolutionary-Communism.

In the very week of the Balfour Declaration the other group of Jews in Russia [271] achieved their aim, the destruction of the Russian nation-state. The Western politicians thus bred a bicephalous monster, one head being the power of Zionism in the Western capitals, and the other the power of Communism advancing from captive Russia. Submission to Zionism weakened the power of the West to preserve itself against the world-revolution, for Zionism worked to keep Western governments submissive and to deflect their policies from national interests; indeed, at that instant the cry was first raised that opposition to the world-revolution, too, was “anti-semitism”. Governments hampered by secret capitulations in any one direction cannot act firmly in any other, and the timidity of London and Washington in their dealings with the world-revolution, during the four decades to follow, evidently derived from their initial submission to “the web of intrigue” spun across the Atlantic between 1914 and 1917.

After 1917, therefore, the question which the remainder of the 20th Century had to answer was whether the West could yet find in itself the strength to break free, or prise its political leaders loose, from this double thrall. In considering the remainder of this account the reader should bear in mind what British and American politicians were induced to do during the First World War.

The simultaneous triumphs of Bolshevism in Moscow and Zionism in London in the same week of 1917 were only in appearance distinct events, The identity of their original source has been shown in an earlier chapter, and the hidden men who promoted Zionism through the Western governments also supported the world-revolution. The two forces fulfilled correlative tenets of the ancient Law: “Pull down and destroy . . . rule over all nations”; the one destroyed in the East and the other secretly ruled in the West.

1917 gave proof of Disraeli’s dictum about the revolution in its 1848 phase, when he said that Jews headed “every one” of the secret societies and aimed to destroy Christianity. The controlling group that emerged in 1917 was so preponderantly Jewish that it may be called Jewish. The nature of the instigating force then became a matter of historical fact, not of further polemical debate. It was further identified by its deeds: the character of its earliest enactments, a symbolic mockery of Christianity, and a special mark of authorship deliberately given to the murder of the monarch. All these bore the traits of a Talmudic vengeance.

MHR DON’T FORGET THE JEW.S.S.R MADE JUDAS A SAINT AT THE SAME TIME… NOTE ALWAYS THAT THE JEWISH ‘LIBERAL’ ATTACK ON RELIGION IS NOT UNIVERSAL…IT NEVER ALLOWS US TO ATTACK JUDAISM…THE FORCE OF THE LAW IS ABUSED ON THIS ACCOUNT…DESTROY ALL COMPETING RELIGIONS…THAT IS THE KEY… WATCH A JEWISH T.V SITCOM WHERE THE MOTHER TRICKS THE FATHER INTO GETTING THE SON GIVEN AN MMR IMMUNISATION SHOT, AND THAT IS FINE, BUT WHEN THE FATHER TRICKS HER INTO GETTING THE SON BAPTISED, SHE IS ALLOWED TO BE TOTALLY SELFRIGHTEOUS, A VICTIM…ALL MENTION OF THE REASONS THE FATHER WAS AGAINST MMR’S IS MISSING…AND THE EVENT IS DOWNPLAYED, WITH FOCUS ON THE BAPTISM…JEWS NOT AGAINST RELIGION, JUST ALL NON-TALMUDIC CULT RELIGIONS… NOT AGAINST CENTRALISED GOVT. / NATIONALSIM, JUST AGAINST ALL NON-JEWISH CENTRALISED WORLD GOVT. AND THE ‘JEWISH’ NATION…AS HQ FOR THE JEW WORLD ORDER…CAN BE CONFUSING…LIKE BANKERS FINANCING COMMUNISTS, AND JEWS FINANCING HITLER…BUT THESE ACTIONS SERVED THE SAME END…A VECTOR FOR ZIONISM I.E ISRAELI NATION, AS THE HQ FOR A JEW WORLD ORDER CENTRALISED WORLD GOVT….BANKERS THEN OWN THE WHOLE WORLD…WHAT’S NOT TO LIKE FOR THEM, ABOUT COMMUNISM? THEIR OWN ENTERPRISE…WHICH DESTROYED THE RUSSIAN NATION, MANY OTHER NATIONS, COMPETING RELIGIONS, AND GAVE THEM AN EXCUSE FOR A FAKE ‘COLD WAR’…ETC…THE MOST PROFITABLE BUSINESS MODEL /ENTERPRISE OF ALL…

It was not a conspiracy of all Jews, but neither were the French revolution, Fascism and National Socialism conspiracies of all Frenchmen, Italians or Germans. The organizing force and the leadership were drawn from the Talmudic-controlled Jewish areas of Russia, and in that sense Communism was demonstrably Eastern Jewish.

As to the purposes revealed when the revolution struck in 1917, these showed that it was not episodic or spontaneous but the third “eruption” of the organization first revealed through Weishaupt. The two main features reappeared: the attack on all legitimate government of any kind whatsoever and on religion. Since 1917 the world-revolution has had to cast aside the earlier pretence of being directed only against “kings” or the political power of priests.

One authority of that period knew and stated this. In the tradition of Edmund Burke and John Robison, George Washington and Alexander Hamilton and Disraeli, Mr. Winston Churchill wrote:

“It would almost seem as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of anti-Christ were designed to originate among the same people; and that this mystic and [273] mysterious race had been chosen for the supreme manifestations, both of the divine and the diabolical. . . From the days of ‘Spartacus’ Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany) and Emma Goldman (United States), this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Nesta Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the nineteenth century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 192 —

undisputed masters of that enormous empire. There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others”.

This is the last candid statement (discoverable by me) from a leading public man on this question. After it the ban on public discussion came down and the great silence ensued, which continues to this day. In 1953 Mr. Churchill refused permission (requisite under English law) for a photostat to be made of this article (Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 8, 1920), without saying why.

MHR THIS IS KEY…CHURCHILL CENSORED HIMSELF…FOR POSTERITY…NOT ALLOWING OTHERS TO REPEAT HIS VERY OWN WORDS…

At the time, the facts were available. The British Government’s White Paper of 1919 (Russia, No. 1, a Collection of Reports on Bolshevism) quoted the report sent to Mr. Balfour in London in 1918 by the Netherlands Minister at Saint Petersburg, M. Oudendyke: “Bolshevism is organized and worked by Jews, who have no nationality and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things”. The United States Ambassador, Mr. David R. Francis, reported similarly: “The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying. to start a worldwide social revolution”. M. Oudendyke’s report was deleted from later editions of the British official publication and all such authentic documents of that period are now difficult to obtain. Fortunately for the student, one witness preserved the official record.

[274]

This was Mr. Robert Wilton, correspondent of the London Times, who experienced the Bolshevik revolution. The French edition of his book included the official Bolshevik lists of the membership of the ruling revolutionary bodies (they were omitted from the English edition).

These records show that the Central Committee of the Bolshevik party, which wielded the supreme power, contained 3 Russians(including Lenin) and 9 Jews. The next body in importance, the Central Committee of the Executive Commission (or secret police) comprized 42 Jews and 19 Russians, Letts, Georgians and others. The Council of People’s Commissars consisted of 17 Jews and five others. The Moscow Che-ka (secret police) was formed of 23 Jews and 13 others. Among the names of 556 high officials of the Bolshevik state officially published in 1918-1919, were 458 Jews and 108 others. Among the central committees of small, supposedly “Socialist” or other non-Communist parties (during that early period the semblance of “opposition” was permitted, to beguile the masses, accustomed under the Czar to opposition parties) were 55 Jews and 6 others. All the names are given in the original documents reproduced by Mr. Wilton. (In parentheses, the composition of the two short-lived Bolshevik governments outside Russia in 1918-1919, namely those of Hungary and Bavaria, was similar).

MHR THE HUNGARIAN UPRISING WAS AN UPRISING AGAINST THEIR JEWISH MASTERS / OVERLORDS, NOT EVEN AGAINST SOCIALISM PER SE…OF COURSE THE JEWS BROUGHT IN THE RUSSIAN TANKS TO, AS USUAL, DEFEAT THEIR ENEMIES, ANYONE WHO WOULD OPPOSE THE JEW WORLD ORDER…THE SAME IS COMING FOR ALL OF US…

Mr. Wilton made a great and thankless effort to tell newspaper readers what went on in Russia (broken, he survived only a few years and died in his fifties). He did hot choose the task of reporting the most momentous event that ever came in any journilist’s path of duty; it devolved on him. Educated in Russia, he knew the country and its language perfectly, and was held in high esteem by the Russians and the British Embassy alike. He watched the rioting from the window of The Times office, adjoining the Prefecture where the ministers of the collapsing regime took refuge. Between the advent of the Kerensky government in the spring of 1917 and the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks in November 1917, his duty was to report an entirely new phenomenon in world affairs: the rise of a Jewish regime to despotic supremacy in Russia and to overt control of the world-revolution. At that moment he was made to realize that he would not be allowed faithfully to report the fact.

The secret story is told, with surprising candour, in the Official History of his paper, The Times, published in 1952. It shows the hidden mechanism which operated, as early as 1917, to prevent the truth about the revolution reaching the peoples of the West.

This volume pays tribute to the quality of Mr. Wilton’s reporting, and his standing in Russia, before 1917. Then the tone of the references to him abruptly changes. Mr. Wilton’s early warnings of what was to come in 1917, says the book, “did not at once affect the policy of the paper, partly because their writer did not command full confidence”.

MHR REMINDS ME OF THE MOST FAMOUS FEMALE JOURNALIST OF ALL TIME, WHO WENT FROM TIMES COVER TO TOTAL MEDIA BLACKOUT, WHEN SHE CAME OUT AGAINST THE JEW WORLD ORDER…

Why, if his earlier work and reputation were so good? The reason transpires. [275] The narrative continues that Mr. Wilton began to complain about the “burking” or suppression of his messages. Then The Times began to publish articles about Russia from men who had little knowledge of that country. As a result the editorial articles about Russia took on the tone, exasperating to Mr. Wilton, with which newspaper-readers became familiar in the following decades: “those who believe in the future of Russia as a free and efficient democracy will watch the vindication of the new regime with patient confidence and earnest sympathy”. (Every incident of Mr. Wilton’s experience in Moscow, which Colonel Repington was sharing in London, was repeated in my own experience, and in that of other correspondents, in Berlin in 1933-1938).

The “interregnum of five months began, during which a Jewish regime was to take over from Kerensky. At this very moment his newspaper lost “confidence” in Mr. Wilton. Why? The explanation emerges. The Official History of The Times says, “It was not happy for Wilton that one of his messages . . . should spread to Zionist circles, and even into the Foreign Office, the idea that he was an anti-semite” .

“Zionist circles”, the reader will observe; not even “Communist circles”; here the working partnership becomes plain. Why should “Zionists” (who wanted the British government to procure them “a homeland” in Palestine) be affronted because a British correspondent in Moscow reported that a Jewish regime was preparing to take over in Russia? Mr. Wilton was reporting the nature of the coming regime; this was his job. In the opinion of “Zionists”, this was “anti-semitism”, and the mere allegation was enough to destroy “confidence” in him at his head office. How, then, could he have remained “happy” and have retained “confidence”. Obviously, only by misreporting events in Russia. In effect, he was expected not to mention the determining fact of the day’s news!

When I read this illuminating account I wondered by what route “Zionist circles” had spread to “the Foreign Office”, and the Foreign Office to Printing House Square the “idea” that Mr. Wilton was “an antisemite”. The researcher, like the lonely prospector, learns to expect little for much toil, but in this case I was startled by the large nugget of truth which I found in The Times Official History thirty-five years after the event. It said that “the head of propaganda at the Foreign Office sent to the Editor a paper by one of his staff” repeating the “allegation”, (which apparently was first printed in some Zionist sheet). The Official History revealed even the identity of this assiduous “one”.

It was a young Mr. Reginald Leeper, who three decades later (as Sir Reginald) became British Ambassador in Argentina. I then looked to Who’s Who for information about Mr. Leeper’s career and found that his first recorded employment began (when he was twenty-nine) in 1917: “entered International Bureau, Department of Information in 1917”. Mr. Leeper’s memorandum about Mr. Wilton was sent to The Times early in May 1917. Therefore, if he entered the Foreign Office on New Year’s day of 1917, he had been in it just four months [276] when he conveyed to The Times his “allegation” about the exceptionally qualified Mr. Wilton, of seventeen years service with that paper, and the effect was immediate; the Official History says that Mr. Wilton’s despatches thereafter, during the decisive period, either miscarried or “were ignored”. (The editor was the same of whom Colonel Repington complained in 1917-1918 and to whom the present writer sent his resignation in 1938 on the same basic principle of reputable journalism.)

Mr. Wilton Struggled on for a time, continually protesting against the “burking” and suppression of his despatches, and then as his last service to truthful journalism put all that he knew into his book. He recognized and recorded the acts which identified the especial nature of the regime: the law against “antisemitism”, the anti-Christian measures, the canonization of Judas Iscariot, and the Talmudic fingerprint mockingly left in the death-chamber of the Romanoffs.

The law against “anti-semitism” (which cannot be defined) was in itself a fingerprint. An illegal government, predominantly Jewish, by this measure warned the Russian masses, under pain of death, not to interest them selves in the origins of the revolution. It meant in effect that the Talmud became the law of Russia, and in the subsequent four decades this law has in effect and in growing degree been made part of the structure of the west.

The short-lived anti-Christian deeds of the French phase of the revolution reappeared in more open form. The dynamiting of churches and the installation of an anti-God museum in the Cathedral of Saint Basil were the most ostentatious indications of the nature of the regime, which Mr. Wilton indicated: “Taken according to numbers of population, the Jews represented one in ten; among the commissars that rule Bolshevist Russia they are nine in ten; if anything the proportion of Jews is still greater”. This was plain reporting, and if the report had related to “Ukrainians”, for instance, instead of “Jews”, none would have

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 194 —

objected; the mere act of reporting a fact became the ground for secret denunciation because the fact related to Jews.

The memorial to Judas Iscariot, recorded by Mr. Wilton, was another deliberate intimation to Christendom. If the Jewish rulers merely wanted to bring about an equalitarian society in 1917, there was no relevance in bestowing a halo of heroism on a deed of AD 29; the revolution in Russia cannot be understood at all unless the symbolism of this act is comprehended.

The aspect of a Talmudic vengeance on “the heathen” was unmistakably given to the massacres of hat period. In August 1918 a Jew, Kanegisser, shot a Jew, Uritsky; thereon a Jew, Peters, at the head of the Petrograd Cheka ordered “mass terror” on Russians and another Jew, Zinovieff, demanded that ten million Russians be “annihilated”; the British Government’s White Book on Bolshevism (1919) records the massacre of Russian peasants which followed.

By far the most significant act was the form given to the murder of the [277] Romanoff family. But for Mr. Wilton this story would never have reached the world, which to this day might believe that the Czar’s wife and children ended their lives naturally in “protective” custody.

The Czar acted constitutionally to the end, abdicating at the advice of his ministers (March 5, 1917). Thereafter (during the Kerensky period and its first aftermath) he was relatively well treated for a year as the prisoner at Tobolsk of a Russian commandant and Russian guards. In April 1918, when the Jewish regime had gained control, he was transferred, by order from Moscow, to Ekaterinburg. The Russian guards were then withdrawn and their place inside his prison house was taken by men whose identity has never been established: The local Russians later recalled them as “Letts” (the only foreign-speaking Red soldiers known to them), but they seem to have been brought from Hungary.

The Russian commandant’s place was taken by a Jew, Yankel Yurovsky (July 7). That completed a chain of Jewish captors from the top, Moscow, through the regional Urals Soviet, to his prison at Ekaterinburg (which is in the Urals). The real ruler of Russia then was the terrorist Yankel Sverdloff, president of the Moscow Cheka, who was a Jew. The Ekaterinburg Cheka was run by seven Jews, one of them Yankel Yurovsky. On July 20 the Urals Soviet announced that it had shot the Czar and sent his wife and son to “a place of security”. The Moscow Cheka issued a similar announcement, signed by Sverdloff, “approving the action of the Regional Soviet of the Urals”. At that time the entire family was dead.

The truth only became known through the chance that Ekaterinburg fell to the White armies on July 25, that Mr. Wilton accompanied them, and that their commander, General Diterichs, a famous Russian criminologist, M. Sokoloff, and Mr. Wilton uncovered the buried evidence. When the White troops withdrew Mr. Wilton brought away the proofs; they appear in his book and include many photographs.

The murders had been carried out by order from and in constant consultation with Sverdloff in Moscow; records of telephone conversations between him and the Chekists in Ekaterinburg were found. Among these was a report to him from Ekaterinburg saying “Yesterday a courier left with the documents that interest you”. This courier was the chief assassin, Yurovsky, and the investigators believed that the “documents” were the heads of the Romanoffs, as no skulls or skull-bones were found.

The deed was described by witnesses who had not been able to escape, and at least one was a participant. At midnight on July 16 Yurovsky awoke the Czar and his family, took them to a basement room and there shot them. The actual murderers were Yurovsky, his seven unidentified foreign accomplices, one Nikulin from the local Cheka, and two Russians, apparently professional gunmen employed by the Cheka. The victims were the Czar, his wife, ailing son (who was held in his father’s arms as he could not walk), four daughters, Russian [278] doctor, manservant, cook and maid. The room was still a shambles, from the shooting and bayoneting, when M. Sokoloff and Mr. Wilton saw it, and his book includes the picture of it.

The circumstances having been determined, the investigators almost despaired of finding the bodies, or their remains; they learned that Yurovsky, before escaping the town, had boasted that “the world will never know what we did with the bodies”. However, the earth at length gave up its secret. The bodies had been taken by five lorries to a disused iron pit in the woods, cut up and burned, 150 gallons of petrol being used; one Voikoff of the Urals Cheka (a fellow-passenger of Lenin in the train from Germany) as Commissar of Supplies had supplied 400 lbs. of sulphuric acid for dissolving the bones. The ashes and fragments had been thrown down the shaft, the ice at the bottom having first been smashed so that the mass would sink; then a flooring had been lowered and fixed over the place. When this was removed the search reached its

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 195 —

end. On top lay the corpse of a spaniel belonging to one of the princesses; below were fragments of bone and skin, a finger, and many identifiable personal belongings which had escaped destruction. A puzzling find was a small collection of nails, coins, pieces of tinfoil and the like. This looked like the contents of a schoolboy’s pockets, and was; the little boy’s English tutor, Mr. Sidney Gibbes, identified it. The precautions taken to dispose of the bodies and of other evidence were of the kind that only criminals of long experience in their trade could have devised; they resemble the methods used in gang warfare, during the Prohibition period, in the United States.

MHR N.B THE ‘TRADITION’ OF THE CULT OF TALMUDISM, OF KILLING EVEN THE ANIMALS OF ANYONE WHO DARED RESIST / DEFY ETC THE JEW WORLD ORDER…

These discoveries, becoming known in the outer world, exposed the untruth of Sverdloff’s announcement that only the Czar had been “executed” and his family sent to “a place of security”.

The arch-assassin, Sverdloff, was soon afterwards killed in some party dispute and thousands of innocent people died in the indiscriminate massacres which followed. Ekaterinburg was renamed Sverdlovsk to give enduring fame to his part in the symbolic deed.

MHR THAT IS HOW THE CULT TREAT ITS ‘HEROES’…GET THEM TO DO THE EVIL DEEDS, THEN ENSURE THEY DIE SO THE CANNOT REVEAL THE TRUTH…THEN NAME A CITY AFTER THEM…

MHR DON’T FORGET THAT ST. PETERSBURG BUILT BY FORCED SLAVE LABOR….AND ENTIRE ‘NATION’ OF ‘LIVONIA’ ‘ WHO LIVED IN PRESENT DAY ESTONIA / LITHUANIA ETC DIED IN THE BUILDING, IN THE SWAMP…THE CITY IS BUILT ON THE BONES OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF LIVONIAN VICTIMS…

The chief reason for recounting the details of the pogrom of the Romanoffs is to point to the “fingerprint” which was left in the room where it was done. One of the assassins, presumably their leader, stayed to exult and put a significant signature on the wall, which was covered with obscene or mocking inscriptions in Hebrew, Magyar and German. Among them was a couplet which deliberately related the deed to the Law of the Torah-Talmud and thus offered it to posterity as an example of the fulfilment of that law, and of Jewish vengeance as understood by the Levites. It was written in German by someone who parodied the Jewish poet, Heinrich Heine’s lines on the death of Belshazzar, the imaginary potentate whose murder is portrayed in Daniel as God’s punishment for an [279] affront offered to Judah:

Belsazar ward aber in selbiger Nacht Von selbigen Knechten umgebracht.

The parodist, sardonically surveying the shambles, adapted these lines to what he had just done:

Belsatsar ward in selbiger Nacht Von seinen Knechten umgebracht.

No clearer clue to motive and identity was ever left behind.

The revolution was not Russian; the eruption was brought about in Russia, but the revolution had its friends in high places everywhere. At this period (1917-1918) the student for the first time is able to establish that leading men began to give that secret support to Communism which they were already giving to its blood brother, Zionism. This happened on both sides of the fighting-line; once the secret, but overriding purposes of the war came into play the distinction between “friend” and “foe” disappeared. The Zionists, though they concentrated “irresistible pressure” on the politicians of London and Washington, long kept their headquarters in Berlin; the Communists obtained decisive support from Germany at one moment and from Germany’s enemies the next.

For instance, Germany when the 1914-1918 war began started “sending back to Russia Russians of revolutionary tendencies who were prisoners here, with money and passports, in order that they may stir up trouble at home” (Ambassador Gerard in Berlin to Mr. House). Mr. Robert Wilton says the decision to Foment the revolution in Russia was formally taken at a German and Austrian General Staff meeting at Vienna late in 1915. The German Chief-of-Staff, General Ludendorff, later regretted this: “By sending Lenin to Russia our government assumed. . . a great responsibility. From a military point of view his journey was justified, for Russia had to be laid low; but our government should have seen to it that we were not involved in her fall”.

That, taken as an isolated case, might be a simple human error: what appeared to be a sound military move produced catastrophic political consequences not foreseen when it was made. But what explanation can be found for American and British politicians, whose foremost military and political principle should have been to sustain Russia and yet who supported the alien revolutionaries who “laid Russia low”?

MHR SO GERMANY PAID FOR THEIR AIDING AND ABETTING OF THE TALMUDIC CULT…WITH DEFEAT, VERSAILLES, THEN MASSIVE DESTRUCTION IN WWII, AND SOON TO BE TOTAL DESTRUCTION IN WWIII, AS AMALEK…IRONIC, GIVEN THAT WITHOUT THE GERMAN HELP, THE TALMUDIC CULT MAY HAVE FAILED TO ‘TAKE’ RUSSIA…AS IT HAS SINCE ‘TAKEN’ MANHATTAN, AND BERLIN…

In 1917 the Czars and their ministers for fifty years had been toiling to satisfy this “land-hunger” and by assassination had been thwarted. Apparently Mr. House was ignorant of that. When the revolution was accomplished he instructed the shadow-president: “that literally nothing be done further than that an expression of sympathy be offered for Russia’s efforts to weld herself into a virile democracy and to proffer our financial, industrial and moral support in every way possible”. *

MHR HERE WE SEE THAT SELF-CANCELLING NON-SEQUITUR LANGUAGE USED IN BRENDON O’CONNELLS TRIAL…DO NOTHING … THEN PROFFER EVERY POSSIBLE SUPPORT … ???

The resemblance between the first phrase of this sentence and the editorial of The Times in London may be noted; powerful behind-scene groups in both capitals evidently were agreed to present the public masses with this false picture of a “virile” and “efficient” democracy in the making. The second phrase cancelled the policy initially recommended of “literally doing nothing” beyond uttering sympathetic words, by giving the order literally to do everything; for what more can be done than to give “financial, industrial and moral support in every way possible”? This was American state policy from the moment that Mr. House so instructed the president, and it exactly describes the policy pursued by President Roosevelt during the Second World War, as will be shown.

Thus the West, or powerful men in the West, began to range itself with the world-revolution against the Russians, which meant, against all men who abhorred the revolution. Not all the powerful men, or men later to become powerful, lent them selves to this hidden undertaking. At that time Mr. Winston Churchill again stated the nature of the revolution:

“Certainly I dispute the title of the Bolshevists to represent Russia . . . They despise such a mere commonplace as nationality. Their ideal is a worldwide proletarian revolution. The Bolsheviks robbed Russia at one stroke of two most precious things: peace and victory, the victory that was within her grasp and the peace which was her dearest desire. The Germans sent Lenin into Russia with the deliberate intention of working for the downfall of Russia . . . No sooner did Lenin arrive there than he began beckoning a finger here and a finger there to obscure persons in sheltered retreats in New York, in Glasgo,, in Berne and other countries” (the reader will perceive whence the “Russian” revolutionaries were

* It might be significant of the influences which continued to prevail in the entourage of American presidents during the next two generations that President Eisenhower in 1955, from his hospital room in Denver, sent a personal message of congratulations to the Soviet Premier, Bulganin, on the anniversary of the Bolshevik revolution, November 7. The democratic and parliamentary revolution, legitimized by the Czars abdication, occurred in March 1917; November 7 was a day on which the Bolsheviks overthrew the legitimate regime. By 1955 American presidents were habitually warning their people against the menace of “Soviet” or “Communist” (i.e., Bolshevik) aggression [281] brought to Russia) “and he gathered together the leading spirits of a formidable sect, the most formidable sect in the world. . . With these spirits around him he set to work with demoniacal ability to tear to pieces every institution on which the Russian state and nation depended. Russia was laid low. Russia had to be laid low . . . Her sufferings are more fearful than modern records hold and she had been robbed of her place among the great nations of the world”. (House of Commons, 5 November 1919).

MHR EISENHOWER IN 1955 CLEARLY A TALMUDIC CULT COLLABORATOR…SAME GUY WHO SET UP THE ALLIED DEATH CAMPS FOR GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR, AFTER THE WAR, AND SEND MEN AND WOMEN BACK TO RUSSIA TO BE MURDERED AND EXILED BY STALIN… President Eisenhower in 1955, from his hospital room in Denver, sent a personal message of congratulations to the Soviet Premier, Bulganin, on the anniversary of the Bolshevik revolution, November 7. The democratic and parliamentary revolution, legitimized by the Czars abdication, occurred in March 1917; November 7 was a day on which the Bolsheviks overthrew the legitimate regime

Mr. Churchill’s description remains valid, particularly the phrase, “the most formidable sect in the world”, which resembles the phrase used by Bakunin in his attack on Jewish usurpation of the revolution fifty years earlier.

“Lenin and Trotsky took power in the same week of November 1917 that Jewish nationalism won its recognition. Years before, in Geneva, Trotsky and Weizmann had night after night expounded from rival cafés in the university quarter their opposed political beliefs. Both of them Russian-born. . . . they had swayed the crowds of Jewish students from one side of the street to the other; Leon Trotsky, apostle of Red revolution; Chaim Weizmann, apostle of a tradition unbroken for two thousand years. Now by a most strange coincidence in the same week each of them accomplished the fulfilment of his dream”.

In truth, the pincers in which the West was to be gripped had been forged, and each handle was held by one of two groups of revolutionaries “Russian-born” (but not Russian).

For Dr. Weizmann and his associates in London and Washington, the event in Moscow was a passing embarrassment, in one respect. They had based their demand for Palestine on the legend that “a place of refuge” must be found for Jews “persecuted in Russia” (an obvious non sequitur but good enough for “the mob”), and now there was no “persecution in Russia”. On the contrary, in Moscow a Jewish regime ruled and “anti-Semitism” was a capital offence. Where, then, were the Jews who needed “a place of refuge”? (This is evidently the reason why Mr. Robert Wilton had to be prevented from reporting the nature of the new regime in Moscow).

Rabbi Elmer Berger says, “The Soviet government even privileged Jews as Jews… [282] at a single stroke, the revolution emancipated those very Jews for whom, previously, no solution other than Zionism would be efficacious, according to Zionist spokesmen. Soviet Jews no longer had need of Palestine, or any other refuge. The lever of the suffering of Russian Jewry, which Herzl had often used in attempts to prise a charter for Palestine from some power, was gone”.

That did not deter Dr. Weizmann. At once he informed the Jews that they must not expect any respite:

“Some of our friends. . . are very quick in drawing conclusions as to what will happen to the Zionist movement after the Russian revolution. Now, they say, the greatest stimulus for the Zionist movement has been removed. Russian Jewry is free. . . Nothing can be more superficial and wrong than that. We have never built our Zionist movement on the sufferings of our people in Russia or elsewhere. These sufferings were never the cause of Zionism. The fundamental cause of Zionism was, and is, the ineradicable striving of Jewry to have a home of its own”.

Dr. Weizmann spoke truth in untruth. It was true that the organizers of Zionism, in their private hearts, had never in reality built their movement on “the sufferings of our people in Russia or elsewhere”; they were indifferent to any suffering, Jewish or other, caused by Zionism. But they had beyond all dispute used “the sufferings of our people in Russia” as their argument in beleaguering Western politicians, who from Mr. Wilson in 1912 onward repeatedly alluded to it.

In this crucial week, the falsity of the entire contention, though revealed, made no difference, for the British Government, as Mrs. Dugdale recorded, was at length committed. Not even a pretence could be maintained that any Jews needed “a place of refuge” but Mr. Lloyd George had undertaken to conquer Palestine for “the Jews”.

the coming of Hitler, which for a while filled the gap left by the collapse of the legend of “persecution in Russia” and produced in some Jews a desire to go even to Palestine. For the Zionists Hitler, had he not arisen, would have needed to be created;

MHR SO JEWS IN RUSSIA NOW RULED RUSSIA, THE SLAVE MASTERS…WHO WOULD LEAVE THAT TO LIVE IN PALESTINE? AND JEWS IN THE WEST WERE ALWAYS VERY HAPPY TO ‘ASSIMILATE’, AND REMAIN FREE OF THE TALMUDIC CULT… SO HITLER ABSOLUTE NECESSITY… PROBABLY LATER ‘POGROMS’ UNDER STALIN MANUFACTURED IN SAME WAY…THE TALMUDIC MASTERS NEEDED TO ‘PROMPT’ THEIR CULT MEMBERS TO WANT TO LEAVE RUSSIA, AND MOVE TO PALESTINE…SO ONCE TALMUDIC CULT CONTROL SECURED, COULD START ‘PERSECUTING’ THEIR OWN CULT MEMBERS…TO THIS END…SO MILLIONS ENDED UP ‘FLEEING’ THE JEW.S.S.R…

MHR ‘PEACE’ ‘ENFORCED’ IS ANOTHER WAY OF DEFINING ‘TYRANY’ AND ‘DESPOTISM’ AND ‘OBEDIENCE’ AND ‘SUBMISSION TO CENTRALISED AUTHORITY’…WE MUST LOOK AT HOW ‘JEWS’ HAVE USED THEIR POWER RECENTLY…TO ENFORCE THE WORLD’S BIGGEST LIE SINCE ‘THE BIBLE’ I.E WHICH IS THE PROPAGANDA OF A CULT…’THE HOLOCAUST’ AND ‘MANMADE GLOBAL CLIMATE CRISIS’ AND PUTTING PEOPLE IN JAIL FOR SPEAKING UP ABOUT JEWISH POWER, ISRAELI NUKES, JEWISH FABRICATION OF HISTORY, 911, ETC…AND THEIR TREATMENT OF PEOPLE IN GAZA / PALESTINE… THEY’VE TAKEN AWAY OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS FROM FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF PUBLICATION, FREEDOM OF HISTORICAL ENQUIRY, HABEAUS CORPUS, MADE PROPAGANDA LEGAL, MADE TORTURE LEGAL, MADE INDEFINITE DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL LEGAL…SO WHAT CAN WE EXPECT WHEN THEY GAIN TOTAL CONTROL? A PARADISE? A UTOPIA? LIKE THE JEW. S .S .R WAS A WORKERS PARADISE? DEFENCELESS POPULATIONS AFTER ‘GUN CONTROLS’ AFTER JEW WORLD ORDER MASS KILLINGS, REAL AND FAKED…PORT ARTHUR PROBABLY A MIX, OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING REAL FALSE FLAG, SANDY HOOK ETC FAKED SHOOTINGS…

At the same moment in 1917 when the two kindred forces from Russia, revolutionary-Communism and revolutionary-Zionism, emerged into the full open, the third secret purpose of the war, the one of which they were the instruments, also was revealed. This was the project for a “federation of the world” to take over “the management of human affairs” and to rule by force.

MHR FOR ME IT IS REALLY ONLY A QUESTION OF THE JEW WORLD ORDER EXTENDING THE WORST EXPLOITTATION THE WEST MAKES OF CHINA / ASIAN ETC LABOR, TO THE ENTIRE WORLD…WITH THE JEWS REPLACING WASPS AS THE BENEFICIARIES / MASTERS … SO WHAT IS IT TO ME? KARMA TO TEACH US ALL A LESSON? AS WE DO UNTO OTHERS, WILL END UP BEING DONE TO US…THE JEWS WILL BE DOING IT TO US SOON… FOR BETTER OR WORSE… LAST TIME THEIR CULT LEADERSHIP LOST CONTROL OF THEIR CULT…THESE DAYS THEY HAVE IMPROVED THEIR CULT TECHNOLOGY…HAVE TOTAL CONTROL…ZERO ROOM FOR ‘ALTERNATIVE’ IDEAS … ZERO WAYS TO FIGHT BACK…

What was reactionary Prussian militarism in Germany was one of Mr. House’s “advanced ideas” in Washington; what was megalomaniac ambition in the Kaiser was an enlightened concept of “a new world order” in London. The politicians of the West became professional dissimulators. Even Disraeli could not foresee in 1832 ( “The practice of politics in the East may be defined by one word: dissimulation”) that this would become the definition of political practice in the West in the 20th Century

Mr. Woodrow Wilson, the most compliant of them all, at the start rebelled most fretfully against the secret constraints. He tried, as has been shown, to declare that “the causes and objects of the war are obscure”, and when this was forbidden by Mr. House, still avowed that the belligerents on both sides pursued “the same” objects. He went further at the very start of his presidency, when he wrote, “It is an in tolerable thing that the government of the Republic should have got so far out of the hands of the people; should have been captured by interests which are special and not general. We know that something intervenes between the people of the United States and the control of their own affairs at Washington”. Presumably he learned the nature of these “interests” and this “control”, and the galling knowledge may have caused his collapse (and that of Mr. Roosevelt in the later generation).

Nevertheless, he was used to launch the plan for setting up “a federation of the world”, based on force. The idea was “oozed into his brain” by others; the phrase is used by Mr. House’s biographer to describe the method by which Mr. House prompted the actions of other men (and by which his own were prompted). In November 1915, when the American people were still ardent for the president [284] who was keeping them out of the war, Mr. House instructed him:

“We must throw the influence of this nation in behalf of a plan by which international obligations must be kept and maintained and in behalf of some plan by which the peace of the world may be maintained”.

By 1916 Mr. House had instructed Mr. Wilson as to his duty and in May the president publicly announced support for “the plan” at a meeting of a new body candidly called “The League To Enforce Peace”. Mr. Wilson knew nothing of its nature: “it does not appear that Woodrow Wilson studied seriously the programme of the League To Enforce Peace” (Mr. House’s Private Papers).

This was a reincarnation of the earlier “League to enforce peace” which (as Lord Robert Cecil had reminded Mr. House) “really became a league to uphold tyranny”. In 1916 the name gave away the game; American opinion was not then ready to walk into so obvious a trap.

The dissimulators soon dropped the name, “The League To Enforce Peace”, but the “plan”, which produced “The League of Nations”, transparently remained the same: it was one to transfer the control of national armies to some super-national committee which could use them for “the management of human affairs” in ways serving its own special ends, and that has continued the motive to the present day. As in the earlier case of Zionism, President Wilson was [285] committed long before the crucial moment (by his public declaration of May 1916) and as soon as America was in the war (April 1917) announced that it was involved in an undertaking to set up “a new international order”; this statement was made at the moment of the first revolution in Russia and of the preparation of the Balfour Declaration.

Thus the three great “plans” moved together into the West, and this was the project which was to crown the work of the other two. Its basic principle was the destruction of nation-states and nationhood so that it gave expression, in modern form, to the ancient conflict between the Old Testament and the New, between the Levitical Law and the Christian message. The Torah-Talmud is the only discoverable, original source of this idea of “destroying nations”; Mr. House thought it almost impossible to trace any “idea” to its fount, but in this case the track can be followed back through the centuries to 500 BC, and it is nowhere obliterated during those twenty-five hundred years. If before that time anybody in the known world had made this “destructive principle” into a code and creed they and it have faded into oblivion. The idea contained in the Torah-Talmud has gone unbroken through all the generations.

MHR THE PROBLEM IS THAT MANY OF US WOULD LOVE A ONE WORLD GOVT, IF WE COULD TRUST IT TO HAVE OUR INTERESTS AT HEART…WHAT WE ARE GETTING IS THE TALMUDI CULT AS A GLOBAL SLAVE MASTER…THE WORST POSSIBLE GOVT…NOT BY AND FOR THE PEOPLE, BUT BY THE CULT LEADERSHIP FOR THE CULT LEADERSHIP…MILLIONS OF PEOPLE ARE ACTIVELY HELPING THIS CULT GAIN DOMINANCE OVER THEM, UNWITTINGLY…ATTRACTED BY NARROW PROPAGANDA I.E THEY THINK THEY ARE WORKING FOR VARIOUS GOOD THINGS LIKE AN END TO EXPLOITATION, RACISM, NATIONALISM, WAR, VIOLENCE, ETC, BUT REALLY WORKING FOR THE WORST CULT IN HISTORY…WHICH INTENDS EXPLOITING ALL NON CULT LEADERS EQUALLY, ENFORCING RACIAL SUPREMACISM OF THE WORST KIND EVER, TOTALLY DENYING ALL FREEDOMS AND RIGHTS TO ANYONE EXCEPT ITS OWN CULT LEADERS…REPLACING MANY NATIONS WITH ONE RULING NATION, ISRAEL, AND ALL ALTERNATIVES WITH ONE CULT OFFERING…AND ONCE IT IS ACTIVATED, THERE WILL BE NO WAY OUT…IT WILL CONTROL PUBLIC PERCEPTION, AND AGAIN HAVE THE SLAVES KILLING THEIR WOULD BE EMANCIPATORS…DENYING PEOPLE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THEIR OWN BEST INTERESTS, AND WHO REPRESENTS THESE INTERESTS…SO WE’LL BE FIGHTING THE BEST / KILLING THE BEST, OF OUR POTENTIAL LIBERATORS / LEADERS…MASSACREING EACH OTHER, THINKING WE ARE FIGHTING ENEMIES, WHEN THEY ARE REALLY OUR POTENTIAL ALLIES…AND REAL ALLIES… BECAUSE OUR PERCEPTION OF REALITY, OF FREIND AND FOE, WILL BE TOTALLY UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE SECT… ETC…

Mr. House having decided, and Mr. Wilson having declared, that “a new international order” must be established, Mr. House (according to Mr. Howden) set up a body known as “The Inquiry” to draft a plan…The group of men placed in charge of The Inquiry therefore was predominantly Jewish (though in this case not Russian-Jewish:…The Peace Conference loomed ahead when Mr. House prepared to launch this “new world order”, and its first acts pointed to the identity of the controlling-group behind the Western governments. Zionism and Palestine (issues unknown to the masses when the 1914-1918 war began) were found to be high, if not paramount among the matters to be discussed at the conference which ended it.

President Wilson, for this reason, seems to have known moments of exaltation between long periods of despondency. Rabbi Stephen Wise, at his side, depicted the Palestinean undertaking in such terms that the president, entranced, soliloquised, “To think that I, a son of the manse, should be able to help restore the Holy Land to its people”. While he thus contemplated himself in the mirror of posterity the rabbi beside him compared him with the Persian King Cyrus, who had enabled the exiled Jews of his land to return to Jerusalem”. King Cyrus had allowed native Judahites, if they wished, to return to Judah after some fifty years; President Wilson was required to transplant Judaized Chazars from Russia to a land left by the original Jews some eighteen centuries before.

Across the Atlantic Dr. Weizmann made ready for the Peace Conference. He was then evidently one of the most powerful men in the world, a potentate (or emissary of potentates) to whom the “premierdictators” of the West made humble obeisance. At a moment in 1918 when the fate of England was in the balance on the stricken Western Front an audience of the King of England was postponed. Dr. Weizmann complained so imperiously that Mr. Balfour at once restored the appointment; save for the place of meeting, which was Buckingham Palace, Mr. Weizmann seems in fact to have given audience to the monarch. During the Second World War the Soviet dictator Stalin, being urged by the Western leaders to take account of the influence of the Pope, asked brusquely, “How many divisions has the Pope?”. Such at least was the anecdote, much retold in clubs and pubs, and to simple folk it seemed to express essential truth in a few words. Dr. Weizmann’s case shows how essentially untrue it was. He had not a single soldier, but he and the international he represented were able to obtain capitulations never before won save by conquering armies.

Dr. Weizmann led a Zionist delegation to the Peace Conference of 1919 where “the new world order” was to be set up. He informed the august Council of Ten that “the Jews had been hit harder by the war than any other group”; the politicians of 1919 made no demur to this insult to their millions of dead. However, a remonstrant Jew, Mr. Sylvain Levi of France, at the last moment tried to instil prudence in them. He told them:

First, that Palestine was a small, poor land with an existing population of 600,000 Arabs, and that the Jews, having a higher standard of life than the Arabs, would tend to dispossess them; second, that the Jews who would go to Palestine would be mainly Russian Jews, who were of explosive tendencies; third, that the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine would introduce the dangerous principle of Jewish dual loyalties.

Rabbi Wise, disquietened by “the difficulties we had to face in Paris”, had already made sure of President Wilson’s docility. Approaching the president privately, he said, “Mr. President, World Jewry counts on you in its hour of need and hope”, thus excommunicating M. Levi and the Jews who thought like him. Mr. Wilson, placing his hand on the rabbi’s [288] shoulder, “quietly and firmly said, ‘Have no fear, Palestine will be yours’.”)

Colonel Lawrence loved Semites, for he had lived with the Arabs and roused them in the desert against their Turkish rulers. He was equally a friend of Jews (Dr. Weizmann says “he has mistakenly been represented as antiZionist”) and believed that “a Jewish homeland” (in the sense first given to the term, of a cultural centre) could well be incorporated in the united Arab State for which he had worked.

Lawrence saw in Paris that what was intended was to plant Zionist nationalism like a time-bomb among a clutter of weak Arab states, and the realization broke him. Mr. David Garnett, who edited his Letters , says, “Lawrence won his victories without endangering more than a handful of Englishmen and they were won, not to add subject provinces to our empire, but that the Arabs whom he had lived with and loved should be a free people, and that Arab civilization should be reborn”.

When the Paris Conference began he was “fully in control of his nerves and quite as normal as most of us” (Mr. J.M. Keynes). He arrived believing in President Wilson’s pledge (speech of the Fourteen Points, January 8, 1918), “The nationalities under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely independent opportunity of autonomous development”. He could not know that these words were false, because Mr. Wilson was secretly committed to Zionism, through the men around him.

After Dr. Weizmann’s reply to Mr. Lansing, and its approval by the Council of Ten, the betrayal became clear to Lawrence and he showed “the disillusion and the bitterness and the defeat resulting from the Peace Conference; he had complete faith that President Wilson would secure self-determination for the Arab peoples when he went to the Peace Conference; he was completely disillusioned when he returned”(Mr. Garnett). Lawrence himself later wrote, “We lived many lives in those whirling campaigns” (in the desert) “never sparing ourselves any good or evil; yet when we achieved and the new world dawned the old men came out again and took from us our victory and remade it in the likeness of the former world they knew . . . I meant to make a new nation, to restore to the world a lost influence, to give twenty millions of Semites the foundations on which to build an inspired dream-palace of their national thoughts”.

Lawrence, who was broken by this experience, was then among the most famous men in the world. Had he joined the dissimulators hardly any rank or honour would have been refused him. He threw up his rank, and away his decorations, and tried from shame even to lose his identity; he enlisted under an assumed name in the lowest rank of the Royal Air Force, where he was later discovered by an assiduous newspaper man. This last phase of his life, and the [289] motor-bicycle accident which ended it, have a suicidal look (resembling the similar phase and end of Mr. James Forrestal after the Second War) and he must be accounted among the martyrs of this story.

The leading public men were agreed to promote the Zionist adventure through the “international world order” which they were about to found, at any cost in honour and human suffering. In nearly all other questions they differed, so that, the war hardly ended, reputations began bursting like bubbles and friendships cracking like plaster, in Paris. Some breach occurred between President Wilson and his “second personality, independent self” (a similar, mysterious estrangement was to sever President Roosevelt and his other self, Mr. Harry Hopkins, at the end of another war).

Mr. House was at his zenith. Prime ministers, ministers, ambassadors and delegates besieged him at the Hotel Crillon; in a single day he gave forty-nine audiences to such high notables. Once the French Prime Minister, M. Clemenceau, called when Mr. Wilson was with Mr. House; the president was required to withdraw while the two great men privately conferred. Perhaps humiliation at last broke Mr. Woodrow Wilson; he was stricken by mortal illness in Paris (as Mr. Franklin Roosevelt at Yalta, though Mr. Wilson survived rather longer). Apparently the two never saw or communicated with each other again! Mr. House merely recorded, “My separation from Woodrow Wilson was and is to me a tragic mystery, a mystery that now can never be dispelled for its explanation lies buried with him”.

The illusions of power were dissolving. These men were never truly powerful, because they acted as the instruments of others. They already look wraithlike in the annals, and if the squares and boulevards named after them still bear their names, few remember who they were. Mr. Wilson returned to America and soon died. Mr. House before long was lonely and forgotten in the apartment in East 35th Street. Mr. Lloyd George found himself in the political wilderness and was only able to complete the ruin of a once-great Liberal party; within a decade he found himself at the head of four followers. Mr. Balfour, for a few more years, absent-mindedly haunted Saint James’s Park.

They were not able to accomplish all that their mentors wished. Shaken by the violence of American objections, Mr. Wilson “absolutely declined to accept the French demand for the creation of an international force that should operate under the executive control of the League”. The American Constitution (the president suddenly recollected) did not permit of any such surrender of sovereignty.

Thus the worst was averted, in that generation. The secret men, who continued to be powerful when these “premier-dictators” and pliable “administrators” were shorn of their semblance of power, had to wait for the Second World War to get their hands on the armies of the nation-states. Then they achieved their “League to enforce peace” almost (but still not quite) in the fullness of despotic [290] power coveted by them. In 1919 they had to content themselves with a modest first experiment: The League Of Nations.

MHR THE LEAGUE REVEALED ITS ANTI-GERMAN COLORS WHEN IT REFUSED TO INTERVENE WHEN FRANCE INVADED GERMANY TO STEAL ITS COAL SUPPLIES, AND MAKE GERMANS SLAVES…

The United States would not even join it; the masses of America, disquietened by the results of the war and instinctively striving to regain the safe haven of “no foreign entanglements”, would have none of it. Britain joined, but under other prime ministers than Mr. Lloyd George would not hand over control of its armies. The way to the kind of “new world order” envisaged by Mr. House and his prompters was blocked for the time being. Nevertheless a way was found, through the League of Nations, to effect one fateful, and possibly fatal breach in British sovereignty.

The authority of this “League of Nations”, whatever it amounted to, was used to cover the use of British troops as a bodyguard for the Zionists intending to seize Palestine. The device employed to give this mock-legal air to the deed was called “the mandate”, and I have earlier shown where it was born. By means of it the League of Nations was able to install the Zionists from Russia in Arabia, where they revealed the “explosive tendencies” foretold by M. Sylvain Levi in 1919 and apparent to all today, in 1956. This was the sole, enduring accomplishment of the “new world order” set up in 1919 and by the ancient test, Cui bono?, the authorship of this “idea” may be judged.

the San Remo Conference “confirmed the Balfour Declaration and the decision to give the mandate to Great Britain”. After that only one step remained between the Zionists and their goal; the League of Nations had to invent “mandates”, bestow on itself the right to bestow mandates, and then “ratify” this Mandate. That happened in 1922

The Arabs saw from the start what was in store for them, for they knew the Torah. Dr. Weizmann had told the Peace Conference “The Bible is our mandate”, and they knew about “the God of the Jews” and his promises of pogrom and reward: “When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and shall cast out man y nations before thee . . . seven nations greater and mightier than

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 204 —

thou; and when the Lord thy God shall deliver them up before thee, and thou shalt smite them; then thou shalt utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them” (Deuteronomy 7, 1-3).

Thus Zionism, and Western support of it, meant extermination for them under a Law of 2,500 years earlier (and the events of 1948 proved this). In 1945 King Ibn Saoud told President Roosevelt, “You have fought two world wars to discover what we have known for two thousand years” and in 1948 the intention literally to fulfil the above-quoted “statute and commandment” was proved by deed. Significantly, even antiZionist Jews could not believe, before it happened, that this literal “fulfilment” was intended. In 1933 Mr. Bernard J. Brown correctly cited the above-mentioned passage as the reason for Arab fears and said, “Of course, the uncultured Arabs do not understand that the modem Jew does not take his Bib/e literally and would not be so cruel to his fellow man, but he suspects that if the Jews bottom their claim to Palestine on the strength of their historic rights to that land, they can only do so on the authority of the Rib/e, and the Arab refuses to reject any part of it”. Mr. Brown of Chicago did not know the Chazars).

MHR WHAT A JOKE…TELL THIS TO THE PALESTINIANS…’MODERN’ JEWS? CHANGED THEIR STRIPES?

Mr. Balfour, Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Wilson had secretly promised the Zionists Palestine. Knowing the Torah, they equally disbelieved the public statement of Mr. Winston Churchill in 1922 (when he was Colonial Secretary), “Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in vie w is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine.’

“His Majesty’s government regard any such suggestion as impracticable and have no such aim in [293] view. Nor have they at any time contemplated the disappearance or subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine” (in the Second World War, as Prime Minister, and after it as Opposition leader Mr. Churchill gave his support to the process here denied).

The original Jewish community of Palestine (never taken into consideration at any stage in all these proceedings) was violently anti-Zionist. Dr. Weizmann, almost alone among his fellow-Zionists and the Western politicians associated with them, had slight acquaintance with these original Jews, having made one or two brief visits to Palestine; he says most of his fellow-Zionists from Russia were “completely ignorant” of them. At this period in 1919-1922 the Zionist leaders first learned that the Jews of Palestine held them to be “heathen, impious, heartless, ignorant and malevolent”. Dr. Weizmann (whose attitude is the familiar one that he was only acting for their good; “we were only anxious to make conditions a little modern and comfortable for them”) was “rather horrified to discover how remote from them we remained”. He dismisses them as old fogies who, annoyingly, bombarded the Jewish organizations in America with complaints about the Zionists, “quite ninety percent” of their letters being violently hostile. (Typically, Dr. Weizmann learned of the contents of these letters from a British censor, derelict in his duty, who showed them to him). These protests of the native Arabs and native Jews of Palestine were ignored by the politicians of Paris and San Remo.

Mr. Louis Brandeis in 1919visited the country which then, for twenty years, had formed the object of his revived interest in Judaism. He was at once disillusioned by actual acquaintance with the unknown land and decided that “it would be wrong to encourage immigration”. He urged that the World Zionist Organization should be greatly reduced, if not abolished, and that future activity should be restricted to the modest task of building up a “Jewish Homeland” through separate Zionist associations in the various countries. In effect this would have been simply a “cultural centre” in Palestine, consisting perhaps of a university and academies, and of somewhat more numerous farm settlements, with reasonable means of immigration for the small number of Jews who, of their own volition, might wish to go to Palestine.

This meant abandoning the concept of separate Jewish nationhood symbolized by a Jewish State, and was treason. It was (as Dr. Weizmann says) a revival of he old cleavage between “east” and “west”; between “Ostjuden” and emancipated Western Jews; between “Washington” and “Pinsk”

The Zionists from Russia overthrew Mr. Brandeis as easily as Dr. Herzl in 1903-4. Mr. Brandeis made the proposal summarized above to the Cleveland Congress of American Zionists in 1921. Dr. Weizmann, opposing, insisted on “a national fund” (that is, revenue to be raised by the self-appointed government of [294] a Jewish nation from obligatory tithe-payments by members of the Zionist organization) and “a national budget”. Mr. Brandeis’s weakness was precisely that of Dr. Herzl in 1903; the great Western governments were committed to the Zionists from Russia. The congress, which if it was in any way “elected” was elected by about one-tenth of the Jews of America, upheld Dr. Weizmann and Dr. Brandeis fell from his high place.

MHR TODAY IN AUSTRALIAN ‘ORTHODOX JEWS’ I.E PHARISEES I.E TALMUDIC JEWS (WHO CLAIM NOW TO BE ‘ALRUCH WHATEVER’ JEWS I.E ‘NICE MODERN GOOD JEWS’…ONLY AROUND 10%, BUT SPEAK FOR ALL JEWS IN COURT DURING BRENDON O’CONNELLS TRIAL…I WONDER HOW MANY ‘JEWS’ IN AUSTRALIA WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED THE TRIAL AND VERDICT?

In Palestine the British soldiers and officials saw that an impossible task was to be inflicted on them. They were of a stock that had gained more experience in the administration of overseas territories than any other in history, and experience and instinct alike warned them. They knew how to administer a country justly on behalf of all its native peoples and had often done this. They knew that no country could be justly administered, or even kept quiet, if alien immigrants were to be forced into it and the native peoples compelled to allow this. Their protests, too, began to flow towards London and until the end, thirty years later, were ignored. The Arabs from the start accepted the bitter truth and began (in 1920) to resist by riot, rising and every means at hand; they have never since ceased and obviously will not until their grievance is amended or they are all put in permanent, armed captivity.

(5) As the “front-rank politicians” (Dr. Weizmann’s phrase) in London and Washington were resolved at any cost to implant the Zionists in Palestine, without regard to any protest, opinion or counsel whatever, today’s student might wonder why President Wilson and Mr. Lloyd George sent commissions of investigation to the land bartered about by them. If they hoped to receive encouraging reports (in the manner of Sir Henry Wilson’s “mud-months” advice) they were deceived, for these investigators merely confirmed what the Arabs, Jews and British in Palestine all had said. President Wilson’s King-Crane Commission (1919) reported that “the Zionist look forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine”. This commission added, “by various forms of purchase”; the more experienced British officers heard by it correctly informed it that “the Zionist programme could not be carried out except by force of arms”. Mr. Lloyd George’s Haycraft Commission (1921) reported that the real root of the trouble then starting in Palestine lay in the justified Arab belief that the Zionists intended to dominate in Palestine.

MHR SINCE THEN THEY HAVE SIMPLY ‘OCCUPIED’ MOST OF PALESTINE, AND TURNED THE REST INTO A PRISON FOR THE PALESTINIANS…HOPING THEY’LL JUST ‘MOVE ON’ AND LEAVE PALESTINE TO THEM…WILLING TO MURDER CHILDREN TO ‘ENCOURAGE’ THIS…

By far the greatest obstacle to the Zionist ambition cam e from factual reporting in the press of what was happening in Palestine and from editorial comment adverse to Zionism. At any time up to the 1914-1918 war the American and British governments, before they went too far, would have had to reckon with public opinion, accurately informed by the newspapers. The corruption of the press (foretold by the Protocols) began with the censorship introduced during the First World War; the rise of the directing power behind the scenes had been shown by the cases of Colonel Repington, Mr. H.A. Gwynne and Mr. Robert [295] Wilton in 1917-1918; experienced correspondents were driven to resign or to write books because their reports were ignored, burked, or suppressed; an editor who published the faithful report without submission to the censorship was prosecuted.

In 1919-1922 the censorship was ending and the newspapers naturally reverted, in the main, to the earlier practice of true reporting and impartial comment on the facts reported. This re-established the former check on governmental policies, and if it had continued would undoubtedly have thwarted the Zionist project, which could not be maintained if it were open to public scrutiny. Therefore the entire future for the Zionists, at this crucial moment when “the Mandate” still was not “ratified”, turned on the suppression of adverse newspaper information and comment. At that very juncture an event occurred which produced that result.

the energetic Lord Northcliffe was a powerful man. The former Alfred Harmsworth, bulky and wearing a dank Napoleonic forelock, owned the two most widely read daily newspapers, various other journals and periodicals, and in addition was majority proprietor of the most influential newspaper in the world, at that time, The Times of London. Thus he had direct access to millions of people each day and, despite his business acumen, he was by nature a great newspaper editor, courageous, combative and patriotic. He was sometimes right and sometimes wrong in the causes he launched or espoused, but he was independent and unpurchasable. Re somewhat resembled Mr. Randolph Hearst and Colone1 Robert McCormick in America, which is to say that he would do many things to increase the circulation of his newspapers, but only within the limits of national interest; he would not peddle blasphemy, obscenity, libel or sedition. Re could not be cowed and was a force in the land.

Lord Northcliffe made himself the adversary of the conspiracy from Russia in two ways. In May 1920 he caused to be printed in The Times the article, previously mentioned, on the Protocols. It was headed, “The Jewish Peril, A Disturbing Pamphlet, Call for Enquiry”. It concluded, “An impartial investigation of these would-be documents and of their history is most desirable . . . are we to dismiss the whole matter without inquiry and to let the influence of such a book as this work unchecked?”

Then in 1922 Lord Northcliffe visited Palestine, accompanied by a journalist, Mr. J.M.N. Jeffries (whose subsequent book, Palestine: The Reality, remains the classic work of reference for that period). This was.

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 206 —

a combination of a different sort from that formed by the editors of The Times and Manchester Guardian, who wrote their leading article s about Palestine in England and in consultation with [296] the Zionist chieftain, Dr. Weizmann. Lord Northcliffe, on the spot, reached the same conclusion as all other impartial investigators, and wrote, “In my opinion we, without sufficient thought, guaranteed Palestine as a home for the Jews despite the fact that 700,000 Arab Moslems live there and own it . . . The Jews seemed to be under the impression that all England was devoted to the one cause of Zionism, enthusiastic for it in fact; and I told them that this was not so and to be careful that they do not tire out our people by secret importation of arms to fight 700,000 Arabs. . . There will be trouble in Palestine. . . people dare not tell the Jews the truth here. They have had some from me”.

MHR SO FOR THE VERY SHORT TIME PERIOD OF ‘INDEPENDENT’ MASS MEDIA REPORTING, THE PUBLIC GOT THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER…

By stating this truth, Lord Northcliffe offended twice; he had already entered the forbidden room by demanding “inquiry” into the origins of the Protocols. Moreover, he was able to publish this truth in the mass-circulation newspapers owned by him, so that he became, to the conspirators, a dangerous man. He encountered one obstacle in the shape of Mr. Wickham Steed, who was editor of The Times and whose championship of Zionism Dr. Weizmann records.

In this contest Lord Northcliffe had an Achilles heel. He particularly wanted to get the truth about Palestine into The Times, but he was not sole proprietor of that paper, only chief proprietor. Thus his own newspapers published his series of articles about Palestine but The Times, in fact, refused to do so. Mr. Wickham Steed” though he had made such large proposals about the future of Palestine, declined to go there, and denied publicity to the anti-Zionist case.

These facts, and all that now follows, are related (again, with surprising candour) in the Official History of The Times (1952). It records that Mr. Wickham Steed “evaded” visiting Palestine when Lord Northcliffe requested him to go there; it also records Mr, Wickham Steed’s “inaction” following Lord Northcliffe’s telegraphed wish “for a leading article attacking Balfour’s attitude towards Zionism”.

In what follows the reader’ s attention is particularly directed to dates.

In May 1920 Lord Northcliffe had caused publication of the article about the Protocols in The Times. Early in 1922 he visited Palestine and produced the series of article s above mentioned. On February 26, 1922 he left Palestine, after his request, which was ignored, to. the editor of The Times. He was incensed against the incompliant editor and had a message, strongly critical of his editorial policy, read to an editorial conference which met on March 2, 1922. Lord Northcliffe wished that Mr. Wickham Steed should resign and was astonished that he remained after this open rebuke. The editor, instead of resigning, decided “to secure a lawyer’s opinion on the degree of provocation necessary to constitute unlawful dismissal”. For this purpose he consulted Lord Northcliffe’s own special legal adviser (March 7, .1922), who informed Mr. Wickham Steed that Lord Northcliffe was “abnormal”, “incapable of business” and, judging from his appearance, “unlikely to live long” and advised the editor to continue in his post! The editor then went to Pau, in France, to see Lord Northcliffe, in his turn [297] decided that Lord Northcliffe was “abnormal” (March 31, 1922), and informed a director of The Times that Lord Northcliffe was “going mad”.

The suggestion of madness thus was put out by an editor whom Lord Northcliffe desired to remove and the impressions of others therefore are obviously relevant. On May 3, 1922 Lord Northcliffe attended a farewell luncheon in London for a retiring editor of one of his papers and “was in fine form”. On May 11, 1922 he made “an excellent and effective speech” to the Empire Press Union and “most people who had thought him ‘abnormal’ believed they were mistaken”. A few days later Lord Northcliffe telegraphed instruction s to the Managing Director of The Times to arrange for the editor’s resignation. This Managing Director saw nothing “abnormal” in such an instruction and was not “in the least anxious about Northcliffe’s health “. Another director, who then saw him, “considered him to have quite as good a life risk as his own”; he “noticed nothing unusual in Northcliffe’s manner or appearance” (May 24, 1922).

On June 8,1922 Lord Northcliffe, from Boulogne, asked Mr. Wickham Steed to meet him in Paris; they met there on June 11, 1922, and Lord Northcliffe told his visitor that he, Lord Northcliffe, would assume the editorship of The Times. On June 12,1922 the whole party left for Evian-les-Bains, a doctor being secreted on the train, as far as the Swiss frontier, by Mr. Wickham Steed. Arrived in Switzerland “a brilliant French nerve specialist” (unnamed) was summoned and in the evening certified Lord Northcliffe insane. On the strength of this Mr. Wickham Steed cabled instructions to The Times to disregard and not to publish anything received from Lord Northcliffe, and on June 13, 1922 he left, never to see Lord Northcliffe again. On June 18, 1922 Lord Northcliffe returned to London and was in fact removed from all control of, and even communication with his undertakings (especially The Times; his telephone was cut). The manager had police posted at the door

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 207 —

to prevent him entering the office of The Times if he were able to reach it. All this, according to the Official History, was on the strength of certification in a foreign country (Switzerland) by an unnamed (French) doctor. On August 14, 1922 Lord Northcliffe died; the cause of death stated was ulcerative endocarditis, and his age was fifty-seven. He was buried, after a service at Westminster Abbey, amid a great array of mourning editors.

Such is the story as I have taken it from the official publication. None of this was known outside a small circle at the time; it only emerged in the Official History after three decades, and if it had all been published in 1922 would presumably have called forth many questions. I doubt if any comparable displacement of a powerful and wealthy man can be adduced, at any rate in such mysterious circumstances.

FUCKITY FUCK FUCK FUCK AND PEOPLE ASK ‘HOW COULD SUCH A CONSPIRACY BE POSSIBLE’ … THE VERY FEW PEOPLE WHO HAVE EVER TRIED TO PUBLISH THE TRUTH…AS ALWAYS, THE ABUSE OF PSYCHIATRY…THE MOST REPUGNANT OF DIRTY TRICKS…

Lord Northcliffe was convinced that his life was in danger and several time said this; specifically, he said he had been poisoned. If this is in itself madness, then he was mad, but in that case many victims of poisoning have died of madness, not of what was fed to them. If by any chance it was true, he was not mad. I remember that l thought it feasible that such a man should have dangerous enemies, though at that time I had no inkling at all of any particular hostility he might have incurred. His belief certainly charged him with suspicion of those around him, but if by chance he had reason for it, then again it was not madness; if all this had transpired in the light of day such things could have been thrashed out.

I cannot judge, and can only record what I saw and thought at the time, as a young man who had no more idea of what went on around him than a babe knows the shape of the world. When I returned to London I was questioned about Lord Northcliffe by his brother, Lord Rothermere, and one of his chief associates, Sir George Sutton. The thought of madness must by that time have been in their minds (the “certification” had ensued) and therefore have underlain their questions, but not even then did any such suspicion occur to me, although I had been one of the last people to see him before he was certified and removed from control of his newspapers. I did not know of that when I saw them or for long afterwards. In such secrecy was all this done that, although I continued in the service of The Times for sixteen years, I only learned of the “madness” and “certification” thirty years late , from the Official History. By that time I was able to see what great consequences had flowed from an affair in which I was an uninitiated onlooker at the age of twenty-seven.

AND THE JEWS WILL KEEP MAKING A MOCKERY OF THE VERY NOTION THAT A CONSPIRACY WOULD IN ANY WAY BE POSSIBLE…OF COURSE WHO HAS HEARD OF THIS STORY BEFORE READING THIS BOOK?

Lord Northcliffe therefore was out of circulation, and of the control of his newspapers, during the decisive period preceding the ratification of “the mandate” by the League of Nations, which clinched the Palestinean transaction [299] and bequeathed the effects of it to our present generation: The opposition of a widely-read chain of journals at that period might have changed the whole course of events. After Lord Northcliffe died the possibility of editorials in The Times “attacking Balfour’s attitude towards Zionism” faded. From that time the submission of the press, in the manner described by the Protocols, grew ever more apparent and in time reached the condition which prevails today, when faithful reporting and impartial comment on this question has long been, in suspense.

Lord Northcliffe was removed from control of his newspapers and put under constraint on June 18, 1922; on July 24, 1922 the Council of the League of Nations met in London, secure from any possibility of loud public protest by Lord Northcliffe, to bestow on Britain a “mandate” to remain in Palestine and by arms to instal the Zionists there (I describe what events have shown to be the fact; the matter was not so depicted to the public, of course).,

This act of “ratifying” the “mandate” was in such circumstances a formality. The real work, of drawing up the document and of ensuring that it received approval, had been done in advance, in the firs t matter by drafters inspired by Dr. Weizmann and in the second by Dr. Weizmann himself in the ante-chambers of many capitals. The members of Mr. House’s “Inquiry” had drafted the Covenant of the League of Nations; Dr. Weizmann, Mr. Brandeis, Rabbi Stephen Wise and their associates had drafted the Balfour Deelaration; now the third essential document had to be drafted, one of a kind that history never knew before. Dr. Weizmann pays Lord Curzon (then British Foreign Secretary) the formal compliment of saying that he was “in charge of the actual drafting of the mandate” but adds, “on our side we had the valuable assistance of Mr. Ben V. Cohen. . . one of the ablest draughtsmen in America”. Thus a Zionist in America (Mr. Cohen was to play an important part in a much later stage of this process) in fact drafted a document under which “the new world order” was to dictate British policy, the use of British troops and the future of Palestine.

AND IT TOOK UNTIL 2017 FOR ME TO REALISE WE WERE FACING A ‘JEW’ WORLD ORDER…I STUMBLED ACROSS THIS BOOK, LIKE MOST OTHER INFORMATION, BY PURE CHANCE…WITH ZERO AWARENESS OF ANY ‘JEW WORLD ORDER’…OR INTEREST IN FINDING ONE..BUT THE PIECES OF THE PUZZLE, WHICH AT FIRST APPEARED INDEPENDENT, BECAME COMPELLING I.E A PICTURE BECAME APPARENT FROM EVEN THE STILL UN-JOINED PIECES…

Lord Curzon ‘s part was merely to moderate the terms of the “mandate” if he could, and he did achieve minor modifications, though these had little effect on events in the long run. An able statesman (not a politician) who looked like a Roman emperor, he was “entirely loyal to the policy adopted and meant to stand by the Balfour Declaration” (Dr. Weizmann), but was known personally to disapprove the project which duty required him to further (this might be the reason why he never became Prime Minister, for which office he was highly qualified). He contrived to delete one word from the draft. Dr. Weizmann and Mr. Cohen desired it to begin, “Recognizing the historic rights of the Jews to Palestine. . .” Lord Curzon said, “If you word it like that, I can see Weizmann coming to me every day and saying he has a right to do this, that or the other in Palestine! I won’t have it”. Thus “historical rights” became “historical connection”, a lesser misstatement; Lord Curzon, a scholar certainly did not [300] believe that the Chazars from Russia had any historical connection with the Arabian Peninsula.

Dr. Weizmann, while the draft was thus being prepared, set off on another international tour, to ensure that all members of the Council of the League of Nations would inaugurate “the new world order” by voting for “the Mandate”. He called first on the Italian Foreign Minister, one Signor Schanzer, who said the Vatican was worried about the future, under Zionism, of the Room of the Last Supper in Jerusalem. Dr. Weizmann, in the tone habitual among his associates when they spoke of things holy to others, says, “My education in Church history having been deficient, I did not know why the Italians laid such stress on the Room of the Last Supper”.*

Dr. Weizmann was able to reassure Signor Schanzer and left Rome assured of Italian support. After that the thing became a landslide and from that time on the “votes” of the League of Nations (and of the later “United Nations”) in vital questions were always arranged beforehand by this method of secret canvassing, lobbying and “irresistible pressure” in general. Dr. Weizmann went on to Berlin and found a famous Jewish minister there, Dr. Walter Rathenau, to be violently opposed to Zionism. He “deplored any attempt to turn the Jews of Germany ‘into a foreign body on the sands of the Mark of Brandenburg’: that was all he could see in Zionism”. Dr. Rathenau was murdered soon after this, so that the cause of the emancipated Western Jews was deprived of another notable champion.

By his journeys and visits Dr. Weizmann at last assured himself, in advance of the meeting, of all votes at the Council table save two, those of Spain and Brazil. He then called in London, on the Spanish dignitary who was to represent Spain and said, “Here is Spain’s opportunity to repay in part that long-outstanding debt which it owes to the Jews. The evil which your forefathers were guilty of against us you can wipe out in part”. Dr. Weizmann was cautious, twice using the words “in part”. His host, whose duty was to contemporary Spain, was being allured with the suggestion which had earlier fascinated Mr. Balfour; that Spain owed some indeterminate “debt” to “the Jews”, for all of whom his visitor claimed to speak, and that by wiping out Arab hopes in Palestine he could wipe out (in part) this debt said to have been incurred by Spain. Considered by standards of reason these conversations read like something from the Mad Hatter’s Tea-Party. In any case, the Spanish representative promised the vote of Spain and, for full measure, also that of Brazil, so that the chain of yesses was complete.

MHR WHILE TODAY THE ‘DEBT’ GERMANY OWES IS PAID IN CASH, AND SUBMARINES, AND TOTAL SUBMISSION TO THE JEW WORLD ORDER, OPEN BORDERS, SELF-LOATHING, AND SELF-GENOCIDE…

In England, as the moment approached, a last bid was made to avert British embroilment in this enterprise. Lords Sydenham, Islington and Raglan led an attack on “the mandate” in the House of Lords and by a large majority carried their motion for the repeal of the Balfour Declaration. However, the upper house, its earlier powers abolished, by that time could only protest, and Mr. Balfour (soon to become a lord) at once reassured Dr. Weizmann: “What does it matter if a few foolish lords pass such a motion?”

After all this secret preparation the stage was set for the meeting of the League Council in London on July 24, 1922 and “everything went off smoothly when Mr. Balfour introduced the subject of the ratification of the Palestine Mandate”. Without any demur Britain was awarded “the mandate” to remain in Palestine and to provide an armed cordon for the Zionists when they arrived there. *

Thus in 1922 the British future was left burdened with an undertaking which had never received public scrutiny and during the next three decades the growing bills began to pour in. Early in the process America also was re-involved, although the general public there did not realize this for another thirty years.

President Wilson was dead and his Democratic party was out of office. President Harding was at the White House and the Republican party was back in power. It had been swept back by the wave of popular feeling against the disappointing outcome of the war and of instinctive desire to be free from “entanglements” overseas. The country felt itself well out of the League of Nations and its mysterious activities all over the world.

Then the Republican party led the Republic back in to the embroilments in which the Democratic party first had involved it. Presumably the party-managers, those architects of public misfortune, thought to compete with the other party for the favour of those powerful groups, and the “fluctuating vote” controlled by them, described in Mr. House’s diary and novel.

In June 1922, just before the League Council in London bestowed the Palestinean “Mandate” on Britain, the United States Congress passed a joint resolution of both houses, the wording of which was almost identical with that of the Balfour Declaration of 1917. Thereafter the Zionist halter was firmly reaffixed [302] round the neck of American State policy, and though the American voter only realized this, it became immaterial to him which party prevailed at elections.

* The “mandates” also bestowed on Britain in respect of Iraq and Transjordan, and to France in respect of Syria, were soon relinquished, these territories becoming independent states. Other countries received “mandates” in respect of various colonial and oceanic territories, which in time and in fact became their possessions. These other “mandates” were from the start fictitious and served in the office of chaperones to tile dubious one which needed respectable company. Of the entire bogus arrangement only the Palestinean “mandate” continued until. the Zionists being numerous enough and sufficiently supplied with arms, it was abandoned and the country left to the invaders then able to take and hold it by force: The later “United Nations”, for obvious reasons, did not resurrect the word “Mandate”. It found another word, “Trusteeship”, for the same idea, which is transparently that of transferring territories from one ownership to another through a sham process of “international law” and legality.

For ten years after the foisting of “the Mandate” on the British people the pretence was continued that the “Jewish National Home” in Palestine, under their protection, would be simply “a cultural centre” of Judaism, harmless to the Arabs; a Judaist Mecca with university, library and farm-settlements. The Arabs were never beguiled; they saw that they were the objects of an attempt to reinforce, in the 20th Century AD, the Law of violent dispossession set up by the Levites in the 5th Century BC They responded with riotous protest and warlike uprising which have never since ceased, so that “the war to end war” started warfare without end.

At once it became apparent that Zionism had been inserted like a blasting charge into the life of peoples and that in “a small country the size of Wales or Vermont” (just “liberated” from the Turk) the timefuse of a future world-conflict had been planted. Nevertheless, a new British Colonial Secretary, Mr. Leopold Amery, went to Palestine in 1925 and (he says) “frankly told the Arabs that there was no possibility of change in the British policy” (Jewish Telegraph Agency) .

MHR THE ‘MANDATE’ WAS THE SAME PLAN AS ‘VERSAILLES’ I.E A TIME-BOMB SET TO SET OFF ANOTHER WORLD WAR… AS THE ‘MAZZINNI’ LETTERS CLEARLY STATE…

In what other issue in history was a reversal of policy ever declared to be impossible? This policy had been proved impossible of fulfilment, and disastrous. What power dictated that it must be pursued in those or any circumstances whatever? No British or American political leader ever explained this secret capitulation to the electorate, to Parliament or to Congress

MHR ONE OF MY ‘FEARS’ IS THAT ANYTHING I MIGHT BE ALLOWED TO ACHIEVE WOULD MERELY BE OF SERVICE TO THE CULT I.E THEY ONLY ALLOW THINGS THAT SERVE THEIR ENDS…THAT THEY MIGHT ALLOW ME TO START SOMETHING IN ONE POSITIVE DIRECTION, BUT THEN THEY’D CO-OPT IT TO THEIR OWN ENDS .EG FREEDOM FIGHTING USED TO JUSTIFY MARTIAL LAW AND WORLD WAR…TAKING ARGUMMENTS OUT OF CONTEXT TO USE TO THEIR ENDS ETC…FOR PROPAGANDA PURPOSES…THERE IS ALMOST ZERO CHANCE OF INFORMMING THE PUBLIC, OR OF A ‘FAIR TRIAL’ FOR THE FACTS… WHICH TRULY INDEPENDENT MEDIA HAS ANY REACH? AND IS FREE FROM CONTROL AT SOME LEVEL? AT THE END, YOU COULD DO GREAT WORK, BUT IT WOULD ONLY BE USED TO SERVE THE CULTS ENDS IN THE END…NEED TO MAINTAIN CONTROL OF THE ENTIRE PROCESS…BUT THEY CONTROL THE MEDIA AGENDA, THE FINAL MESSAGE, THE FINAL ‘SPIN’ GIVEN TO ANY EVENTS…THE DIALOG, THE NARRATIVE, THE CONTEXT…THE PRESENTATION AND RE-PACKAGING / COMMENTARY ON IT… LIKE ANYTHING GOOD MOSES MIGHT HAVE ‘COMMANDED’ OR THE PROPHETS ‘INTERPOLATED’ WAS DISTORTED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND TALMUDIC CULT…THE ‘INQUISITION’ BEING THE TRUE EXPRESSION OF THE TALMUDIC CULT ROOTS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH’S CORE MANAGMENT / PHILOSOPHY … TARGETTING ANY CULT ‘NAY SAYERS’… NOT ROOTING OUT CORRUPTION, ABUSE ETC…SO JESUS USED TO JUSTIFY WAR, MOSES RAPE AND GENOCIDE (THOUGH IT SEEMS THESE REALLY WERE HIS CULT PROGRAM, AND NOT INTERPOLATED / ‘SPUN’ LATER FROM SOME NOBLE IDEALS…UNLIKE JESUS, WHOSE IDEALS APPEAR QUITE NOBLE…AND NEVER INTENDED TO BE ABUSED / MISUSED / ‘SPUN’ TO JUSTIFY WHAT HAS SINCE BEEN DONE IN HIS NAME…

Mr. Lloyd George told an applauding Zionist audience in London: “I was brought up in a school where I was taught more about the history of the Jews than about the history of my own land”. His day was ending, but candidates for his shoes hastened to declare their allegiance. A coming prime minister, Mr. Ramose Macdonald, though unable to attend this meeting, sent a message declaring support for Zionism; another, Mr. Stanley Baldwin, joined the circle of “friends” (Dr. Weizmann); In South Africa General Smuts saw in his “work for the Jews the justification of his life”.

MHR WHAT THESE PEOPLE HAD BEEN ‘TAUGHT’ WAS A CULT APPROVED VERSION OF HISTORY…CULT MENTALITY…THROUGH CULT FILTERS…

Lord Balfour considered his Declaration the great achievement of his life and in 1925 first went to see the country he had been privately bartering for twenty years. He was (characteristically) a bad sailor and emerged pale from his cabin at Alexandria. At Tel Aviv he said (with intention to flatter) that the Herzliah High School boys “might have come from Harrow” and the mayor “might easily be the mayor of Liverpool or of Manchester”, and he “opened” the still unbuilt [304] Hebrew University. He toured Palestine under strong guard and said his cordial reception reminded him of a general election “with everybody on the same side”. Then (against Dr. Weizmann’s pressing advice) he continued to Syria, where he was besieged by an Arab mob, clamant for his life, in the Victoria Hotel in Damascus, being rushed to the coast amid a strong escort of French cavalry and restored (still seasick) by ship to England.

The intention to dispossess them was not admitted at that time. Mr. Churchill’s White Paper of 1922, indeed, proposed that they should be allowed to hold elections in their own country! Dr. Weizmann forbade this and thus was placed “in the curious position of seeming to oppose democratic rights to the Arabs”;

The uproar in Palestine caused the British government to send out more “investigators” (and again, one wonders why, if there was “no possibility of change” in British policy). The Shaw and Simpson Commissions followed the earlier King-Crane and Haycraft Commissions and, once they saw the facts, produced substantially the same reports. On this account Dr. Weizmann asks plaintively why “as often as a commission went out to Palestine to investigate” it was “an almost universal rule that such administrators as came out favourably inclined turned against us in a few months”.

The fiasco of the “national home” was so clear that even the politicians began to hedge. Mr. Lloyd George in 1925 told the Zionists publicly “any policy of expropriation or anything that suggests it will only make difficulties in the path of Zionism”. Dr. Weizmann at once replied: “Mr. Lloyd George will believe me when I say that the Jews are the last people in the world to build their home on the back of somebody else. The Jews have suffered so much from injustice that they have learned their lesson and I can assure you that the Arabs will not suffer at our hands”. Again “the word” invites comparison with “the deed” that ensued later.

MHR THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN MY HOPE, AND THAT OF ‘KARMA’, THAT ASSUMING THE JEWS REALLY HAD ‘SUFFERED’ THEY MIGHT HAVE LEARNED HUMILITY, AND RESTRAING, AND COMPASSION…BUT THEY DIDN’T REALLY SUFFER APART FROM AT THE HANDS OF THEIR OWN CULT LEADERS, AND THESE CULT LEADERS’ ACTIONS, LEGITIMATELY, WITH JUST CAUSE…NOT INNOCENT VICTIMS…EXCEPT AS DUPES…BUT WHAT ‘NICE’ PERSON ADOPTS THE CULT OF TALMUDISM AT ALL? … SURELY NICE PEOPLE SHY AWAY FROM THE MOSES OF THE BIBLE, THE IDEOLOGY OF SEMITISM / CULT JUDAISM? AS AN INSTINCT…LIKE MYSELF…IF I SUFFER FOR SOMEONE ELSE’S BELIEFS, I’D WANT TO WORK OUT WHY, WHAT THEY WERE, THEN REJECT THEM, AND RENOUNCE THEM PUBLICLYY, DISTANCE MYSELF…FIND A BETTER WAY TO LIVE AND BE AND DEFINE….

the alarm, and hostility, of that “World Jewry” which he and his associates from Russia claimed to represent. The emancipated Jews could have offered effective opposition to the Zionists if they had formed an anti-Zionist organization. They feared to do so, and this was their undoing. They did not want Zionist nationalism and a Jewish state, but they did want the Judaist Mecca, the cultural and religious centrE…As masses of Jews were openly opposed to Dr. Weizmann’s Zionism, even he could not pretend that he spoke for them. Thus he transferred his canvassing from the antechambers of the Gentiles to the Jews and for eight years sped about the world in search of a solution to this problem, The great mass of emancipated Jews of the West resolutely opposed any project that might turn out to be one for the recreation of “a Jewish nation”.

His whole undertaking in Palestine was then near collapse. The “Mandate” provided that the British government would recognize his Zionist Organization as “an appropriate Jewish agency for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the administration of Palestine” in matters affecting “the establishment of the Jewish National Home”. However, there was a qualification: this agency was “to take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty’s government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish National Home”.

As masses of Jews were openly opposed to Dr. Weizmann’s Zionism, even he could not pretend that he spoke for them. Thus he transferred his canvassing from the antechambers of the Gentiles to the Jews and for eight years sped about the world in search of a solution to this problem, The great mass of emancipated Jews of the West resolutely opposed any project that might turn out to be one for the recreation of “a Jewish nation”.

Then Dr. Weizmann found the riddle’s answer. He coined the term “non-Zionist”. The Jews in Britain remained aloof but those in America fell into the trap. “Non-Zionist” seemed to offer the best of both worlds; it would enable them to oppose Zionist nationalism while supporting the Judaist-Mecca idea. In 1928 a group of Jews announced that they represented “the non-Zionists” and would work with Dr. Weizmann for “the upbuilding of Palestine”. On this basis Dr. Weizmann in 1929 set up his “Enlarged Jewish Agency”, thereafter claiming that, by including “non-Zionists”, it fulfilled all provisions of “the Mandate” and that he once more represented “all Jews”. The dilemma from which Dr. Weizmann was rescued is shown by his words: he says he regarded the Zionist situation as “hopeless and helpless unless the non-Zionists came to the rescue”,

The Arabs at once saw that this “enlarged” Jewish agency would be the true government of Palestine and intensified their resistance. The result was that at last a British government felt forced to admit the fiasco and in 1930 the Passfield White Paper undertook to suspend Zionist immigration and to curtail the authority of the

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 212 —

Jewish Agency. The “set” policy was “changed”! Dr. Weizmann, his authority reinforced by the recruitment of the “non-Zionists”, struck at once. He gave audience to the British prime minister, then Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, [306] who behaved like a man held up by a gun; he not only revoked the White Paper but humbly asked Dr. Weizmann whom he should appoint as the next High Commissioner in Palestine.

MHR SO IN THIS WAY THE NON CULT JEWS / FREE JEWS WERE TRICKED INTO BECOMING THE BASIS FOR WHAT THEY NEVER WANTED… AGAIN YOU HAVE TO ASK, JUST HOW MUCH RESPONSIBILITY DOES THE NON-CULT JEW, THE ‘FREE’ JEW, WHO WE DON’T WANT TO PAINT WITH THE SAME BROAD BRUSH THE TALMUDIC CULT JEW DESERVES, ACTUALLY HAVE? PASSIVE FAILURE TO ACT MAKES YOU CULPABLE. SURELY OF ALL THE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD WITH ‘INSIDER’ KNOWLEGED TO ‘BLOW THE WHISTLE’ ON THE TALMUDIC CULT, THE ‘FREE’ JEWS MUST BE FIRST IN LINE…IF THEY AVOID ‘KNOWING’, THEY ARE CULPABLE…BUT WHY EXPECT ‘JEWS’ TO BE BETTER THAN THE GENERAL POPULATION? SINCE WHEN DID ANYONE ‘STAND UP FOR’ THEIR WORKPLACE ABUSED COLLEAGUES, FOR FEAR OF REPERCUSSIONS TO THEIR OWN CAREER, LOSS OF THEIR OWN JOB? PROSPECTS? SUCCESS?

What these politicians feared, none can confidently say; their memoirs are uniformly silent on this central mystery and their capitulations are unique in history. Mr. Macdonald’s surrender re-established the principle that “policy” in this matter was “set” and immutable, and during the ensuing twenty years this became the paramount principle of all British and American state policy. The politicians of both countries evidently held Dr. Weizmann to be the emissary of a power which they dared not disobey; their demeanour resembled the African Native’s rolling-eyed fear of the witchdoctor.

CONSTANTLY BEGS THE QUESTION…WHAT ‘GUN’ DID THEY REALLY HAVE TO POINT AT THE HEADS OF THE WORLD LEADERS? SO THAT THEY DO THEIR EVIL DEEDS FOR THEIR MASTERS, THEN GO OFF TO DIE, LIKE WITHERED HUSKS OF MEN? LIKE MEN ONCE POSSESSED OF DEMONS, HAVING HAD ALL THE ‘LIFE’ SUCKED OUT OF THEM ??? DAVID ICKE MAY BE ON THE RIGHT TRACK? OR IS IT JUST MUNDANE TROONATNOOR STUFF…JUST THE BASIC HUMAN WEAKNESSES, GULLIBILITY, VANITY, STUPIDITY, ETC ??? SO OF COURSE WE NEED TO WORK FROM THIS BASIC ASSUMPTION FIRST, WHILE KEEPING OUR EYES AND EARS ALERT FOR ANYTHING MORE ‘UNUSUAL’ AT WORK HERE…

in Palestine the “national home”, an artificial growth forcibly implanted in a hostile soil, continued to wither. In ten years the Jewish population increased by less than a hundred thousand immigrants. In 1927 three thousand more emigrants departed than immigrants came. A small revival followed in 1928, but the average yearly exodus from Palestine, up to 1932, was almost a third of the immigration.

The Zionist adventure was in collapse, as all qualified parties had foretold. Left alone, the Jews of the world clearly would never in any substantial numbers go to Palestine; if events took their natural course the Arab population evidently would increase its preponderance.

Nothing was to take its natural course. At that very moment the mysterious Hitler arose in Germany (and at the same instant Mr. Roosevelt in America) and the Second World War loomed up ahead.

MHR WITHOUT HITLER JEWISH POPULATION NUMBERS IN PALESTINE WOULD HAVE CONTINUED TO PLUMMET…IT IS NOW SO CLEAR IN HINDSIGHT HOW HITLER DID THE TALMUDIC CULT’S WORK, KNOWINGLY OR UNWITTINGLY…I BELEIVE THE LATTER, BUT AM OPEN TO THE FORMER…IN ANY CASE WE CAN NOW UNDERSTAND WHY THE JEWISH BANKERS FINANCED HIS ‘SUCCESS’ … AND THEN INVESTED SO HEAVILY IN THE PROPAGANDA OF ‘THE HOLOCAUST’…AND MADE SO MUCH EFFORT SINCE TO SQUASH ANY HISTORICAL INVESTIGATION / FAIR REPORTING OF THIS FRAUD… BUT WOULD ‘JEWS’ FLEE PALESTINE TODAY IF THE TRUTH CAME OUT OF HOW THEY HAD BEEN LURED THERE? IS ‘ISRAEL’ A ‘SUCCESS’ FOR THE JEWS LIVING THERE?

the legend of “Jewish persecution in Russia” was filled by “the Jewish persecution in Germany” and, just when Zionism was “helpless and hopeless”, the Zionists were able with a new cry to affright the Jews AND GARNER INTERNATIONAL SYMPATHY FOR THE POOR JEWISH VICTIMS OF THE BIG BAD GOYS

revolutionaryZionism and revolutionary-Communism proved to be the sole beneficiaries OF BOTH WARS…ENDING WITH JEW.S.S.R INVASIONS AND OCCUPATIONS FROM GERMANY TO JAPAN…AS THE WEST DID NOTHING TO COUNTER A MUCH GREATER AGRESSION THAN HITLER EVER DEMONSTRATED…DESPITE THE WESTS GREATEST GENERALS WANTING TO JUSTIFY THEY WAR BY ACTUALLY STAYING TRUE TO THE SUPPOSED REASONS FOR IT I.E TO PROTECT THE WEAK, DEFEND DEMOCRACY ETC…WHICH BY NOW WAS CLEAR TO THEM HAD NEVER BEEN THE TRUE MOTIVES FOR EITHER WWI OR WWII…

My own experience during those years ultimately produced this book. When they began, in 1933, I had climbed from my clerkship to be a correspondent of The Times in Berlin and was happy in that calling. When they ended, in 1939, I was fully disenchanted with it and had felt compelled to throw up my livelihood. The tale of the years between will show the reason.

Mr. Winston Churchill in his memoirs rightly called the Second War “the unnecessary war”. MHR HOW MORE OBVIOUS A CONFESSION DO YOU NEED FROM THE GOLEM LIVING IN LUXURY, SAFE FROM HARM, HAVING PROFESSIONAL ACTORS GIVE HIS ORATIONS ON RADIO AS HE SLEPT OFF DRINKING AND DRUG BINGES FROM EARLIER IN THE DAY?

MHR IN HINDSIGHT MUST CONSIDER THAT EVEN HITLER HIMSELF SURPRISED BY HIS OWN VICTORIES…IN FACT THEY WERE PROBABLY ‘ARRANGED’ BY THE TALMUDIC CULT…TO JUSTIFY U.S FIGHTING ON THE SIDE OF THE TALMUDIC CULT, SO SOON AFTER IT MASSACRED TENS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, LONG BEFORE THE HAIR OF THE HEAD OF A SINGLE JEW HAD BEEN HARMED, DIRECTLY BY VIOLENCE, OR INDIRECTLY BY DEATHS IN THE LABOR CAMPS …

THE ‘APPEASEMENT’ POLICY AS AN ‘ENCOURAGEMENT’ POLICY? TO LURE GERMANY INTO WAR? BUT SURELY VERSAILLES GUARANTEED WAR? AND EVEN THE INVASION OF POLAND COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED…QUESTION IS WHETHER HITLER REALLY WAS JUST USING ALL THIS AS AN EXCUSE TO INVADE RUSSIA, EXTEND THE ‘LEBENSRAUM’…AND WHAT WOULD HAVE DONE IF HAD ‘WON’ THE WAR ??? IF EVERYONE EXPECTED HIM TO WAGE WORLD WAR, WHY DIDN’T THEY ‘NIP HIM IN THE BUD’ BEFORE HE GAINED ALL THE RESOURCES OF CHECHOSLOVAKIA, POLAND, ETC? IF NOT TO LURE HIM INTO OVER EXTENDING HIMSELF… BRING THE U.S INTO THE WAR ON THE SIDE OF THE TRUE ENEMY OF LIBERTY…THE TALMUDIC CULT…WHICH THEY COULD HAVE PREVENTED DURING WWI…RE: LENINS SEALED TRAIN FROM ZURICH, AFTER LIVING AMONG ALLIES…RETURN TO BRING RUSSIA OUT OF THE WAR? HOW ABSURD? THE KAISER’S MOTIVE MIGHT MAKE SOME SENSE…BUT THE REST?…

THE AUTHOR, D. REED, WAS REPORTING THE FACTS ABOUT HITLER’S LIKELY PLANS, BASED ON FACTUAL DATA FROM LEADING DIPLOMATIC / POLITICAL FIGURES…AND ‘ON THE GROUND’ INTUITIONS…HE ARGUED THAT APPEASEMENT WOULDN’T WORK…HIS ARGUMENTS / REPORTS NEVER READ BY PUBLIC…CENSORED…LEFT HIS JOB FOR THIS REASON… A GOOD MAN…COULDN’T BEAR TO NOT DO THE RIGHT THING…REPORT THE FACTS…NOT A CAREERIST…

The years which followed, 1933-1939, were those of the brewing of the Second World War. “Prussian militarism”, supposed to have been laid low in 1918, rose up more formidable than ever and the spectacle so absorbed men’s minds that they lost interest in the affair in Palestine, which seemed unrelated to the great events in Europe. In fact it was to loom large among those “causes and objects” of the second war which President Wilson had called “obscure” in the first one. The gap left by the collapse, in 1917, of the legend of “Jewish persecution in Russia” was filled by “the Jewish persecution in Germany” and, just when Zionism was “helpless and hopeless”, the Zionists were able with a new cry to affright the Jews and beleaguer the Western politicians. The consequences showed in the outcome of the ensuing war, when revolutionaryZionism and revolutionary-Communism proved to be the sole beneficiaries.

My own experience during those years ultimately produced this book. When they began, in 1933, I had climbed from my clerkship to be a correspondent of The Times in Berlin and was happy in that calling. When they ended, in 1939, I was fully disenchanted with it and had felt compelled to throw up my livelihood. The tale of the years between will show the reason.

From 1927 on I reported the rise of Hitler, and by chance was passing the Reichstag when it burst into flames in 1933. This event (used to set up the secret-police-and-concentration-camp system in Germany, on the Bolshevist model) cemented Hitler in power, but some prescience, that night, told me that it meant much more than that. In fact the present unfinished ordeal of the West dates from that night, not from the later war. Its true meaning was that the area of occupation of the world-revolution spread to the middle of Europe, and the actual transfer to Communist ownership in 1945 merely confirmed an accomplished fact (theretofore disguised from the masses by the bogus antagonism between National Socialism and Communism) which the war, at its outset, was supposed to undo. The only genuine question which the future has yet to answer is whether the world-revolution will be driven back or spread further westward from the position which, in effect, it occupied on the night of February 27, 1933.

From 1927 on I reported the rise of Hitler, and by chance was passing the Reichstag when it burst into flames in 1933. This event (used to set up the secret-police-and-concentration-camp system in Germany, on the Bolshevist model) cemented Hitler in power, but some prescience, that night, told me that it meant much more than that. In fact the present unfinished ordeal of the West dates from that night, not from the later war. Its true meaning was that the area of occupation of the world-revolution spread to the middle of Europe, and the actual transfer to Communist ownership in 1945 merely confirmed an accomplished fact (theretofore disguised from the masses by the bogus antagonism between National Socialism and Communism) which the war, at its outset, was supposed to undo. The only genuine question which the future has yet to answer is whether the world-revolution will be driven back or spread further westward from the position which, in effect, it occupied on the night of February 27, 1933.

From the start of Hitler’s regime (on that night) all professional observers in Berlin, diplomats and journalists, knew that it meant a new war unless this were prevented. Prevention at that time was relatively simple; Mr. Winston Churchill in his memoirs rightly called the Second War “the unnecessary war”. It could have been prevented by firm Western opposition to Hitler’s preliminary warlike forays (into the Rhineland, Austria and Czechoslovakia) at any time up to 1938 when (as Mr. Churchill also confirms) the German generals, about to overthrow Hitler, were themselves undone by the Western capitulation to him at Munich.

The trained observers in Berlin were agreed that he would make war if allowed [308] and so advised their governmental or editorial superiors in London. The Chief Correspondent of The Times in Berlin, Mr. Norman Ebbutt (I was the second correspondent) reported early in 1933 that war must be expected in about five years unless it were forethwarted, and this particular report was printed. He, I and many other reporters during the following years grew alarmed and perplexed by the suppression, “burking” and ignoring of despatches, and by the depictment of Hitler, in Parliament and the newspapers, as an inherently good man who would remain peaceable if his just grievances were met (at others’ expense).

This period has become known as that of “the policy of appeasement” but encouragement is the truer word, and the policy changed the probability of war into certainty. The strain brought Mr. Ebbutt to physical collapse. From 1935 on I was Chief Correspondent in Vienna, which was then but another vantage-point for surveying the German scene. From there, late in 1937, I informed The Times that both Hitler and Goering had said that the war would begin “by the autumn of 1939”; I had this information from the Austrian Chancellor.

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 214 —

I was in Vienna during Hitler’s invasion and then, after brief arrest by Storm Troops on the way out, transferred to Budapest, where I was when the supreme capitulation of Munich followed in September 1938. Realizing then that a faithful reporter could do nothing against “the policy of appeasement”, and that his task was meaningless, I resigned by expostulant letter, and still have the editor’s discursive acknowledgement.

Fourteen years later The Times publicly confessed error, in respect of its “policy of appeasement”, in that curiously candid Official History of 1952. This contains a grudging reference to me: “There were resignations from junior members of the staff” (I was forty-three in 1938, was Chief Correspondent for Central Europe and the Balkans, had worked for The Times for seventeen years, and I believe I was the only correspondent to resign). In this volume The Times also undertook never so to err again: “it is not rash to say that aggression will never again be met at Printing House Square in terms of mere ‘Munich’.” The editorial articles and reports of The Times about such later events as the bisection of Europe in 1945, the Communization of China, the Zionization of Palestine and the Korean war seem to me to show that its policies did not change at all.

When I resigned in 1938 I had a second reason, not present in 1933, for perplexity about the way the press is conducted. In that matter, too, I could only assume that some infatuation worked to distort the truthful picture of events. The outcome of the ensuing war, however, showed that a powerful motive had lain behind this particular misrepresentation.

In the case of “the Jewish persecution” in Germany I found that impartial presentation of the facts gradually gave way to so partisan a depictment that the truth was lost. This transformation was effected in three subtle stages. First the persecution of “political opponents and Jews” was reported; then this was imperceptibly amended to “Jews and political opponents”; and at the end the press in general spoke only of “the persecution of Jews”. By this means a false image was projected on to the public mind and the plight of the overwhelming majority of the victims, by this fixing of the spotlight on one group, was lost to sight. The result showed in 1945, when, on the one hand, the persecution of Jews was made the subject of a formal indictment at Nuremberg, and on the other hand half of Europe and all the people in it were abandoned to the selfsame persecution, in which the Jews had shared in their small proportion to populations everywhere.

MHR HOW OBVIOUS THAT ONLY ‘JEWISH’ SUFFFERING MATTERS IN THIS WORLD…TO THE TALMUDIC CULT THAT CONTROLS THIS WORLD… IF THE WAR HAD BEEN ABOUT ‘WARS OF AGRESSION’ AND ‘LABOR CAMPS’ AND ‘OPPRESSION’, THEN HOW TO EXPLAIN THE ABSOLUTE LACK OF RESPONSE TO THE EXACT SAME, GREATLY AMPLIFIED / MASSIVELY ON STEROIDS, BY THE JEW.S.S.R ? EXCEPT THAT IT WAS ‘JEWS’ WHO WERE DOING THE CRIMES … AND THUS NO CRIME WAS TO BE DEFINED … AS PER THE TALMUD …

At that period I, typical of Englishmen of my generation, had never thought of Jews as different from myself, nor could I have said what might make a Jew, in his opinion, different from me. If I later became aware of any differentiation, or of the desire of a powerful group to assert one, this was not the result of Hitler’s deeds but of the new impediment to impartial reporting which I then began to observe. When the general persecution began I reported it as I saw it. If I learned of a concentration camp containing a thousand captives I reported this; if I learned that the thousand included thirty or fifty Jews I reported that. I saw the first terror, spoke with many of the victims, examined their injuries, and was warned that I incurred Gestapo hostility thereby. The victims were in the great majority, certainly much over ninety percent, Germans, and a few were Jews. This reflected the population-ratio, in Germany and later in the countries overrun by Hitler. But the manner of reporting in the world’s press in time blocked-out the great suffering mass, leaving only the case of the Jews.

I illustrate this by episodes and passages from my own experience and reporting. Rabbi Stephen Wise, writing in 1949, gave the following version of events personally reported by me in 1933, and undoubtedly purveyed the same version in the presidential circle of which he was a familiar during those years: “The measures against the Jews continued to outstrip in systematic cruelty and planned destruction the terror against other groups. On January 29, 1933 Hitler was summoned to be chancellor . . . at once the reign of terror began with beatings and imprisonment of Jews. . . We planned a protest march in New York on May 10, the day of the ordered burning of Jewish books in Germany . . . the brunt of the attack was borne by Jews. . . concentration camps were established [310] and filled with Jews”.

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 215 —

All these statements are false. The measures against the Jews did not outstrip the terror against other groups; the Jews were involved in a much larger number of others. The reign of terror did not begin on January 29, 1933, but in the night of the Reichstag fire, February 27. No “burning of Jewish books” was ordered; I attended and reported that bonfire and have looked up my report published in The Times, to verify my recollection. A mass of “Marxist” books was burned, including the works of many German, English and other non-Jewish writers (my books, had they then been published, would undoubtedly have been among them); the bonfire included some Jewish books. the “brunt” of the terror was not borne by Jews, nor were the concentration camps “filled with Jews”. The number of Jewish victims was in proportion to their ratio of the population.

Nevertheless this false picture, by iteration, came to dominate the public mind during the Second War. At the time of my resignation, which was provoked solely by the “policy of appeasement” and the imminent advent of “the unnecessary war”, this other hindrance to faithful reporting was but a secondary, minor annoyance. Later I discerned that the motive behind it was of major importance in shaping the course and outcome of the Second War”. When I came to study the story of Mr. Robert Wilton I perceived that there was also a strong resemblance between my experience and his. He sought to explain the nature of an event in Russia and thus was inevitably led into “the Jewish question”. Twenty years later I observed that it was in fact impossible to draw public attention to the misreporting of the nature of the persecution of Germany and to explain that the Jews formed only a small fraction of the victims.

That matter had nothing to do with my resignation, but I was becoming aware of it around that time, and this widening perception is reflected in the two books which I published after renouncing journalism. The first, Insanity Fair, was devoted entirely to the menace of war. I thought, somewhat vaingloriously, that one voice might still avert it, and today’s reader may still verify that motive. To account for this excess of zeal in me, the indulgent reader, if he be old enough, might recall the feeling of horror which the thought of another world war caused in those who had known the first one. This feeling can never be fully comprehended by those of later generations, who have become familiar with the thought of a series of wars, but it was overpowering at the time.

The second book, Disgrace Abounding, on the eve of war continued the warning theme, but in it, for the first time, I gave some attention to “the Jewish question”. My experience was widening and I had begun to discern the major part it would play in forming the shape and issue of the Second War which then was clearly at hand. My thought from then on was much given to it; in this way I came in time to write the present book and in that light the remaining chapters on the brewing, course and aftermath of the Second War, are written.

Amid jubilant scenes in Washington and Berlin on two successive days (March 4 and 5, 1933) the two twelve-year reigns began which were to end at almost the same instant in 1945.

the two men who appeared on the central scene were both hailed as Messiahs. In America a Rabbi Rosenblum described President Roosevelt as “a Godlike messenger, the darling of destiny, the Messiah of America’s tomorrow”; there spoke a political flatterer in words intended to “persuade the multitude”. In 1937, in Prague menaced by Hitler, a Jewish acquaintance told me his rabbi was preaching in the synagogue that Hitler was “the Jewish Messiah” (a pious elder who sought to interpret events in terms of Levitical prophecy). All through these years the masses in both countries (and for that matter in Russia too) had their particular “premier-dictator” depicted to them in such terms, or in those of “Big Brother”, “Papa”, “Uncle”, “Beloved Leader” or the fireside-loving “Friend”. The apparent antagonists, Mr. Roosevelt and Herr Hitler, both in different ways promoted “the destructive principle” in its three recognizable forms: revolutionary-Communism, revolutionary-Zionism and the ensuing “world government to enforce peace”.

Mr. Roosevelt created precedent by having his cabinet sworn in the hand of a distinguished Jew, Mr. Justice Cardozo, who was a committed Zionist, having yielded in 1918 to Mr. Brandeis and Rabbi Stephen Wise, with the despondent-sounding words, “Do what you please with my name”; he then received his Supreme Court judgeships, Rabbi Wise requesting them for him, first from Governor Al Smith of New York State and then from President Herbert Hoover. Thus the shadow of “dual allegiance” fell on Mr. Roosevelt’s administration at its start (as on Mr. Wilson’s, from the figure of Mr. Brandeis).

MHR THE ‘JEWDICIARY’ THERE FROM THE START…

Mr. Roosevelt, after the Republican interregnum of 1921-1933, resumed the Wilson policies and in that spirit approached the major problem of America’s future at that moment: namely, whether the forces represented by the great Jewish immigration from Eastern Europe, which had occurred in the six decades following the Civil War, should or should not govern America. All competent authorities had observed, usually with foreboding, the rapid rise of this new problem in American life, and had depicted the effects of the transplantation to American soil of a large population-mass which, under its religious directors, [312] rejected the concept of “the melting-pot” and of “assimilation”.

MHR SO THE TALMUDIC RULE OF THE JEW.S.A BEGAN AS EARLY AS THE END OF THE CIVIL WAR, WHICH HAD KILLED A MILLION ‘AMERICANS’, THEN REPLACED THEM WITH SEVERAL MILLION ‘TALMUDIC CULT MEMBERS’ FROM EASTERN EUROPE…AT A RATE OF MILLIONS A YEAR…I.E SUDDENLY…LIKE AN INVASION…

This problem was only new to America; it was the oldest problem in recorded history and, as this narrative has shown, had recurred in country after country, down the ages, whenever Jewish immigration reached flood levels. Dr. Weizmann is a witness to it, for he discusses it in relating his beleaguerment of a British official, Sir William Evans Gordon, who grappled with it in England twenty years before it excited the alarm of United States Congresses. In 1906 Sir William sought to solve it through an Aliens Bill (as the 67th and 68th United States Congresses by quota laws). Dr. Weizmann says that in performing his duty Sir William (like Senator Pat McCarran and Representative Francis E. Walter in America in the 1950’s) came to be “generally regarded as responsible for all the difficulties placed in the way of Jewish immigrants into England”. Dr. Weizmann then continues:

“Whenever the quantity of Jews in any country reaches the saturation point, that country reacts against them. . . England had reached the point where she could or would absorb so many Jews and no more. . . The reaction against this cannot be looked upon as anti-semitism in the ordinary or vulgar sense of that word; it is a universal social and economic concomitant of Jewish immigration and we cannot shake it off. Sir William had no particular anti-Jewish prejudice. He acted . . . in the most kindly way, in the interests of his country. . . In his opinion it was physically impossible for England to make good the wrongs which Russia had inflicted on its Jewish population . . . .I am fairly sure he would equally have opposed mass influx of any foreign element; but, as it happened, no other [313] foreign element pressed for admission in such numbers”. (Forty years later Dr. Weizmann spoke similarly to Jews in America: “Certain countries can digest a certain number of Jews; once that number has been passed, something drastic must happen; the Jews must go”).

all the premier-dictators of the West made it State policy to remedy alleged wrongs, done by a third party, at the expense of an innocent fourth party. The absurdity is shown by Dr. Weizmann’s own last-quoted remark, that when the number of digestible Jews is exceeded in any country “something drastic must happen; the Jews must go”. He and his associates for half a century had been using all their power in America to gain unrestricted access for Jews.

Between 1881 and 1920 over three million legally-recorded immigrants entered the United States from Russia, most of them Jews. According to the United States Census Bureau the country contained 230,000 Jews in 1877 and about 4,500,000 in 1926. Only “estimates” are at any time obtainable in matters of Jewish population, as the “elders” oppose head-counting by others, and these figures are generally held to have been largely under-estimated. In the ensuing decade the figures eluded all verification, chiefly owing to changes in immigrant-classification ordered by President Roosevelt, and even the competent authorities will not attempt to estimate the extent of unrecorded and illegal immigration (competent observers judge that the total number of Jews in the United States now may be around ten million). In any case, the greatest single community of Jews in the world today is in the American Republic, having been transplanted thither during the last two generations.

MHR LIKE ALL CULT OCCUPIED NATIONS, THE STATISTICIANS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ‘IDENTIFY’ ‘JEWS’ E.G TO AVOID THE FACTS OF MASSIVE OVERREPRESENTATION IN THE KEY POSITIONS OF PUBLIC INFLUENCE / POWER …

a relatively small group; politically organized to tip the balance of power it is of decisive importance. MHR THE POINT IS THAT THE GROUP IS COHESIVE, ACTS AS ONE…SO CAN BE USED TO ‘TIP THE BALANCE OF POWER’ IN ANY DIRECTION…WHICH IS ALL THAT IS NEEDED TO ‘SWING’ AN ELECTION…THE GOYS WILL BE RELATIVELY 50-50, AND THE ‘JEWS’ CAN DETERMINE THE OUTCOME OF EVERY ELECTION…ENOUGH TO DETERMINE POLICY…AFTER LOBBYING EFFORTS AND CONTROL OF PUBLIC OPINION / MEDIA / INFORMATION ETC ADDED TO THE ‘SCALES’…

This problem was recognized and the Congressional Committee on Immigration in 1921 declared:

“The processes of assimilation and amalgamation are slow and difficult. With the population of the broken parts of Europe headed this way in ever-increasing [314] numbers, why not peremptorily check the stream with this temporary measure, and in the meantime try the unique and novel experiment of enforcing all the immigration laws on our statutes?”

MHR OF COURSE THE PUBLIC SYMPATHY WAS APPEALED TO WITH PROPAGANDA…PRETENDING JEWS ‘INNOCENT VICTIMS OF PERSECUTION REQUIRING THE CHRISTIAN CHARITY TO OFFER REFUGE…RATHER THAN AN INVADING HORDE BENT ON ENSLAVING THE LOCALS…

A quota law then passed limited the number of any nationality entering the United States to three percent of the foreign-born of that nationality resident in the United States in 1910. The next Congress went much further than the general statement above quoted; it was specific about the danger, the same Committee reporting:

“If the principle of individual liberty, guarded by a constitutional government, created on this continent nearly a century and half ago is to endure, the basic strain of our population must be maintained and our economic standards preserved. . . The American people do not concede the right of any foreign group . . . to dictate the character of our legislation”.

The years which then followed showed that the effect of Mr. Roosevelt’s presidency would be further to break down the principle stated, to alter “the basic strain”, and to enable “a foreign group” to dictate State policy.

Mr. Roosevelt (like Mr. Wilson, Mr. Lloyd George and General Smuts) evidently was selected before he was elected. Mr. Howden says that Mr. House “picked Roosevelt as a natural candidate for the presidency long before any other responsible politician”, chose him as Assistant Secretary of the Navy in 1913, and then through the years groomed him for the presidency, expecting to govern through him, as through President Wilson. Then something went wrong. Mr. House was confident that President Roosevelt would call on him but then realized that “certain people don’t want the president to listen to me”. These people were evidently too strong, for Mr. House was dropped without any courtesy and at this point (1933) disappears from the story.

MHR PRE-SELECTED CANDIDATES…HERE CLEAR PROOF OF ROOSEVELDT HAVING BEEN ‘GROOMED’ BY THE CULT TO DO ITS BIDDING, AS ITS PUPPET…LIKE ALL PRESIDENTS SINCE AT LEAST WILSON…

Mr. House had caused President Wilson, as his first major act, to write into the American Constitution (as the Sixteenth Amendment) the chief destructive measure proposed in Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto of 1848, the “progressive income tax”.

SO WILSON PUT ‘DAS KAPITAL’ IN PRACTISE, AS A GOOD TALMUCID MARXIST CULT PUPPET, AND ALSO FOUGHT AGAINST GERMANY, THE CULT’S ENEMY AT THAT TIME, AND GOT U.S INTO DEBT … AND BYPASSED THE CONSTITUTION TO CONTINUE THE PRECEDENT SET BY THE SPANISH AMERICAN WAR ETC…

He supported the worldrevolution; his first major act of State policy was to recognize the Communist Government and in the [315] ensuing war he resumed the House-Wilson policy of “all support”. He supported revolutionaryZionism. Finally, he took up the old “league to enforce peace” idea and re-foisted it on the West under a new name, that of the “United Nations”.

Mr. Bernard Baruch was adviser to Mr. Roosevelt even before he became president. Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt records that “Mr. Baruch was a trusted adviser to my husband both in Albany and in Washington”, that is, during Mr. Roosevelt’s four-year term as Governor of New York State, before his presidential nomination. During this pre-presidential period Mr. Roosevelt (according to one of Mr. Baruch’s biographers, Mr. Morris V. Rosenbloom), although America had repudiated the League of Nations, drafted the plan for a new body to be called the United Nations. Rabbi Stephen Wise and Mr. Brandeis, of the earlier group around President Wilson, regrouped themselves around President Roosevelt

Rabbi Stephen Wise, who had campaigned for Mr. Roosevelt as senator in 1914 and as governor of New York State in 1928, did not support him for the presidency in 1932. Then something happened to reassure the rabbi, for immediately after Mr. Roosevelt’s election he proclaimed that the new president had “rewon my unstinted admiration”, and by 1935 was again an intimate of the White House.

In 1913 President Wilson’s Jewish advisers were publicly accepted as Americans like any other Americans, and simply of the Jewish faith. In 1933 the question of their allegiance had been raised by the Zionist adventure in Palestine. In addition, the issues of the world-revolution and of world-government had arisen since 1913, and both of these also threw up the question of American national interest, so that the feelings entertained about them in the president’s immediate circle became a matter of first importance.

All this lent a specific significance to the earlier Congressional pronouncement (1924), denying the right of “any foreign group” to “dictate the character of our legislation”. Among the president’s “advisers” many were of foreign birth or in effect became “foreign” by their devotion to Zionism or their attitude towards the world-revolution and world-government. In this sense a “foreign group”, embodying the massimmigration of the preceding hundred years, formed itself around the American president and “steered” the course of events. The twelve years which followed showed that any “advice” acted on by the president must have been to the benefit of the destructive principle in its three interrelated forms: Communism, Zionism, world-government.

Prominent among his advisers (in addition to the three powerful men above named) was the Vienneseborn Professor Felix Frankfurter. Mr. House’s biographer Mr. Howden, who expresses Mr. House’s opinion, thinks he was the most powerful of all: “Professor Frankfurter duplicated with Mr. Roosevelt, more than anyone else. . . the part played by Mr. House with President Wilson”. The part played by unofficial advisers is always difficult to determine and this opinion may place Professor Frankfurter too high in the hierarchy. However, he was undoubtedly important (he, too, first came into the advisory circle under Mr. Wilson).

Like Mr. Brandeis and Mr. Cardozo, he became a Supreme Court Justice and never openly appeared in American politics; yet the effects of his influence are plainer to trace than those of other men, which have to be deeply delved for. He was head of the Harvard Law School during the 1930’s and in that capacity trained an entire generation of young men who were to give a definite shape to the events of the 1940’s and 1950’s. They received marked preference for high employment in their later careers.

AS I SAY, A ‘JEW-DICIARY’ HAS EMERGED…PART OF THE JEW WORLD ORDER…

Apart from this distinct group of young men apparently trained during President Roosevelt’s early years in office to take over the State Department, the president was accompanied by a group of Jewish advisers at the highest level. Mr. Henry Morgenthau junior (a leading Zionist, whose “Morgenthau Plan” of 1944 was the original basis for the bisection of Europe in 1945) was his Secretary of the Treasury for eleven of the twelve years. Other intimate associates were Senator Herbert Lehman (another leading Zionist who took great part in promoting the “second exodus” from Europe in 1945-1946, which led to the war in Palestine), Judge Samuel Rosenmann (a resident inmate of the White House, who helped write Mr. Roosevelt’s speeches), Mr. David Niles (of Russian-born parentage, and for many years “adviser on Jewish affairs” to Mr. Roosevelt and his successor), Mr. Benjamin Cohen (a drafter of the Balfour Declaration in 1917 and another important Zionist), and three Jews from Russia, Messrs. Sidney Hillman, Isador Lubin and Leo Pasvolsky.

These leading names, from the personal entourage of the president, represent only the pinnacle of an edifice that was set around all American political life. This sudden growth of Jewish influence, behind the scenes of power, obviously was not a spontaneous natural phenomenon. The selection was discriminatory; anti-Zionist, anti-revolutionary and anti-world-government Jews were excluded from it. The formation of this “palace guard” was unpopular, but unofficial advisers are difficult to attack on specific grounds and Mr. Roosevelt ignored all protests, and so escorted began his thrice-renewed presidency.

MHR SO WE SEE THE CLEAR NATURE OF ‘JEWISH’ POWER IS REALLY ‘EASTERN-EUROPEAN’ I.E ‘ASHKEDNAZI’ POWER, AS THE NEW ‘CHOSEN PEOPLE’ CHOSEN / ADOPTED BY THE TALMUDIC CULT, TO REPLACE THE CULT MEMBERS ‘FREED’ FROM THEIR TALMUDIC CULT OPPRESSORS BY ‘ASSIMILIATION’ AND ‘REJECTION’ OF THE CULT…JUST AS IN THE BEGINNING…THE TALMUDIC CULT SEEKS OUT FOLLOWERS, FILTERS THEM OUT SO ONLY THE MOST ‘OBEDIENT’ REMAIN, THEN RECRUITS TO FILL UP THE RANKS, REPEATS THE PROCESS…ALL THE WHILE A LOOSE ‘COMMUNITY’ OF ‘JEWS’ GROWS, AS THE EXTERNAL PERIPHERY OF ‘JEWS’… WHO END UP IN THE CAMPS, WILL END UP IN THE REAL HOLOCAUST FLAMES IN PALESTINE … BUT WHO THEMSELVES APPEAR TOTALLY OBLIVIOUS TO THE USE THEIR ‘JUDAISM’ IS BEING PUT…I.E AS PUBLIC RELATIONS FOR THE TALMUDIC CULT THEY ESCAPED…THE CORE OF THE CULT OF JUDAISM, WHICH LIKE ANY CULT, TREATS ITS MEMBERS AS DISPOSABLE, USEFUL IDIOTS…

Mr. Roosevelt’s long continuance in office was chiefly due to Mr. House’s master-plan for winning elections. Under this strategy of the intensive appeal to the “fluctuating” vote “discrimination” became the chief slogan. It was raised on behalf of the Negroes, who were used as a stalking-horse*; and in fact was used to crush objection to the excessive influence of the “foreign group” represented by “the palace guard”. Coupled with it was the appeal to the poor in the form of promises to soak the rich. This strategy proved so effective that the Republicans beat a retreat and began to compete with the Democrats for the favour of “the foreign group”, who were held to be the arbiters of elections. In this way the secret grip on power was made secure, and the American elector was in fact deprived of true choice between parties. Mr. Roosevelt fortified himself by his policy of “deficit-spending”, the basic theory of which was that the amount of public debt was unimportant, as the State only owed it to itself. At that point the American people lost and have never since regained control of the public purse, and the occupant of the White House became able by a stroke of the pen to command expenditures which in earlier times would have covered the annual budgets of half-a-dozen thrifty States. Mr. Roosevelt gained these powers by invoking the need to beat “The Crisis”, and he produced The Permanent Emergency in which his country still lives. the hidden mechanism was so efficient, and the hold of his mentors on it so secure, that he was maintained in office through three re-elections.

MHR WOW, SO ROOSEVELT AFTER WILSON DESTROYED AMERICAN SOUVEREIGNTY, ESSENTIALLY WHILE PRETENDING TO BE FIGHTING FOR ‘DEMOCRACY’ AND ‘LIBERTY’, HAVING TOTALLY DISMISSED THE U.S CONSTITUUTION…

Mr. Huey Long, a young demagogue with a fleshy face and curly hair from a poor hillbilly home, grew popular (like Mr. Wilson and Mr. Roosevelt) by attacking “the interests” (in his particular countryside, the oil interests in general and Standard Oil in particular). The idol of the poor whites, he was elected governor in 1928 and at once tried to raise money for building schoolhouses by putting a tax on oil, whereon at the opening of the Louisiana Legislature one Rabbi Walter Peiser refused to invoke a blessing, calling him “an unworthy governor”.

Mr. Long grew more popular and was elected to the United States Senate where (March 1935) he devoted “a large part” of a speech to “an attack on Mr. Bernard Baruch”, in whom he apparently saw the supreme representative of the “interests” (about the only charge never made against Mr. Long, who had many Jewish associates, was that he was “anti-semitic”). Mr. Long was becoming a force in the land on September 8, 1935 Mr. Long, WHO HAD BECOME A REAL CONTENDER AND WOULD HAVE STOLEN VOTES FROM ROOSEVELT, EVEN IF LONG HIMSELF COULDN’T HAVE WON THE ELECTION FOR PRESIDENT, was shot in the Louisiana State Capitol by a young Jew, Dr. Carl Austin Weiss. The motive will never be known because Dr. Weiss, who might have explained it, was shot by Mr. Long’s tardy bodyguard.* Mr. Long had foretold his assassination in July, saying in the Senate that enemies bad planned his death with “one man, one gun, and one bullet” as the medium. He said that a dictograph, concealed in a New Orleans hotel room where his “enemies” had met, recorded this conversation. A contemporary writer who claims to have been present at the meeting, Mr. Hodding Carter, says, “The ‘plotting’ was limited to such hopefully expressed comments as, ‘I wish somebody would kill the . . . .’

The agitation about the lot of the American Negro, of which so much is heard in the outer world, is kept going, from New York, almost entirely by the two chief Jewish publicity organizations (the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League, both of which dispose of large funds) and the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People, which from its inception has been largely Jewish-directed. The Negro himself plays a passive part in it. His wish is for better opportunities of advancement alongside the white population; he does not desire to interbreed. The energy of the Jewish organizations which claim to intercede in his cause is entirely directed towards a compulsory intermingling which neither race desires. Thus the influence of these non-Negro groups was the chief one behind the litigation leading to the Supreme Court ruling of 1955, which held the existing separate-school system to be illegal and ordered its abolition and compulsory mixed-schooling (this judgment can hardly be enforced in the South without civil war and it has been followed by various violent episodes, including the use of the National Guard and of tanks to enforce mixedschooling). I was able to see the American Jewish Committee’s budget for 1953, the estimates for which were $1,753,000. This stated, in respect of the Negroes, “The status of Jews is more secure in most of the civil and political rights areas than that of some other groups, especially Negroes. But so long as a successful threat is made to the enjoyment of rights by Negroes, the rights of Jews are riskfully in balance. Accordingly, a large proportion of our work has been directed towards securing greater equalization of opportunities for such other groups, rather than for ourselves . . . An example of this is our relationship with the N.A.A.C.P., which comes to us for assistance in certain matters where we have a special competence. . . A fruitful weapon is court action. . . We participate directly in litigation . . . We have filed briefs attacking segregation. . . and have prepared briefs challenging discrimination against Negroes”. The Supreme Court is composed of political appointees, not of professional jurists; this is an important factor in what might develop into a grave situation.

Mr. Roosevelt said (October 5, 1937), “Let no one imagine that America will escape. . . that this Western hemisphere will not be attacked . . . When an epidemic of physical disease starts to spread, the community approves and joins in a quarantine of patients in order to protect the health of the community against the spread of the disaster”.

The president’s speech-writers on this occasion were not cryptic enough. The allusion to “joining in a quarantine” was instantly understood by the public masses also as a threat of war. This caused such consternation that Mr. Roosevelt was obliged up to the very moment, four years later, when America was actually involved in war to promise “again and again and again” that “your sons will not be sent into any foreign war”. (In October 1937 he certainly knew that war was coming in the autumn of 1939; at that very moment I had informed The Times from Vienna that Hitler and Goering had said so, and the American president would not have been less accurately informed).

By 1937 the falsification of the news-picture from Germany, which was described in the last chapter, had been going on for four years. I gave several instances, and here adduce another. Rabbi Stephen Wise relates that the American Jewish Congress immediately after Hitler’s advent to power started the boycottGermany movements on the basis of “cable reports” from Germany that “a nationwide pogrom” of Jews was

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 222 —

being “planned”.* He then mentions, casually, that the “reported” pogrom “did not come off”, but the boycott did. **

Starting with this imaginary pogrom in Berlin, the propagandist campaign in America formed the basis on which Mr. Roosevelt rested his “quarantine” speech. The Zionists around the president were not truly concerned about the suffering of Jews at all; on the contrary, it was necessary to their politics in America and to the entire undertaking, and they feared its alleviation. In this they continued the policy of the Talmudic revolutionaries in Czarist Russia, who went to the length of assassination to prevent the emancipation of Jews, as has been shown.

* The Nazis always claimed that their one-day Jewish boycott of April 1, 1933 was in reply to this provocation from New York, and Rabbi Wise’s book of 1949 thus bears out their statement.

** The word “pogrom” (a Russian one meaning “‘massacre”) plays an especial part in this propaganda. It is applied to any kind of disturbance in which Jews are involved and has by suggestion been given this specific, though false significance, so that the casual reader might suspect a misprint if he were to read of “a pogrom of Russians” (or of Arabs). Dr. Weizmann says “‘there were never any pogroms” in his native Russian countryside but uses the word continually, explaining that “‘it is not necessary to live among pogroms to know that the Gentile world is poisoned”. In inciting a British military governor of Palestine to harsh measures against Arabs Dr. Weizmann said he “had had some experience with the atmosphere which precedes pogroms”, though by his own earlier statement he had none. He describes as a pogrom disorders in which five or six Jews were injured, and as “‘Arab terrorism” the events of 1938, in which 69 British, 92 Jews and 1500 Arabs were killed. A distinguished British officer, Sir Adrian Carton de Wiart V.C., who lived in Poland between the two wars, says ‘The Jewish question seemed unanswerable . . . Pogroms were rumoured to be taking place, but I considered the rumours to have been grossly exaggerated for there were no ocular proofs of the massacre of thousands of Jews”.

[321]

Thus Rabbi Wise records that he and his fellow Zionists were not deterred by urgent protests and appeals from the Jews in Germany to stop the boycott. The prospect of an accommodation between Hitler and the Jews of Germany, indeed, appalled them and Rabbi Wise informed his associates of his “two fears” in this respect:

“. . . that our Jewish brothers in Germany might feel moved or compelled to accept a peace agreement or pact that might mean some slight amelioration or mitigation of their wrongs. . . that the Nazi regime might decide to prevent some of the evil consequences of its regime by such palliative treatment of the Jews as would disarm worldwide Jewish protest”. (He describes the second possibility as the “graver” danger).

Thus they feared that “the persecution” would collapse; the words are specific. Rabbi Wise, in New York, preferred that Jews in Germany should suffer rather than this should happen: “To die at the hands of Nazism is cruel; to survive by its grace were ten thousand times worse. We will survive Nazism unless we commit the inexpiable sin of bartering or trafficking with it in order to save some Jewish victims” (1934, to the world Jewish Conference). “We reject out of hand with scorn and contempt any and every proposal which would ensure the security of some Jews through the shame of all Jews” (1936). Mr. Brandeis, in Washington, was equally resolute for martyrdom in Germany: “Any arrangement which results in making a market abroad for German goods strengthens Hitler…. …To thus relieve Hitler’s economic distress in order to save by emigration some of Germany’s Jews would be …. deplorable statesmanship”.*

MHR LITERALLY MY COMPELLING ARGUMENTS PROVEN BY ACTUAL QUOTES FROM THE TALMUDIC CULT LEADERS OWN MOUTHS…’THE HOLOCAUST’ WAS DESIRED, PROVOKED, NEVER HAPPENED, BUT THAT DIDN’T STOP THE ILLUSION OF ONE HAVING HAPPENED BECOMING THE OFFICIAL HISTORY…

In fact, these Zionists were quite ready to “‘traffic with the Nazis” and make financial deals with them when it suited their purpose. Seven years later, when the Second War was at its climax, Rabbi Stephen Wise received an offer from “‘a group of Nazi functionaries” to allow Jews to go from Poland to Hungary, against payment. Both these countries were German-occupied, so that the advantage to the Jews involved is not apparent, and Mr. Wise must have had some ulterior reason (possibly connected with the later “‘exodus” to Palestine) for wishing to transfer Jews from occupied Poland to occupied Hungary in wartime when he had so fiercely opposed their liberation from Germany in peacetime’. He requested President Roosevelt to release dollars for the bribe, to be deposited to these Nazis’ account in Switzerland, whereon the president “‘immediately” answered, “‘Why don’t you go ahead and do it, Stephen!” Instructions were then given to another prominent Zionist, Mr. Henry Morgenthau at the Treasury, and despite State Department and British Foreign Office protests the money was transferred to the Geneva office of the World Jewish Congress for crediting to the Nazi leaders!

MHR THE REASON WAS TO SET UP THE COMING JEW.S.S.R OCCUPATION OF HUNGARY…THESE JEWS FORMED THE CORE OF THAT OCCUPATION …

as in the case of Mr. Huey Long, Count Stolypin, Czar Alexander II and others; whenever a chance of pacification appeared fate intervened. A young Jew shot a German diplomat, Herr von Rath, in Paris. Riots followed in Germany, synagogues were burned, and Mr. Pirow’s mission abruptly ended. No investigation into the murder, or any organization that might have been behind it, was held, or if one was begun it never produced any informative result; Rabbi Wise presents the familiar picture (found also in Mr. House’s novel) of the “half-crazed youth”, maddened beyond endurance.

MHR THIS IS THE USUAL ‘OFFICIAL’ VERDICT WHEN NO REAL INVESTIGATION IS MADE…BUT ANY TIME AN INVESTIGATION WAS MADE, IT REVEALED A VERY SOPHISTICATED, CO-ORDINATED PLOT BEHIND THE ‘LONE GUNMAN’ … BUT THEY ALWAYS GET AWAY WITH THIS ‘FICTION’…SO VON RATH WAS MURDERED TO PREVENT A RECONCILIATION BETWEEN THE JEWS AND HITLER, IN GERMANY…WHICH WAS ABOUT TO BE REACHED…

BURNING SYNAGOGUES OFFENDS PEOPLE, BUT WHEN JEWS DYNAMITE THOUSANDS OF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES IN RUSSIA, NO-ONE CARES ?

Mr. Roosevelt had “seen” the dynamiting of Christian churches and cathedrals in Communized Russia, and on becoming president had rushed to recognize the government that did it.

The United States in effect became involved in the Second War when President Roosevelt made these declarations in 1937 and 1938, not on the day of Pearl Harbour, and a straight line led from them to his later statement of July 17, 1942, when he implicitly promised vengeance on Germany solely on account of its treatment of Jews; the men who prompted him to that public threat had from the start vehemently opposed any mitigation of Jewish suffering in Germany.

The murder of von Rath in Paris was the shot of Serajevo which in effect opened the second war, as the developing fluid, time, now reveals. Unlike Mr. Wilson, Mr. Roosevelt never privately believed that he would keep his country [323] neutral; in 1938 his mentor, Mr. Bernard Baruch, declared “We are going to lick that fellow Hitler; he isn’t going to get away with it” (General George C. Marshall). Unless some change occurs, and none is foreseeable yet, the American president in any third war would find himself held in the same coils as his predecessors of 1914-1918 and 1939-1945.

on the eve of another war, a Mr. Winston Churchill recommitted his country to “the Mandate” BUT The British in Palestine, for the first time in their nation’ s history, were required to repress the people they had come to “protect” and to protect others who were in fact invaders from Russia.

Mr. Malcolm Macdonald, Under-Secretary for the Colonies announced that his government would suspend Zionist immigration, regulate Zionist land purchases, and punish incitements to disorder “in whatever quarter they may originate “. Dr. Weizmann violently attacked the undertaking to punish incitements to disorder from whatever quarter; disorder, violence and massacre, he said, originated only with the native Arabs.

by the later 1930’s Zionism in Palestine was disintegrating again. But for the Second War it would have faded into oblivion

In 1936 Arab rioting became even more violent. By then successive British governments for fourteen years, at Zionist behest, had refused to allow the Arabs to hold elections.

Peel Commission received from some quarter a proposal that the eternal dilemma might be solved by partitioning Palestine…Dr. Weizmann knew that if a British government could once be brought to support “partition” it would at last be committed to a separate Jewish state.

By invoking the Old Testament he firmly nailed down the idea of partition without committing himself to any boundaries. He said that he might

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 227 —

be able to make some concession about the actual area to be taken for his Zionists, as Jehovah had not indicated precise frontiers in his revelations to the Levites. This accepted [328] the offer of territory while leaving the entire question of boundaries open so that even “partition”, obviously, was to be no solution. The words with which Dr. Weizmann supported partition are of interest in the light of later events: “The Arabs are afraid that we shall absorb the whole of Palestine. Say what we will about the preservation of their rights, they are dominated by fear and will not listen to reason. A Jewish state with definite boundaries internationally guaranteed would be something final; the transgressing of these boundaries would be an act of war which the Jews would not commit, not merely because of its moral implications, but because it would arouse the whole world against them”.

MHR SO IN LIGHT OF THIS WOULD IT BE INAPPROPRIATE TO CALL WEIZMAN AND THE ZIONISTS FUCKING LYING FUCKS? FOR THISIS EXACLTY WHAT THEY HAVE DONE…AS IF THEY WERE EVER BOUND BY ‘MORALITY’…THEY LAUNCHED SEVERAL AGRESSIVE ‘ACTS OF WAR’…AND SEEK NOT ONLY THE ENTIRITY OF PALESTINE, BUT MUCH MORE…

Dr. Weizmann continued to beleaguer the Western politicians with the argument that “the Jewish National Home would play a very considerable role in that part of the world as the one reliable ally of the democracies”. By this he meant that the Zionist demand for arms for the forcible seizure of Palestine, which was about to be made, would be presented in that way, through the politicians and the press, to the public masses of the West. In 1938 he then proposed to Mr. Ormsby-Gore, British Secretary for the Colonies, that the Zionists should be allowed to form a force of something like 40,000 men. This presupposed that the unnecessary war would come about (an anticipation in which the leading men behind the scenes apparently were all agreed), and Dr. Weizmann did all he could to ensure this, using the case of the Jews as his sole argument. After the murder of von Rath and the anti-Jewish disorders in Germany he told Mr. Anthony Eden:

“If a government is allowed to destroy a whole community which has committed no crime . . . it means the beginning of anarchy and the destruction of the basis of civilization. The powers which stand looking on without taking any measures to prevent the crime will one day be visited by severe punishment”.

MHR AS TODAY NETANYAHU AND TRUMP ETC GO ON ABOUT HOW ISRAEL IS THE U.S’S BEST ALLY IN THE REGION…AS IF… AND THE VIOLENCE PREDICTED HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO OCCUR…WHEN IS THE PUNISHMENT COMING?

The Zionists, as events have shown, were intent on destroying “a whole community which had committed no crime” (the Arabs of Palestine, who knew nothing of Hitler) and the arms they demanded were used for that purpose. Significantly, Dr. Weizmann put his argument in terms of the Christian creed; under that teaching the destruction of a community innocent of crime is itself a crime which will bring “severe punishment”. Under the Levitical Law, however, which Dr. Weizmann invoked as the basis of his demand for Palestine, it is the chief “statute and commandment”, to be rewarded by power and treasure, not punished.

Thomas Jefferson said, “I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens who, reading newspapers, live and die in the belief that they have known something of what has been passing in the world of their times”.

Mr. Chamberlain did an extraordinary thing, by the standards prevailing. He called a Palestine conference in London at which the Arabs (for the first time since the Peace Conference of 1919) were represented. From this conference emerged the White Paper of March 1939 in which the British government undertook “the establishment within ten years of an independent Palestine state” and “the termination of the Mandate”. In this state the native Arabs and immigrant Zionists were to share the government in such a way as to ensure that [330] the essential interests of each community were safeguarded. Jewish immigration was to be limited to 75,000 annually for five years and the irrevocable land-purchases were to be restricted.

MHR CONSISTENT WITH HIS SENSE OF JUSTICE I.E HAVING ALLOWED GERMANY TO REUNIFY MILLIONS OF GERMANS LIVING ON WHAT WAS UNTIL VERSAILLE GERMAN SOIL, WITH THEIR FATHERLAND … WHICH THE JEW WORLD ORDER MEDIA INSIST ON DEFINING AS A BAD THING TO THIS DAY ???

At that moment the figure of Mr. Winston Churchill advanced to the forefront of British affairs. He had for ten years been in political eclipse and the future student may be interested to know what contemporaries have already forgotten: that during this period he was a highly unpopular man, not because of any specific acts or quality, but because he was consistently given that “bad press” which is the strongest weapon in the hands of those who control political advancement. This organized hostility was made particularly plain during the abdication crisis of 1937, when his pleas for time received much more bitter attack than they inherently deserved and he was howled down in the House of Commons. His biographers depict him as suffering from depression during these years and thinking himself “finished” politically. His feeling in that respect may be reflected in his published words (privately written) to Mr. Bernard Baruch early in 1939: “War is coming very soon. We will be in it and you will be in it. You will be running the show over there, but I will be on the sidelines over here”.

Very soon after he wrote this Mr. Churchill’s political fortunes took a sudden turn for the better and (as in the case of Mr. Lloyd George in 1916) his attitude towards Zionism appears to have had much to do with this, to judge from what has been published. His record in this matter suggests that Mr. Churchill, the product of Blenheim and Brooklyn, is something of “a riddle inside a mystery wrapped in an enigma”, to use the words employed by him about the Communist state in 1939. In 1906, as has been shown, he was among the earliest of the politicians who supported Zionism on the hustings, so that a Zionist speaker said any Jew who voted against him was a traitor. However, in office during the First War he took little part in that affair and Dr. Weizmann only mentions him once at that period, and then not as a “friend”. Then, as Colonial Secretary in 1922, he gave offence to Zion by his White Paper, which Dr. Weizmann calls “a serious whittling down of the Balfour Declaration”. It proposed for Palestine “a Legislative Council with a majority of elected members”, and this would have meant, not only holding those elections which Dr. Weizmann to the end forbade, but allowing the native Arabs of Palestine to govern their own country!

Thus Mr. Churchill’s ten years in the political wilderness, 1929-1939, were also ones during which he was in disfavour with the Zionists and Dr. Weizmann’s narrative never mentions him until the eve of the Second War, when he is suddenly “discovered” (as the playwrights used to say) in it as a most ardent champion of Zionism. This is the more curious because, as late as October 20, 1938, Mr. Churchill was still talking like the author of the White Paper of 1922: “We should . . . give to the Arabs a solemn assurance. . . that the annual quota of Jewish immigration should not exceed a certain figure for a period of at least [331] ten years”. Very soon after that he re-emerges in Dr. Weizmann’s account as a man implicitly and privately agreed to support a Zionist immigration of millions.

Quite suddenly Dr. Weizmann says that in 1939 he “met Mr. Winston Churchill” (ignored in his story for seventeen years) “and he told me he would take part in the debate, speaking of course against the Proposed White Paper”. The reader is left to guess why Mr. Churchill should have undertaken “of course” to speak against a document which, in its emphasis on the need to do justice to the Arabs, was in accord with his own White Paper of 1922 and with his speeches for seventeen years after it.

Then, on the day of this debate, Dr. Weizmann was invited to lunch with Mr. Churchill “who read his speech out to us” and asked if Dr. Weizmann had any changes to suggest. The reader will recall that editors of The Times and Manchester Guardian wrote editorial articles about Zionism after consultation with the

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 229 —

chieftain of one interested party; now Mr. Churchill approached a debate on a major issue of state policy in the same manner. He was renowned for the quality of his speeches, and became so in America on account of the strange fact (as it was considered there) that he wrote them himself. However, in the circumstances above described by Dr. Weizmann, the point of actual penmanship appears of minor importance.

MHR SO CHURCHILL SOLD OUT FOR POWER…BUT WHO HAD BEEN FINANCING HIS LAVISH LIFESTYLE ALL THIS TIME?

Mr. Churchill’s “championship” (Dr. Weizmann) was vain; the great debate ended in victory for Mr. Chamberlain and his White Paper by a majority of 268 to 179. It was substantial, but many politicians already smelt the wind and their sail-trimming instinct is reflected in the unusually large number of abstentions: 110. This gave the first warning to Mr. Chamberlain of the method, of dereliction within his own party, by which he was to be overthrown. The debate showed another interesting thing, namely, that the Opposition party by this time held Zionism to be a supreme tenet of its policy, and, indeed, the ultimate test by which a man could prove whether he was a “Socialist” or not!

The Second War broke out very soon after the issuance of the White Paper and the debate. At once all thought of “establishing an independent Palestine” and “terminating the Mandate” was suspended, for the duration of the war (and at its end a very different picture was to be unveiled). At its start Mr. Roosevelt in America was “publicly and privately committed” to support Zionism (Mr. Harry [332] Hopkins). In England Mr. Chamberlain was an impediment, but he was on his way out. Mr. Churchill was on his way in. The people wanted him, because he was “the man who had been right” about Hitler and the war; they knew nothing of his talks with Dr. Weizmann and the effects these might produce.

MHR WHY WAS HITLER’S INVASION OF POLAND A SURPRISE TO ANYONE? DIDN’T THEY REALISE THAT MILLIONS OF GERMANS WERE LIVING IN WHAT WAS GERMAN TERRITORY UNTIL VERSAILLES, AND THERE HAD NEVER BEEN ANY JUST REASONS FOR HANDING OVER THIS TERRITORY TO POLAND, WHICH HAD NO RIGHT TO INSIST ON KEEPING IT, AND EVEN SEEKING TO ISOLATE EAST PRUSSIA AND GDANSK, BY NO ALLOWING A ‘CORRIDOR’… WHAT WAS THE SURPRISE? THAT HITLER WAS A PATRIOT? SERVING HIS PEOPLE? HE GAVE POLAND EVERY CHANCE AT PEACE, BUT POLAND HAD BEEN TRICKED INTO STUBBORNLY HOLDING ONTO ITS ILL GOTTEN ‘GAINS’… AND WHAT OF RUSSIA STEALING THE OTHER HALF OF POLAND? BASED ON WHAT CLAIMS?

Hitler wanted to re-segregate the Jews; Mr. Brandeis in America similarly, and imperially, decreed that “No Jew must live in Germany”. Mr. Churchill desired that “three or four million Jews” should be transplanted to Palestine; the Communist state, by profession anti-Zionist, supplied the first contingent of these.

When the smoke of battle cleared only three purposes had been achieved, none of them disclosed at its start: the world-revolution, with Western arms and support, had advanced to the middle of Europe; Zionism had been armed to establish itself in Palestine by force; the “world-government”, obviously the result which these two convergent forces were intended to produce, had been set up anew in embryo form, this time in New York. The war behind the war was the true one; it was fought to divert the arms, manpower and treasure of the West to these purposes. Through the dissolving fog of war the shape of the great “design” first revealed by Weishaupt’s paper, and exposed again in the Protocols, showed clear.

MHR THIS WAS MY OWN REALISATION AFTER GAINING SOME OVERVIEW OF THE HOLISTIC SITUATION…

When the war began the intention to abandon the unworkable “Mandate” and withdraw from Palestine, after ensuring the equitable representation of all parties there, was official British policy, approved by Parliament. The Zionists saw that no British government, in any foreseeable future, could be brought to perform the actual deed of assassination: that is to say, to expel the Arabs from their own Palestine by arms. They set about to obtain arms for themselves under cover of the war.

The war was hardly begun when Dr. Weizmann appeared in Mr. Churchill’s office. Unknown to the general public, this remarkable man for thirty-three years [334] (from the day of his interview with Mr. Balfour) had exercised mastery over the politicians of England and America. His person cannot have inspired such awe, so that they must have seen in him the representative of a force which cowed them; the one which Dr. Kastein called “the Jewish international” and Mr. Neville Chamberlain “international Jewry”.

Mr. Churchill, returned to office after ten years as First Lord of the Admiralty, presumably should have been absorbed by the war at sea, but Dr. Weizmann was concerned with other things. He said, “after the war we would want to build up a state of three or four million Jews in Palestine” and states that Mr. Churchill replied, “Yes, indeed, I quite agree with that”. Mr. Churchill, twelve months earlier, had called for “solemn assurances” to the Arabs that Zionist immigration would be regulated and restricted.

Mr. Churchill then had no responsibility for Palestine. Dr. Weizmann evidently expected that Mr. Churchill would soon be Prime Minister. He then went to America and expounded his plan to President Roosevelt, finding him “interested” but cautious (his third election campaign impended), and returned to England, where Mr. Churchill had supplanted Mr. Chamberlain in the highest office.

Thus the situation of 1916 was recreated, with a small difference. Mr. Lloyd George was required to divert British armies to Palestine, for the initial conquest of the coveted land, and did so. Mr. Churchill was asked to divert arms to the Zionists there so that they could establish themselves, and sought to comply. Indeed, he had been giving orders in that sense for five months when he next saw Dr. Weizmann, and records them in appendices to his war memoirs.

He became prime minister on May 10, 1940 as France collapsed and the British island stood alone, defended only by the remnant of its air forces and its navy; the army had been destroyed in France. On May 23 he instructed his Colonial Secretary, Lord Lloyd, that the British troops in Palestine should be withdrawn and “the Jews armed in their own defence and properly organized as speedily as possible”. he said, British troops would be released for service elsewhere “and there would be no danger of the Jews attacking the Arabs”.

At that moment arms were more precious than diamonds in England. The armies rescued from France were without weapons and disorganized; Mr. Churchill records that the whole island contained barely 500 field guns and 200 tanks of any age or kind; months later he was still urgently appealing to President Roosevelt for 250,000 rifles for “trained and uniformed men” who had none. In those days I scoured the countryside to obtain, at last, a forty-year old pistol which would fire only single shots. Mr. Churchill’s rousing words about fighting forever on the beaches and in the streets and never giving up did not thrill me, because I knew that, if an invasion once gained foothold, they were empty; men cannot fight tanks with bare hands. The unarmed state of the land was dire. I should have been bewildered had I known that Mr. Churchill, at such a time, gave his mind so persistently to the arming of Zionists in Palestine.

The danger of invasion was receding when Dr. Weizmann next saw Mr. Churchill, in August 1940. He then proposed that the Zionists should form an army of 50,000 men, and in September presented Mr. Churchill with “a five-point programme”, the main point of which was “the recruitment of the greatest possible number of Jews in Palestine for the fighting services”. He says that Mr. Churchill “consented to this programme”.

Lord Lloyd (like Sir William Robertson, Mr. Edwin Montagu and many others in the First War) fought hard to avert all this. He was pursued by the untimely fate which dogged many of the men who tried to do their duty in this matter: he died in 1941, aged only 62. However, responsible officials and soldiers never ceased to try and restrain the “top-line politicians” from this new diversion. Dr. Weizmann complains that, despite Mr. Churchill’s support, “exactly four years were to pass before, in September 1944, the Jewish Brigade was officially formed”, and attributes this delay to the obstinate resistance of “experts” (his word). Mr. Churchill similarly complained: “I wished to arm the Jews at Telaviv . . . Here I encountered every kind of resistance” (July 1940, just before the air attack on Britain began). E.G responsible British administrators INSISTED that, if arms were being handed around, Arabs and Zionists in equal numbers should be armed in Palestine; even Mr. Churchill had found difficulty in resisting this proposal

President Roosevelt [337] discovering that Dr. Weizmann was urgently needed in America to work on the problem of synthetic rubber. The American Ambassador in London, Mr. John G. Winant, scented trouble and “earnestly advised” Dr. Weizmann, when he reached America, to devote himself “as completely as possible to chemistry”. Mr. Winant was alarmed about the consequences of all these machinations, and foreboding eventually broke him; his death, soon afterwards, was of tragic nature. As for his counsel, Dr. Weizmann remarks that “actually, I divided my time almost equally between science and Zionism”, and if that was so “chemistry” came off better than any who knew Dr. Weizmann would have expected.

Before he left he “dropped in” at Ten Downing Street, where by 1942 he had been on dropping-in terms for nearly thirty years, to bid goodbye to Mr. Churchill’s secretary, as he says. Not surprisingly, he saw Mr. Churchill, who said (according to Dr. Weizmann):

“When the war is over, I would like to see Ibn Saud made lord of the Middle East, the boss of the bosses, provided he settles with you . . . of course we shall help you. Keep this confidential, but you might talk it over with Roosevelt when you get to America. There’s nothing he and I cannot do if we set our minds on it”. (Dr. Weizmann, after the interview, made a note of this confidence and gave it to the Zionist political secretary with instructions to disclose it to the Zionist executive if anything befell Dr. Weizmann; also, he published it in his later book).

Mr. Churchill erred if he expected Dr. Weizmann to help set up an Arabian “lord of the Middle East”, for that potentateship is obviously reserved to Zionism. Hence Dr. Weizmann did not even convey Mr. Churchill’s message when he saw President Roosevelt and talked only about his scientific work. In other quarters he pressed for “America to send the maximum number of planes and tanks to that theatre” (Africa, where they would be most accessible to the Zionists in Palestine).

At this stage he began close co-operation with

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 233 —

Mr. Henry Morgenthau, junior, of the president’s inner circle, who was to prove of “peculiar assistance” at the later, decisive moment.

Dr. Weizmann again encountered irritating hindrances: “Our difficulties were not connected with the firstrank statesmen. These had, for by far the greatest part, always understood our aspirations, and their statements in favour of the Jewish National Home really constitute a literature. It was always behind the scenes, and on the lower levels, that we encountered an obstinate, devious and secretive opposition. . . All the information supplied from the Middle East to the authorities in Washington worked against us”.

MHR I.E THE EXPERTS AND PROFESSIONALS WERE ALWAYS AGAINST THE ZIONIST PROJECT…THEY WERE HARDER TO CORRUPT THAN A FEW LEADING POLITICIANS DEPENDENT ON THE ZIONISTS FOR FUNDS AND CAMPAIGN STRATEGIES…

Behind the scenes, under cover of a war in Europe, arms were on their way to the Zionists MHR CREATING A FAIT ACCOMPLI I.E ONCE THEY HAD THE WEAPONS, THE ZIONISTS WOULD SIMPLY FORCE THE ISSUE BY FORCE OF ARMS I.E STEAL THE LAND AS THEIR BIBLICAL ROLE MODELS HAD DONE, BY FORCE…WITHOUT MERCY…

Mr. Roosevelt’s achievement may now be seen to have been threefold and in each respect perilous to his country’ s future: he helped to arm Zionism, he armed the revolution in its Moscow citadel, and he opened the doors of his American citadel to its agents.

Mr. Roosevelt began by breaking down the barriers against uncontrolled immigration which the Congresses immediately before him strove to set up, because they saw in it the danger of the capture of the American administration by “a foreign group”. Under various of his edicts the supervision of immigration was greatly weakened. Immigration officials were forbidden to put questions about Communist associations, and the separate classification of Jewish immigrants was discontinued. This was supported by a continuous press campaign against all demands for enquiry into loyalty or political record as “discrimination against the foreign-born”.

None can say how many people entered the United States during that period. By 1952 Senator Pat McCarran, chairman of the United States Senate Judiciary Committee, estimated that, apart from legal immigration, five million aliens had illegally entered the country, including large numbers of “militant Communists, Sicilian bandits and other criminals”. The chief investigating officer of the Immigration Service declined even to estimate the number of illegal entrants but said that at that time (when some measure of control had been re-established) “over half a million a year” were being intercepted and sent back at the Mexican border alone. The Social Security authorities, who supplied the cards necessary to obtain employment, were forbidden to give any information about applicants to the immigration or police authorities.

This mass of immigrants went to swell the size of the “fluctuating vote” on [340] which Mr. Roosevelt’s party (still following Mr. House’s strategy) concentrated its electoral effort and its cry of “no discrimination”. Under the president’s restrictions on loyalty-interrogations the way into the civil service and armed forces was opened to American-born or legally-domiciled alien Communists. The results to which this led were shown in part by the many exposures of the post-war period, the literature of which would fill an encyclopaedia of many volumes. The entire West was also involved (as the Canadian, British and Australian exposures in time showed) and the significant thing is that, with the Canadian exception, no governmental investigation ever led to these partial revelations, which were always the work of persistent private remonstrants; nor was genuine remedial action ever taken, so that the state of affairs brought about during the 1930’s and 1940’s today continues not much changed, a source of grave weakness to the West in any new war.

a three-pronged movement which aimed at the capture of the three vital points of a state’s defences: state policy at the top level, the civil services at the middle level and “public opinion” or the massmind at the base… the capture of the mass-mind in America, through control of published information… Dr. Weizmann “the technique of propaganda and the approach to the masses”…

“B’nai B’rith” … its declared objects were the help of the poor, sick and fatherless and good works in general. The little offshoot of 1913, the “Anti-Defamation League”, had by 1947 become a secret police of formidable power in America. In Doublespeak “anti-defamation” means “defamation” and this body lived by calumny, using such terms as anti-semite, fascist, rabble-rouser, Jew-baiter, Red-baiter, paranoiac, lunatic, madman, reactionary, diehard, bigot. MHR TODAY ‘POLITICAL CORRECTNESS’ BASICALLY LIKE A CHOKER / MUZZLE ON A DOG, PEOPLE SO TERRIFIED OF BEING ACCUSED OF ‘ANTI-SEMITISM’ THEY WON’T SAY ANYTHING THAT JEWS MIGHT BE ABLE TO PRESENT AS THAT…LIKE PRIVATE WORRIED ABOUT THEIR SHOES SHINING, SALUTING OFFICERS, THE WORLDS LEADERS WORRIED ABOUT NOT BEING SEEN AS SYMPATHETIC ENOUGH TO JEWS…LIKE NERVOUS SMALL DOGS… TERRIFIED OF THAT OBSCENELY FAT ADL GUY…THEY ARE IN THRALL TO SOMETHING…AND IT IS NOT HIM…BUT WHAT THEN?…

MHR THE TALMUDIC CULT DOES HAVE DE FACTO POWER TO ARREST / IMPRISON WITHOUT TRIAL OR LEGAL RIGHTS, OR WARRANT…SIMPLY CLAIMING YOU ARE A ‘TERRORIST’, USING THEIR OWN PROPGANDA MACHINERY, CIA, MOSSAD ETC…ASK ANY ‘ALTERNATIVE MEDIA’ THAT GETS STOPPED AT AIRPORTS AS A ‘TERRORIST THREAT’ I.E SUPPORTER OF PALESTINIAN RIGHTS DEFINED AS ‘HAMAS’ TERRORIST…ETC… PATRIOT ACT WAS WRITTEN BY JEWS TO DEFINE PATRIOTS AS TERRORISTS I.E CONSTITUTIONALISTS, GUN RIGHTS PEOPLE ETC…

When the A.D.L. was born in 1913 it had merely desk-room in the parent B’nai B’rith office and a tiny budget. In 1933 Mr. Bernard J. Brown wrote, “Through the intervention of the A.D.L. we have succeeded in muzzling the non-Jewish press to the extent that newspapers in America abstain from pointing out that any person unfavourably referred to is a Jew”. In 1948 the Jewish Menorah Journal of New York wrote, “Should but one phrase in a reprinted literary classic reflect unjustly upon Jews, the A.D.L. will promptly belabour the innocent publisher until he bowdlerizes the offending passage. Let one innocent movie-producer incorporate a Jewish prototype, however inoffensive, in his picture and the hue and cry raised by the A.D.L. will make him wish he’s never heard of Jews. But when Jews are subtly propagandized into accepting Communist doctrine . . . the A.D.L. remains silent. No word, no warning, no hint of caution, much less exposure and condemnation: although there are men high in the councils of the organization who should know by their own experience how the Communists ‘infiltrate’.” (The Menorah Journal spoke for the many Jews who were alarmed because the A.D.L. was attacking anti-Communism as anti-semitism). MHR LITERALLY THE JEW BOASTING HERE CHOSES THE WORD I JUST USED BEFORE READING THIS PASSAGE ‘MUZZLE’…

These quotations show the growth of the A.D.L.’s power in thirty-five years. It has imposed the law of heresy on the public debate in America. No criticism of Zionism or the world-government plan is allowed to pass without virulent attack; criticism of Communism is only tolerated in the tacit understanding that any war with Communism would lead to the communized world-state; and as to that, “Jerusalem is the capital of the world no less than the capital of Israel” (the Zionist mayor of Jerusalem, 1952).

America has today a few surviving writers who fight on for independent debate and comment. They will discuss any public matter, in the light of traditional American policy and interest, save Zionism, which hardly any of them will touch. I have discussed this with four of the leading ones, who all gave the same answer: it could not be done. The employed ones would lose their posts, if they made the attempt. The independent ones would find no publisher for their books because no reviewer would mention these, save with the epithets enumerated above.

MHR AGAIN, PEOPLE WON’T HEAR THAT CENSORSHIP IS REAL, BECAUSE WHO IS GOING TO PUBLISH THE CLAIM, OR THE AUTHOR WHO MAKES THE CLAIM, EVER AGAIN? SO THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY POSSIBLE? SOMEONE WOULD ‘LET THE CAT OUT OF THE BAG’? REALLY? DO YOU KNOW ANYONE WHO WOULD RISK THEIR JOB / LIVELIHOOD / REPUTATION … AND GIVEN THE ASSUMPITON, THEIR PUBLIC REPUTATION I.E IF YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE SPEAKING OUT ,THEN YOU ARE MAD, CRAZY, ALONE, A BIGOT, ANTI-SEMITE…’THE PROBLEM IS, THERE ARE NO PROBLEMS’ AS I EXPLAIN IN TROONATNOOR VOL I.

The AD.L., of such small beginnings in 1913, in 1948 had a budget of three million dollars (it is only one of several Jewish organizations pursuing Zionist aims in America at a similar rate of expenditure). The Menorah Journal, [342] discussing “Anti-Defamation Hysteria”, said, “Fighting anti-semitism has been built up into a big business, with annual budgets running into millions of dollars”. It said the object was “to continue beating the anti-semitic drum” and “to scare the pants off prospective contributors” in order to raise funds. It mentioned some of the methods used (“outright business blackmail; if you can’t afford to give $10,000 to this cause, you can take your business elsewhere”), and said American Jews were being “stampeded into a state of masshysteria by their self-styled defenders”. *

The Menorah Journal also drew attention to the falsification of news by Jewish newsagencies subsidized by the big organizations. It showed that some minor brawl among juveniles in Manhattan had been depicted in “front-page scare headlines which would have led a stranger to believe that a Czarist pogrom was going on” (by these same means the “Czarist pogroms” earlier, and Rabbi Stephen Wise’s “reported pogrom in Berlin” in 1933 reached the world). Out of this particular “scare headline” grew a mass-meeting in Madison Garden, where another politician aspiring to presidential office (a Mr. Wendell Willkie at that moment) declared, “The mounting wave of anti-semitism at home shocks me. . . etc., etc.”

“Mass-hysteria” is not only produced among Jews and band-wagon politicians by this method; it produces another kind of mass-hysteria among earnest but uninformed people of the “Liberal” kind: the mass-hysteria of self-righteousness, which is a tempting form of self-indulgence. The late Mr. George Orwell was of those who helped spread “mass-hysteria” in this way. He was a good man, because he did not merely incite others to succour the weak and avenge injustice, but went himself to fight when the Civil War broke out in Spain, then discovering that Communism, when he saw it, was worse than the thing which (as he thought) he set out to destroy. He died before he could go to Palestine and experience any similar enlightenment, so that what he wrote about “anti-semitism” was but the echo of “anti-defamationist hysteria”. It is so good an example of this that I quote it; here a man of goodwill offered, as his own wisdom, phrases which others poured into his ear.

He explored “anti-semitism in Britain” (1945) and found ” a perceptibly anti-semitic strain in Chaucer”. Mr. Hilaire Belloc and Mr. G.K.Chesterton were “literary Jew-baiters”. He found passages in Shakespeare, Smollett, Thackeray, Shaw, T.S. Eliot, Aldous Huxley and others “which if written now would be stigmatized as anti-semitism” (he was right without knowing it; if written now they would have been stigmatized). Then he suffered what Americans call a pratfall. He said that “offhand, the only English writers I can think of who,

[343] before the days of Hitler, made a definite effort to stick up for Jews are Dickens and Charles Reade”. Thus he extolled one of the A.D.L.’s “Jew-baiters” as a champion of Jews; in America the film of Oliver Twist was banned because of Fagin! This was the work of the A.D.L.; its representative, a Mr. Arnold Forster, announced:

“American movie-distributors refused to become involved in the distribution and exhibition of the motion picture after the A.D.L. and others expressed the fear that the film was harmful; the Rank Organization withdrew the picture in the United States”. Later the picture was released after censorship by the A.D.L.; “seventy two eliminations” were made at its command and a prologue was added assuring beholders that they might accept it as “a filmization of Dickens without anti-semitic intentions”. (In occupied Berlin the A.D.L. ban was final; the British authorities ordered Dickens withdrawn from German eyes).

MHR YOU’D THINK I WAS JOKING IF I SAID THIS, WITHOUT THE FACTS TO PROVE IT…

I was in America at this time and thus saw the fulfilment of a prediction made in a book of 1943, when I wrote that, as the secret censorship was going, Chaucer, Shakespeare and Dickens would one day be defamed as “anti-semites”. I thought to strain probability, to make a point, but it happened in all three cases: a Shakespearean actor-manager visiting New York was ordered not to play The Merchant of Venice, Dickens was banned, and the defamationists put Chaucer on their black-list.

A private organization which can produce such results is obviously powerful; there is nothing comparable in the world. Mr. Vincent Sheehan wrote in 1949, “There is scarcely a voice in the United States that dares raise itself for the rights, any rights, of the Arabs; any slight criticism of the Zionist high command is immediately labelled as anti-semitic”. Miss Dorothy Thompson, whose picture and articles at that time were published everyday in hundreds of newspapers, similarly protested. Mr. Sheehan’s popularity with bookreviewers immediately slumped; Miss Thompson’s portrait and writings are seldom seen in the American press today. MHR SHE IS THE WRITER IN THE VIDEO I POSTED…

The power of money and the prospect of votes have demonstrably been potent lures, but in my judgment by far the strongest weapon is this power to control published information; to lay stress on what a faction wants and to exclude from it all that the faction dislikes, and so to be able to give any selected person a “good” or a “bad” press. This is in fact control of “the mob”. In today’s [344] language it is “the technique of propaganda and the approach to the masses”, as Dr. Weizmann said, but it is an ancient, Asiatic art and was described, on a famous occasion, by Saint Matthew and Saint Mark: “The chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude. . The chief priests moved the people . .”

In forty years the A.D.L. perfected a machine for persuading the multitude. It is a method of thoughtcontrol of which the subject-mass is unconscious and its ability to destroy any who cry out is great. One of the first to be politically destroyed was the head of the Congressional Committee charged to watch over sedition (the Un-American Activities Committee). The Protocols of 1905 foretold that the nation-states would not be allowed to “contend with sedition” by treating it as crime and this “forecast” also was fulfilled. Mr. Martin Dies relates that he was required by the secret inquisition to restrict the definition of “subversion” to “fascism”, and to equate “fascism” with “anti-semitism”. “Subversion”, had these importuners had their way with him, would have been any kind of resistance to “the destructive principle”, not the subverting of the nation-state. He would not yield, but was driven out of political life by defamation. MHR ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE SUPPOSED ‘IMPOSSIBLE’ CONSPIRACY…SOMEONE WOULD BREAK RANKS, AND BLOW THE WHISTLE, RIGHT? SURE, AND WHEN THEY DO, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO HEAR ABOUT IT? WHO IS GOING TO PUBLISH THE STORY? ACCURATELY? AND SO SEEING THE ZERO NET BENEFIT AND THE HUGE SACRIFICE / COST PEOPLE PAY, WHO IS GOING TO BOTHER…ESPECIALLY AS THEY DO NOT REALLY COMPREHEND THE THREAT WE ARE FACING…AND EVEN THEN, HOW MANY PEOPLE RISK PERSONAL HAPPINESS/ SATISFACTION / PLEASURE AND RISK PAIN, FOR THE LONGER TERM BENEFIT OF OTHERS?

The A.D.L. (and the American Jewish Committee) “set out to make the American people aware of antisemitism”. It informed Jews that “25 out of every 100 Americans are infected with anti-semitism”, and that another 50 might develop the disease. By 1945 it was carrying out “a high-powered educational program, geared to reach every man, woman and child” in America through the press, radio, advertising, children’s comic books and school books, lectures, films, “churches” and trade unions. This programme included “219 broadcasts a day”, full-page advertisements in 397 newspapers, poster advertizing in 130 cities, and “persuasions” subtly incorporated in the printed matter on blotters, matchbox covers, and envelopes. The entire national press (“1900 dailies with a 43,000,000 circulation”) and the provincial, Negro, foreign-language and labour newspapers were kept supplied with, “and used”, its material in the form of “news, background material, cartoons and comic strips”. In addition, the A.D.L. in 1945 distributed “more than 330,000 copies of important books carrying our message to libraries and other institutions”, furnished authors with “material and complete ideas”, and circulated nine million pamphlets “all tailored to fit the audiences to which they are directed”. It found “comic books” to be a particularly effective way of reaching the minds of young people, soldiers, sailors and airmen, and circulated “millions of copies” of propaganda in this form. Its organization consisted of the national headquarters, public relations committees in 150 cities, eleven regional offices, and “2,000 key men in 1,000 cities”.

During the 1940’s the system of “syndicated writers” in New York or Washington enveloped the entire American press. One such writer’s [345] column may appear in a thousand newspapers each day; editors like this system, which saves them the cost of employing their own writers, for its cheapness. Through a few dozen such writers the entire stream of information can be tinctured at its source (the method foretold in the Protocols). By all these means a generation has been reared in America (and this applies equally to England) which has been deprived of authentic information about, and independent comment on, the nature of Zionism, its original connection with Communism, the infestation of administrations and capture of “administrators”, and the relationship of all this to the ultimate world-government project.

The opposition to this creeping control was strong at first and was gradually crushed during two decades (I have given examples in England) by various methods, including the purchase of newspapers, but chiefly by unremitting and organized pressure, persuasive or menacing. In America a newspaper which prints reports or comment unacceptable to the A.D.L. may expect to receive a visit from its representatives. Threats to withdraw advertizing are frequently made. The corps of “syndicated” writers joins in the attack on any

individual writer or broadcaster who becomes troublesome; many American commentators have been driven from the publishers’ lists or “off the air” in this way. An illustrative example:

The Chicago Tribune in 1950 reported the view of a senior official of the State Department that the United States was ruled by “a secret government” consisting of three members of the deceased Mr. Roosevelt’s circle: Mr. Henry Morgenthau junior, Justice Felix Frankfurter and Senator Herbert Lehman. The word “Jew” was not used; the article expressed the opinion of a high public servant on a matter held by him to be of great national importance. This article raised much commotion in the Zionist and Jewish press throughout the world (few non-Jewish newspapers paid attention to it, for the obvious reason). I was in South Africa but guessed what would follow and when I next went to America learned that I was right; the Tribune Tower in Chicago was besieged by the A.D.L. with peremptory demands for an apology. On this particular occasion none was made; the newspaper was at that time a lonely survivor from the days of independent reporting and comment. (A piquant detail; the writer of this “anti-semitic” report had interested himself, not long before, in efforts to obtain the release on parole of a Jew serving a life-term for murder, on the ground that expiation might reasonably be held to have been made).

Even the figures for expenditure, staff and activities, above given, convey no true idea of the power and omnipresence of the A.D.L. I myself would not have believed, until I saw it, that a body of such might could almost invisibly operate in a state still nominally governed by president and Congress. Its numerous offices and sub-offices are clearly only the centres of a great network of agents and sub-agents, for its eye is as all-seeing as that of the N.V.D. in captive Russia or of the Gestapo once in Germany, as I found through personal experience:

[346]

I am a fairly obscure person and when I went to America in 1949 was almost unknown to the public there, the publication of most of my books having been prevented by the methods above described. I found that the A.D.L. watched me like a hawk from my arrival and from this first realized its immense spread and vigilance; I had not suspected that it scrutinized every roof for every sparrow. An American acquaintance who had read some of my books introduced me to a colleague who expressed pleasure at meeting their author. This man asked me to dine with him and a friend, whom he presented as “my cousin”. The cousin was an entertaining fellow; I learned a year later that he was head of the A.D.L.’s New York office and the true organizer of the little dinner-party.* This happened a few days after I landed and thereafter the A.D.L. knew my every movement. They knew about the book I was writing and when it was ready for publication the “cousin” approached the American publisher of an earlier book of mine with a pointed request to know if he contemplated issuing this one; a man of descretion, he answered No.

Three years later, in 1952, when this book had appeared in England, the American Legion’s magazine at Hollywood published some five hundred words from it. The A.D.L. at once demanded a retraction from the Hollywood commander of the Legion, who referred to the magazine’s editor. No inaccuracy was alleged; the deputation just called the book “anti-semitic”. The editor refused to retract unless false statement or other valid reason were proved, and resigned when the commander, ignoring him, published the familiar “apology” in face of threats that “all Jews” would boycott the Hollywood Stadium, which was operated by the Legion. The editor, departing, said this proved the truth of what was stated in the book. The apology availed the commander nothing for the nationwide American Broadcasting Company, which had been televising the Legion’s events at the Stadium, at once announced that it would terminate its contract with the Legion and televise rival events; the commander ruefully said that this “comes as a complete shock to me”.

When I next visited America, in 1951, another acquaintance, who thought my books informative and wished me to write for American newspapers, refused to credit what I told him. He said he was sure a certain publication would welcome [347] an article from me on a subject then topical (not Zionism) and wrote to its editor. He was told, to his astonishment, that the publication of anything of mine, was “verboten”, and when he suggested publication without my name was informed that this would not avail: “there is probably a representative of the A.D.L. on our payroll” (I have the letter).

* By this means material for dossiers and for “smearing” attacks is often obtained. In 1956 the A.D.L. published such a “smear” volume called Cross-Currents, described as “the book that tells how anti-semitism is used today as a political weapon”. It was filled with attacks on “anti-semites” and contained numerous extracts from letters and conversations supposed to have passed between the persons named. The reviewer of the book in the New York Times, though sympathetic (writing for that journal he would not be antagonistic) said “the authors do not let the reader in on the secret of how they came into possession of these intriguing papers. . . this reticence about sources is a major weakness and it is particularly serious where statements are quoted from an oral interview”. Who were these interviewers, he asked, and how did they go about their assignment? I could have told him, and the reader of this book has the answer. If my “oral interview” with the “cousin”, who purported to be a strong “anti-semite”, did not provide material for this volume, the reason is of interest. Late in a convivial evening he asked me suddenly how strong I thought “anti-semitism” to be in the United States. Believing him to be what he professed to be, I answered just as I would have answered, had I known his identity. I said that I had travelled in more than thirty of the forty-eight States and had never once heard the word “Jew” mentioned by any of the thousands of people I had met, which was the fact.

Another acquaintance, head of a large bookselling concern, ordered his office to obtain a book of mine from Canada and was told that the Toronto wholesaler reported inability to supply. I made enquiry and learned that no order had reached Toronto. My acquaintance then investigated and could not find out who, in his own office, had intercepted the order, telling me he now realized that my books were “on the index”.

The reader need only multiply these few examples from the personal experience of one man to see the effect on the total sum of information supplied to the public masses. The peoples of the Western nationstates are deprived of information in the matters most vitally affecting their present and future, by a press which (they are constantly told) is “the freest in the world”.

Another method used by the A.D.L. to keep Jews in “mass hysteria” and non-Jews in a state of delusion is that of the agent provocateur, the bogus “anti-semite” (the “cousin” above mentioned is an example). Part of this method is the distribution of “documents” exposing “the whole world plot” and usually attributed to some unverifiable gathering of rabbis. The serious student of the real Talmudic enterprise, which can be documented from authentic Talmudic sources, at once recognizes these fabrications. An “admirer” once sent me such a “document”, found (he said) in a secret drawer of an old family bureau which could not have been opened for a hundred years. I had the paper examined and then asked my correspondent to tell me how his long dead great grandfather had contrived to obtain paper manufactured in the 1940’s. The correspondence closed.

An example of the employment of the bogus “anti-semite” by the A.D.L. is on record, authenticated by the organization itself. A prolific writer of books attacking “anti-semitism” in America is a man of Armenian origins, one Avedis Boghos Derounian, whose best known alias is John Roy Carlson. Several libel actions were brought against one of his books published during the Second War, in which he attacked over seven hundred persons, and one judge, awarding damages, said “I think this book was written by a wholly irresponsible person who was willing to say anything for money; I would not believe him on oath, nor at any time hereafter; I think that book was published by a publisher who was willing to publish anything for money”. In November 1952 a radio-interviewer confronted this man with a well-known American foreign correspondent, Mr. Ray Brock, who taxed Carlson with having formerly edited “a viciously antisemitic sheet called The Christian Defender”. This could not be denied, as the fact had become known, so Carlson said he had done it “with the approval of the Anti– [348] Defamation League”. The host-interviewer then interrupted to say that the A.D,L., on enquiry by him, confirmed this (the confirmation was unavoidable, the A.D.L. having admitted to the Chicago Tribune in 1947 that it had employed the man between 1939 and 1941 and “found his services satisfactory”).

The fact that this man then was able (1951) to publish another book attacking “anti-semites” and to have it loudly praised in the leading New York newspapers (in face of the judicial comment above quoted) is a sign of the great change which this organization has brought about in American life in the last twenty years. The web of which the A.D.L. formed the centre stretched to other English-speaking countries, so that no independent writer anywhere could escape it. I give instances from my own experiences in that larger setting:

MHR MY SUSPICION ALWAYS OF ‘EXTREMISTS’ LIKE ‘NEO-NAZI’S’ SHOOTING AT MOSQUE…OR RACIST, WHITE SUPREMACISTS…’STRAW MEN’ …

In March 1952 Truth (which was then unsubjugated), reported that the Canadian Jewish Congress had requested a Canadian bookseller to remove from his shelves a book of mine. When I visited Canada that year I made enquiry and found that this pressure was general on Canadian booksellers, many of whom had yielded to it. At that time also a Zionist journal in South Africa stated, “Until such time as racial groups receive protection in law, no bookshop is entitled to say that it will sell books . . . like some of Reed’s books”; I later spent some time in South Africa and found the position there to be identical with the one in Canada. The “racial protection” foretold in the above quotation is the Zionist-drafted “Genocide Convention” of the United Nations, which contains a provision prescribing legal penalties for anything said by some faction to cause “mental harm”; this provision, if enforced during another war, would make the A.D.L. censorship permanent and worldwide. I never went to Australia but think I would have found there the secret interference prevailing in the bookshops of Canada and South Africa. However, about the same time an Australian senator, unknown to me even by name, in attacking an “anti-semitic” organization equally unheard of by me, said it was “in close touch” with me; Australian newspapers published this defamationist message but refused to print the factual correction. During these years I received many complaints from readers that the chief librarian of a large Toronto library had pasted on the flyleaves of books of mine a “warning” to readers about them; protests had no effect.

In all these ways a curtain was lowered between the public masses and factual information about their affairs. The capture of the mass-mind became as complete as that of “the top-line politicians”.

This left one position unconquered at the middle-layer between the captive politicians and the persuaded-multitude. It was the class of which Dr. Weizmann repeatedly complains: the permanent officials, the professionals and experts. From the start the strongest opposition to Zionism’s encroachment came from this group (and from the “outside interference, entirely from Jews” of which Dr. Weizmann also complained). The non-elected official, the career civil servant, the professional soldier, the foreign expert all are almost impossible to suborn. The [349] permanent official does not depend on election and feels himself an integral part of the nation. The professional soldier instinctively feels that the nation and his duty are one, and recoils at the thought that military operations are being perverted for some ulterior, political motive. The expert cannot smother his knowledge at the bidding of party-men any more than an expert craftsman can be tempted to make a watch that goes backward.

In fact, only the complete capture of a state, including the power of dismissal, disqualification from employment and arrest can ever fully overcome the resistance of public servants, professionals and experts to something that clearly conflicts with their duty. The A.D.L., in my judgment, showed that it looked forward to a day when it would overcome this obstacle by an attempt that was made in 1943.

the best moment to attain its aims is in the later stages and aftermath of a great war. At the start the embroiled masses are still intent on the objects professed and after the period of confusion which follows the war they regain some clarity of vision and begin to ask questions about what has been done under cover of the war; if the secret purpose has not then been attained the opportunity has been lost.

MHR HENCE THE PATRIOT ACT DURING THE WAR ON TERROR / IRAQ WAR…BEFORE WOMAD LIE OBVIOUS…BUT EVEN 18 YEARS AFTER 911, STILL MOST PEOPLE DON’T HAVE A CLUE IT WAS THEIR OWN GOVT…

The bid to capture the civil service in America was made in 1943, the fourth year of the Second War, and was partially exposed (by chance) in 1947, when the fog was clearing. The aim was to interpose between the American people and their public services a secret, defamationist black-list which would prevent men of patriotic duty from entering them, and open them wide to approved agents of the conspiracy. The lists then compiled were at one period being so rapidly extended that they would soon have included every person in the United States whose employment in public office was not desired by the secret arbiters. The defamatory dossiers of the A.D.L. were being incorporated in the official files of the American Civil Service. This could have provided the basis for secret police action at a later stage (“political opponents” were rounded up on the strength of such lists by Goering’s new secret police on the night of the Reichstag fire). All unknown to the American people, then and now, a coup of the first order was far advanced in preparation.

Mr. Martin Dies once described the A.D.L., which supplied these lists, as “a terrorist organization, using its resources, not to defend the good name of Jews, but to force and compel compliance with the objectives of their organization by [350] terrorist methods; it is a league of defamation”.* The description was borne out by the disclosures of the Subcommittee to Investigate the Civil Service Commission set up by the Committee on Expenditures of the American House of Representatives, which met on October 3, 6 and 7, 1947 under the chairmanship of Representative Clare E. Hoffman of Michigan.

This investigation also was brought about solely by the efforts of individuals; the whole effort of government was bent on averting it. Some loyal civil servant saw what was secretly being done and informed certain Congressmen that black lists were being inserted in the Civil Service files. Even that might not have led to any action, had not these Congressmen learned that they themselves were among the blacklisted! Under the restraints bequeathed by the long Roosevelt administration investigation, even then, could only be set in motion on grounds that “funds voted by Congress were being misused” (hence the intervention of the Committee on Expenditures).

About a hundred American Senators and Congressmen then learned that they (and some of their wives) were shown as “Nazis” on cards in the Civil Service files. They succeeded in securing copies of these cards, which bore a note saying that the defamationist information on them was “copied from the subversive files” of a private firm of Zionist lawyers. These files, the note continued, “were made up in co-operation with the

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 241 —

American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League; the sources of this information must not be disclosed under any circumstances; however, further information concerning above may be obtained . . .” (from the Zionist attorneys).

The senior officer of that department of the United States Civil Service Commission which was charged with investigating applicants for employment appeared before the sub-committee on subpoena. As the official directly responsible, he said the files were secret ones, the existence of which had only just become known to him (presumably, when he received the subpoena). The only files theretofore known to him were those normally kept by his department; they recorded persons investigated who for various reasons were to be rejected if they sought employment. He had ascertained that the secret files contained “750,000 cards” and had been prepared in the Commission’s New York office (his own headquarters office was in Washington), and that copies of the cards had been sent to and incorporated in the files of every branch office of the Civil Service Commission throughout the United States. He said he had no power to produce the secret files; power to do this lay solely with the three Civil Service Commissioners (the very heads, under the president, of the Civil Service).

These Commissioners (a Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Flemming and Miss Perkins), then subpoenaed, refused to produce the files, stating that the president had forbidden this (the secret files had been introduced under President Roosevelt; this order

* In 1956 President Eisenhower sent the annual convention of the A.D.L. an eulogistic message commending it for “reminding the nation that the ideals of religion must apply in all areas of life”.

[351] not to divulge came from President Truman). Thereon Mr. Hoffmann said, “This is the first time I have ever heard the acknowledgement that we have in this country a Gestapo”.

The Commissioners made no protest. Mr. Hoffmann then asked if persons who had no intention even of applying for a Civil Service post were black-listed. The senior Commissioner, Mr. Mitchell, confirmed that this was the case, thus explicitly admitting that the black list was of unlimited range. Mr. Hoffmann said, “Then it has nothing to do with the immediate case of a person applying for a job?”, and Mr. Mitchell agreed. Mr. Hoffmann continued, “You claim the right to list in your files the names of anyone and everyone in this country? Is that not correct?” and the three Commissioners silently assented.

The investigators discovered that in June and July of 1943 alone (that is, in the confusion-period of a great war) 487,033 cards had been added to the secret files, this work having occupied scores of clerks. A Congressman reminded the Commissioners that in the very year (1943) when these secret cards were incorporated the Civil Service Commission had specifically forbidden its investigators even to ask questions about any applicant’s Communist associations (the policy generally introduced by President Roosevelt). The Commissioners showed great anxiety to avoid discussing the part played by the Anti-Defamation League in this affair and repeatedly evaded questions on that point.

The official report, so astonishing by earlier standards, shows that the A.D.L. was in a position secretly to introduce into official records defamatory dossiers, quickly extensible into secret police files covering the entire country. This was recognizably an attempt to gain control of the American Civil Service and to make loyalty, by the earlier standards, a disqualification. As no assurance of remedial action was obtained, the result of this public investigation may be compared with a surgical examination by doctors who, having opened the patient and found a malignant growth near a vital organ, declare that they have order not to remove it and sew up the incision. Thus the unhealthy condition remained.

The uses which could conceivably be made of such secret, nation wide black-lists were illustrated by some strange episodes of 1951 and 1952, when bodies of troops suddenly swooped on small towns in California, New York State and Texas and “occupied” them in the name of “the United Nations” or of “Military Government”. City halls, police headquarters and telephone exchanges were taken over; mayors, officials and private individuals were arrested; bands of the “enemy” (garbed by some costumier in “Fascist” uniforms) were paraded around; trials were held by military courts and concentration camps were set up; proclamations were made threatening “resisters” and “conspirators” with dire penalties, and so on.

These proceedings look very much like a rehearsal of the kind of thing the [352] world might well see, in the confusion-period of any third war, if “the league to enforce peace” were making its third bid for world-authority. on this occasion, too, indignant private investigators were quite unable to discover what authority ordered these affairs. The official military spokesman, a colonel at the Pentagon, when hard pressed by an inquirer, was only allowed to say that the question was “one of local and

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 242 —

political significance, over which the military exercises no control”! That pointed to the president, government and State Department, but all these authorities remained as silent as the Civil Service Commissioners had been uninformative.

By the end of the Second War this secret invasion, in all its forms, had impaired the inner structure of the American Republic to such an extent that some change in its outer form, as known to the world for 150 years, was likely during the confusion-period of any third war. The instinctive struggle of the original population to maintain itself and its traditions against a usurpation, the nature of which it was not allowed to comprehend, was failing. This resistance would gain strength, and mend some of the breaches, as the Second War receded, but grave weaknesses remained which were bound to show themselves under the strain of the new war, with the thought of which the American mass-mind was daily made familiar by the politicians and the controlled press.

From 1943 onward the weakness of the American Republic lay more in its own impaired foundations than in any foreign air forces or fleets.

The Second World War, much more clearly than the First, followed the course charted by the Protocols of 1905. The embroiled masses wreaked destruction and vengeance on each other, not for their own salvation, but for the furtherance of a plan of general enslavement under a despotic “world government”. The aims initially proclaimed (“liberation”, “freedom” and the destruction of “militarism”, “Nazism”, “Fascism”, “totalitarian dictatorship” and the like) were not achieved; on the contrary, the area where these conditions prevailed was greatly enlarged.

Lenin, in his Collected Works, wrote: “The World War” (1914-1918) “will see the establishment of Communism in Russia; a second world war will extend its control over Europe; and a third world war will be necessary to make it worldwide”, The central phrase of this forecast was almost literally fulfilled by the outcome of the Second War. The revolution extended its frontiers to the middle of Europe and thus was put in a position to extend its military control over all Europe, at least at the outset of any third war. In 1956 the American General Gruenther, who then bore the rank, apparently made permanent by some untraceable act of the “premier-dictators” in wartime; of “Supreme Allied Commander”, told a West German newspaper, “If it should come to a battle on the ground at all, then we are, of course, not strong enough to hold the present front in Europe”,

By 1956 the Western people, for ten years, had been made accustomed by almost daily intimations from their leaders to the thought that war with “Russia” was inevitable, This was the consequence of the outcome of the Second War; this outcome, again, was the result of the diversion of acts of state policy and of military operations to the purposes of destroying nation-states and of general enslavement; and this diversion, in turn, was the consequence of the process described in the previous chapter as “the invasion of America”, The strength and wealth of America were decisive in the Second War and they were used to bring about a denouement which made a third war a permanent peril.

Thus the story of America’s embroilment in the Second War demonstrated the power of the “foreign group” which had come to dictate in Washington, and gave living reality to the farewell address of George Washington himself: “Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, I conjure you to believe me, fellowcitizens, the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government”. W Washington spoke in 1796, when the Reign of Terror had shown the true nature of the revolution in France and when the presence of the conspiracy’s agents in America was first realized.

The published records of the Second War show that the conspiracy had obtained power to dictate major acts of American state policy, the course of [354] military operations and the movement of arms, munitions, supplies and treasure. Its conscious agents were numerous and highly-placed. Among the leading men who supported or submitted to them many may have been unaware of the consequences to which their actions were bound to lead.

This chapter in the republic’s story occupied three and a half years, from Pearl Harbour to Yalta. A significant resemblance occurs between the manner of America’s entry into war in 1898 and 1941. In both cases the provocation necessary to inflame the masses was supplied, and difficult problems of convincing Congress or “public opinion” were thus eluded. In 1898 the Maine was “sunk by a Spanish mine” in Havana harbour, and war followed on the instant; many years later, when the Maine was raised, her plates were found

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 244 —

to have been blown out by an inner explosion. In 1941 the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour “on a day that will live in infamy” enabled President Roosevelt to tell his country that through a completely unexpected attack it was “at war”. The later disclosures showed that the government in Washington had long been warned of the impending attack and had not alerted the Pearl Harbour defenders. In both cases the public masses remained apathetic when these revelations ensued. (They are of continuing relevance in 1956, when another American president has publicly sworn that he will “never be guilty” of sending his country to war “without Congressional authority”, but has added that American troops might have to undertake “local warlike acts in self-defence” without such parliamentary approval).

In the First War President Wilson, re-elected on the promise to keep his country out of war, immediately after his re-inauguration declared that “a state of war exists”. In the Second War President Roosevelt was re-elected in 1940 on the repeated promise that “your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars”. His electoral programme, however, included a five-word proviso: “We will not send our armies, navies or air forces to fight in foreign lands outside the Americas except in case of attack”. These five words were added (says one of Mr. Bernard Baruch’s approved biographers, Mr. Rosenbloom) “by Senator James F. Byrnes, who was so close to Baruch that it was sometimes impossible to tell which of the two originated the view that both expressed”.

The importance of the proviso was shown on December 7, 1941, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour. Twelve days earlier Mr. Henry L. Stimson, the Secretary for War, after a cabinet meeting on November 25, 1941, had noted in his diary: “The question was how we should manoeuvre them” (the Japanese) “into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves; it was a difficult proposition”.

on January 27, 1941 the United States Ambassador in Tokyo had advised his government that “in the event of trouble breaking out between the United States and Japan, the Japanese intended to make a surprise attack against Pearl Harbour”; that the Soviet spy in [355] Tokyo, Dr. Richard Sorge, informed the Soviet Government in October 1941 that “the Japs intended to attack Pearl Harbour within sixty days” and was advised by the Soviet Government that his information had been transmitted to President Roosevelt (according to Sorge’s confession, New York Daily News, May 17, 1951); that the Roosevelt government delivered a virtual ultimatum to Japan on November 26, 1941; that secret Japanese messages, from September 1941 up to the very moment of the attack, which were intercepted and decoded by United States intelligence units, gave unmistakable evidence of a coming attack on Pearl Harbour but were not transmitted to the American commanders there; that on December 1 the Head of Naval Intelligence, Far Eastern Section, drafted a despatch to the Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Fleet saying “war between Japan and the United States is imminent”, which was cancelled by superior authority; that on December 5 Colonel Sadtler of the U.S. Signal Corps, on information received, drafted a despatch to commanders, “War with Japan imminent; eliminate all possibility of another Port Arthur” (an allusion to the similar “surprise attack” that began the Russo-Japanese war), which was similarly suppressed; that a Japanese reply, obviously tantamount to a declaration of war, to the Roosevelt ultimatum was received in Washington on December 6, 1941 but no word was sent to the Pearl Harbour defenders. A message stating that “the Japanese are presenting at one p.m., eastern time today what amounts to an ultimatum. . . be on the alert” was at last despatched about noon on December 7, 1941, and reached the commanders at Pearl Harbour between six and eight hours after the Japanese attack.

The record now available suggests that the Americans on Hawaii alone were left without knowledge of the imminent onslaught which cost two battleships and two destroyers (apart from many vessels put out of action), 177 aircraft and 4575 dead, wounded or missing. A direct and immediate consequence was also the disaster suffered by the British navy off Malaya, when the battleships Prince of Wales and Renown were sunk with great loss of life.

Eight investigations were held, seven naval or military ones during wartime and one Congressional one at the war’s end. Thus wartime secrecy enshrouded them all and none of them was truly public or exhaustive; moreover, all were conducted under the aegis of the political party whose man was president at the time of Pearl Harbour. The vital facts (that the president knew at the latest eight weeks earlier, from an intercepted Japanese despatch, that “a surprise attack was being planned and that these intercepted messages were withheld from the Pearl Harbour commanders over a long period) were burked throughout. The

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 245 —

[356] Secretary of War’s diary (with the significant entry above quoted) was not admitted in evidence and Mr. Stimson himself was not called, being in ill health. Control of the press enabled the long proceedings (six months) to be presented to the public in bewildering and confusing form.

However, the three naval commanders chiefly concerned have published their accounts. Rear Admiral Kimmel, Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Fleet at the time, says of another admiral’s belief that “President Roosevelt’s plans required that no word be sent to alert the fleet in Hawaii”, that “the individuals in high position in Washington who wilfully refrained from alerting our forces at Pearl Harbour should never be excused. The Commanders at Pearl Harbour Were never informed of. . . the American note delivered to the Japanese Ambassadors on November 26, 1941, which effectually ended the possibility of further negotiations and thus made the Pacific war inevitable . . . No hint of vital intercepts received, decoded and delivered to responsible officials in Washington on December 6 and 7, 1941, was sent to the Navy and Army Commanders in the Hawaiian area”.

“The recurrent fact of the true Pearl Harbour story has been the repeated withholding of information from Admiral Kimmel and General Short” (the naval and military commanders at Pearl Harbour, who were made scapegoats) “. . . never before in recorded history had a field commander been denied information that his country would be at war in a matter of hours, and that everything pointed to a surprise attack upon his forces shortly after sunrise”. Admiral Theobald quotes the later statement of Admiral Stark (who in December 1941 was Chief of Naval Operations in Washington and who refused to inform Admiral Kimmel of the Japanese declaration of war message) that all he did was done on the order of higher authority, “which can only mean President Roosevelt.

this superior plan, to which all American military effort from Pearl Harbour to Yalta and after was made to conform? It was in fact Lenin’s “extension” of the revolution. The story of the threeand-a-half years only becomes explicable in that light.

In the First World War, American entry coincided with the revolution in Russia, and Mr. House at once instructed the president “to proffer our financial, industrial and moral support in every way possible” to the new “democracy”. In the Second War Hitler’s attack on his Moscovite accomplice followed quickly on Mr. Roosevel’ts second re-inauguration and before Pearl Harbour America was in the war as far as support of the “new democracy” was concerned, for “financial, industrial and moral support”, by way of “Lend-Lease”, was being prepared for the Revolutionary state in a measure never before imagined possible. *

By June of 1942 President Roosevelt’s intimate, a Mr. Harry Hopkins, publicly told the Communist state (at a mass meeting in Madison Square Garden), “We are determined that nothing shall stop us from sharing with you all that we have and are”. These words reflected a presidential order earlier issued (March 7, 1942) to American war agencies (and much later made public) that preference in the supply of munitions should be given to the Soviet Union over all other Allies and over the armed forces of the United States. The Chief of the American Military Mission in Moscow, Major General John R. Deane, in a book of 1947 described his vain efforts to stem this tide and said this order of President Roosevelt was “the beginning of a policy of appeasement of Russia from which we have never recovered and from which we are still suffering”.

MHR MY SUSPICION VALIDATED…OFFICIAL PROOF…THE JEW.S.A’S INVOLVEMENT WAS TO ADVANCE THE JEW.S.S.R’S OCCUPATION OF EUROPE…IN PREPARATION FOR WWIII…

* The three forms of such support enumerated by Mr. House include “financial” support. The most difficult of all questions to answer is, how much financial support then was given. Innumerable books allude to large financial support by “Wall Street banking houses” and the like, but I have quoted none of these here because I could not verify, and therefore do not quote these; such transactions, in any case, are almost impossible to uncover, being conducted in the greatest secrecy. However, a significant allusion appears in a letter from Lenin himself to Angelica Balabanoff (his representative in Stockholm at the period when Communism was “establishing” itself in Moscow): “Spend millions, tens of millions, if necessary. There is plenty of money at our disposal”. No doubt remains about the German financial support given to the Bolshevik conspirators. The German Foreign Office documents captured by the Allies in 1945 include a telegram sent by the German Foreign Minister, Richard von Kuehlmann, to the Kaiser on Dec. 3, 1916 which says, “It was not until the Bolsheviks had received from us a steady flow of funds through various channels and under varying labels that they were in a position to be able to build up their main organ, the Pravda, to conduct energetic propaganda and appreciably to extend the originally narrow basis of their party”. The Foreign Minister, anticipating the illusions of Western politicians in the next generation, added “It is entirely in our interest that we should exploit the period while they are in power, which may be a short one . . .” (someone added a note in the margin, “There is no question of supporting the Bolsheviks in the future”, a dictum which did not reckon with Hitler). The German papers include a report made in August 1915 by the German Ambassador in Copenhagen, Count Brockdorff-Rantzau, on the activities of “an expert on Russia”, one Dr. Helphand, who was helping to organize the Bolshevik conspiracy. This says, “Dr. Parvus” (Helphand’s pseudonym) “has provided the organization with a sum to cover running expenses . . . not even the gentlemen working in the organization realize that our Government is behind it”. Helphand then estimated the cost of organizing the revolution “completely” at “about twenty million roubles”. Brockdorff-Rantzau received authority from Berlin to make an advance payment and Helphand’s receipt is in the documents: “Received from the German Embassy in Copenhagen on the 29th of December 1915 the sum of one million roubles in Russian bank notes for the promotion of the revolutionary movement in Russia; signed, Dr. A. Helphand” (Royal Institute of International Affairs journal, London, April 1956).

It is explicit in the above passages that Mr. Roosevelt intended to give the revolutionary state greater support than any other ally, free or captive, and implicit that he was resolved to support Poland’s aggressor and was indifferent about the “liberation” of other countries overrun. The high causes held out to the Western masses, until they were fully involved in the war, had in fact been abandoned, and the supra-national project of extending the revolution, destroying nation-states and advancing the world-government ambition had been put in their place. (I began to write in this sense in 1942 and my elimination from daily journalism then began; up to that time I was one of the highly-paid “names” in the newspapers).

In 1941 this policy of supporting the revolutionary state was clearly bound to produce much greater effects than in 1917. In 1917 American support could only effect “the establishment” of Communism in Russia.

In 1941 the situation was entirely different. Communism was long since “established”. Support, if given in the boundless measure promised by Mr. Hopkins, was bound to enable it to “extend”, in accordance with Lenin’s dictum. The support given was so prodigious that it enabled Communism to “extend” over a vast area and to prepare for another wa

Elected in 1932 to abolish “deficits”, President Roosevelt in twelve years spent more than all former American presidents [359] together, and in sovereign irresponsibility. Public expenditure in America today, eleven years after his death, is still beyond the understanding of an academy of accountants; it is a balloon world of noughts with a few numerals scattered among them. In this zero-studded firmament the amount “lent-leased” to the revolutionary state by President Roosevelt might seem insignificant: 9,500,000,000 dollars. In fact arms and goods to that value were shipped, in theory on a sale-or-return basis; it was a vast transfer of treasure, and a few decades earlier would have enabled several new states to set up housekeeping without fear of the future.

This stream of wealth was directed by one man, described by his official biographer (Mr. Robert E. Sherwood) as “the second most important man in the United States”. Mr. Harry Hopkins thus played the potentate’s part, in the distribution of war materials, first filled by Mr. Bernard Baruch in 1917. The original idea was Mr. Baruch’s, who in 1916 insistently demanded that “one man” be appointed as the “administrator”

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 247 —

of the all-powerful War Industries Board which, when America entered that war, grew out of an earlier “Advisory Commission” attached to the president’s Cabinet “Defence Council”.

This pre-history of Mr. Hopkins’s appointment is significant, because it shows the continuing power and method of the group around the American presidents of both world wars. A Congressional Investigating Committee of 1919, headed by Mr. William J. Graham, said of the “Advisory Commission” which produced the 1918 War Industries Board, that it “served as the secret government of the United States. . . A commission of seven men chosen by the president seems to have devised the entire system of purchasing war supplies, planned a press censorship, designed a system of food control. . . and in a word designed practically every war measure which the Congress subsequently enacted, and did all this behind closed doors weeks and even months before the Congress of the United States declared war against Germany . . . There was not an act of the socalled war legislation afterwards enacted that had not before the actual declaration of war been discussed and settled upon by this Advisory Commission”.

Mr. Baruch himself, testifying before a Select Committee of Congress on the wartime activities of the “one-man” authority which he himself had caused to be set up, said, “The final determination rested with me . . . whether the Army or Navy would have it. . . the railroad administration. . . or the Allies, or whether General Allenby should have locomotives, or whether they should be used in Russia or in France. . . I probably had more power than perhaps any other man did. . .” (This was the First War background to Mr. Churchill’s words to Mr. Baruch in 1939, “War is coming. . . you will be running the show over there”. The extent of Mr. Baruch’s power in the First War is further illustrated by an incident in 1919, when President Wilson was brought back to America a completely incapacitated man. Mr. Baruch then “became one of the group that made decisions during the President’s illness” (Mr. Rosenbloom). This group [360] came to be known as “the Regency Council”, and when the ailing president’s senior Cabinet officer, Mr. Robert Lansing, Secretary of State, called Cabinet meetings on his own authority the president, from his sickbed, dismissed him; though he broke also with other associates, including Mr. House, “Wilson clung to his trust in Baruch”).

In the Second War President Roosevelt revived President Wilson’s power to establish a “Defence Council” with an “Advisory Commission” (1940), and in 1942 this was enlarged into a “War Production Board”, the counterpart of the 1918 “War Industries Board”. Mr. Baruch again advised that “one man” be put in charge of this all-powerful body, but in the event he was not the one man appointed. His biographer says that he was disappointed, but the reader may keep an open mind about that.

The rare references to Mr. Baruch in this narrative do not denote the extent of his influence. The best observers known to me all believed that he was the most powerful of the men around American presidents over a period of more than forty years, up to now. His biographer states that he continued to act as adviser to every American president (including the three Republican ones of 1920, 1924 and 1928) from President Wilson on, and, writing in 1952, predicted that he would also “advise” President Eisenhower and even gave an outline of what this advice would be. Mr. Baruch’s true place in this story, or the present writer’s estimate of it, will be shown at a later stage, when he made his most significant open appearance.

Even though Mr. Baruch, with evident accuracy, described himself as the most powerful man in the world in 1917-1918, his power actually to shape the events and map of the world was much less than that of any man who occupied the same place in the Second War, for the obvious reason that “the determination of what anybody could have” now extended to the revolutionary state established as a great military power with obvious and vast territorial aims. Even the War Production Board became of secondary importance when the “LendLease Administration” was set up, and Mr. Harry Hopkins was appointed “Administrator” and also chairman of President Roosevelt’s “Soviet Protocol Committee” with power “to determine supply quotas to be dispatched to Russia”. From that moment the fate and future of the West were in the hands of a man known to a wide circle as “Harry the Hop”.

Mr. Hopkins could only have occupied so elevated a place in the Twentieth Century; public opinion, if informed by a free and impartial press, would hardly have suffered him, for he had no qualification to handle great affairs, least of all foreign ones. Even his biographer, though well-disposed to a fellow-inmate of the White House (in which respectable precincts Mr. Hopkins, according to his own diary, once acted as pander to a visiting Communist notable, a Mr. Molotov), wonders how this man, “so obscure in origin and so untrained for great responsibility”, could have become “Special Adviser to the President”.

[361]

As to that, today’s student cannot discover who “chose” Mr. Hopkins for his role. However, he finds that Mr. Hopkins in his youth had absorbed the same kind of ideas (those of “Louis Blanc and the

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 248 —

revolutionaries of 1848”) which Mr. House acquired in his Texan boyhood. Mr. Hopkins had studied at the feet of a Fabian Socialist from London (who held that nation-states should disappear in a “United States of the World”) and from a Jewish teacher of Bohemian and Russian origins who had been a pupil of Tolstoy, the Bolshevists’ hero. The transmission of “ideas”, again. Presumably these were the qualifications which cause Mr. Sherwood to call him “the inevitable Roosevelt favourite”. Earlier he had been known as a “fixer” and fund-raiser and “little brother of the rich”. The University of Oxford conferred on him one of the most ill-fitting doctorates in its history and Mr. Churchill’s fulsome references to him, in the war memoirs, are strange to read.

When Mr. Hopkins took his place as chairman of President Roosevelt’s Soviet Protocol Committee he found among its members some who greatly mistrusted the policy of unconditional supply to the revolutionary state. He issued to them the following imperial fiat:

“The United States is doing things which it would not do for other United Nations without full information from them. This decision to act without full information was made. . . after due deliberation . . . There was no reservation about the policy at the present time but the policy was constantly being brought up by various persons for rediscussion. He proposed that no further consideration be given to these requests for rediscussion” (1942).

Thus the revolutionary state, through Mr. Hopkins, was shown to be “the inevitable Roosevelt favourite”. In this passage the mystery recurs to which I drew attention in the case of British Ministers and Zionism: the “policy” has been “settled” and cannot be altered. By whom this policy had been “deliberated”, and who had decreed that it must not be re-examined in any circumstances whatever, were Mr. Hopkins’s secrets, and all this was again “behind closed doors” as far as the embroiled masses were concerned. In vain the Republican leader, Senator Robert E. Taft, protested when he saw what was going on: “How can anyone swallow the idea that Russia is battling for democratic principles. . . To spread the four freedoms throughout the world we will ship aeroplanes and tanks to Communist Russia. But no country was more responsible for the present war and Germany’s aggression”. A violent campaign was immediately begun in the press which continued until Senator Taft’s death. Today’s map and state of affairs vindicate his warning, and those who today read Mr. Hopkins’s fiat, quoted above, may see that the outcome of the war was determined by these secret actions of 1942 and earlier.

Of “aeroplanes and tanks” 15,000 and 7,000, respectively, were donated. A navy of 581 vessels was also given (over many years 127 of these were returned and in 1956 the Soviet offered to pay for 31; the remaining ships, over 300, were [362] declared to have been lost, sunk or declared unseaworthy). A merchant fleet was also presented.

This was only the smaller part of the total transfer of wealth in many forms. The American Government has never published the details of its deliveries. The fact that these are known, and that the greater part of them consisted of supplies obviously designed to strengthen the industrial and war-making capacity of the revolutionary state after the war’s end, is due to one of the accidents which assist the historian, although, in the condition of the press today, they never reach the general public mind and therefore produce no remedial result.

In May 1942 a Captain George Racey Jordan reported for duty at the great Newark Airport in New Jersey. He was a First War soldier rejoined and had never forgotten the advice of a sergeant given to him in Texas in 1917: “Keep your eyes and ears open, keep your big mouth shut, and keep a copy of everything”. To the last five words posterity owes the most astonishing book (in my opinion) of the Second World War.

Captain Jordan was instructed to report to “United Nations Depot No. 8”, as he found Newark Airport to be described on his orders. The body known as the “United Nations” was set up three years later, and this was an anticipation, revealing the intention of the men around the president. Captain Jordan, when he reported for duty as Liaison Officer, had no suspicion of the power of the Soviet in America and was soon enlightened in three ways. In May 1942, after an American Airlines passenger aircraft on the apron brushed the engine housing of a Lend-Lease medium bomber waiting to be flown to the Soviet Government, a Soviet officer angrily demanded the banishment of American Airlines from this great American airport. When this was refused the Soviet officer said he would “call Mr. Hopkins”, and in a few days an order from the United States Civil Aeronautic Board banished all American civil airlines from the field.

Captain Jordan then began to keep a very full diary, and by means of it was later able to show (when he and the rest of the world learned about “atomic bombs”) that during 1942 about fifteen million dollars’ worth of graphite, aluminium tubes, cadmium metal and thorium (all materials necessary for the creation of an atomic pile) were sent to the Soviet Government from Newark. At this time the “Manhattan Project” (the

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 249 —

production of the first atom bomb) was supposed to be of such intense secrecy that its chief, Major General Leslie R. Groves, later testified that his office would have refused, without his personal approval, to supply any document even to President Roosevelt. In 1942, when he made these entries in his diary, Captain Jordan had no idea of the use to which these materials might be put, for he had never heard of the “Manhattan Project” or of “the atom bomb”.

His next experience of the authority wielded by the Soviet officers came when one of them took affront on seeing a red star on an aeroplane belonging to the Texaco Oil Company and threatened to “phone Washington” and have it [363] removed. Captain Jordan had difficulty in explaining that the Texas Oil Company had been using the emblem of its home state (the “Lone Star State”) for many years before the 1917 revolution!

At this time Captain Jordan began to realize that the mass of material that was going to the Communist state was not in the least covered by the terms of the master Lend-Lease agreement (“The Government of the United States will continue to supply the U.S.S.R. with such defence articles, defence services and defence information as the President . . . shall authorize to be transferred or provided”) but included many things that had nothing to do with “defence” and everything to do with the post-war strengthening of the Soviet. He noted, for instance, the supply of “tractors and farm machinery, aluminium manufacturing plant, railway car shops, steel mill equipment” and the like more. These shipments (which, an enthusiastic interpreter told him, “will help to Fordize our country”) are indicated in the round totals which are the only information on the subject provided by the American Government. President Truman’s “Twenty First Report to Congress on Lend-Lease Operations” shows under the head of “Non-munitions” the enormous figures of $1,674,586,000 for agricultural products and $3,040,423,000 for industrial materials and products.

In 1943, when heavy losses to the ocean convoys caused a much greater proportion of Lend-Lease materials to be sent by air, an American air terminus for the movement of these supplies was set up at Great Falls, Montana, and Captain Jordan was transferred there as “Lend-Lease Expediter”. Once more his orders from the United States Army Air Force designated him “United Nations Representative”, though no such body existed, and he found awaiting him a Presidential directive, headed “Movement of Russian Airplanes”, which said that ” . . . . the modification, equipment and movement of Russian planes have been given first priority, even over planes for U.S. Army Air Forces”. He also had his third experience of Soviet power: the Soviet officer with whom he dealt held that his rank of captain was too low and asked for his promotion to major; when the gold oak leaves duly arrived they were pinned on Major Jordan’s shoulders by Colonel Kotikov, an event probably unprecedented in American military history.

Major Jordan then noticed that an extravagant number of black suitcases, roped and sealed, was passing through his “pipeline to Moscow”. His misgivings were by this time heavy and he used a favourable opportunity (and the sole power remaining to him, that of giving or withholding clearance for Americanpiloted Lend-Lease aircraft on the last stretch to Fairbanks in Alaska) to thrust past armed Soviet secret policemen into an aeroplane and open about eighteen suitcases out of fifty. He made a rough note of the contents of the opened ones.

Among the mass of papers, plans, correspondence and blueprints were two discoveries which, years later, proved to fit neatly into the picture of espionage and conspiracy which was revealed by the various exposures of 1948-1956. One [364] was a bundle of State Department folders, each with a tab. One of these read, “From Hiss”, and another, “From Sayre”. Major Jordan had never heard either name, but they were the names of the chief State Department official later convicted (Alger Hiss) and of another State Department official involved in the same affair. These folders contained copies of secret despatches from American attaches in Moscow, forwarded by diplomatic pouch to Washington, and now returning in duplicate to those from whom they were to be held secret.

The more important discovery was one which affects all men living in the West as much today as if it were now detected. It was a letter addressed to the Soviet Commissar of Foreign Trade, Mikoyan. Major Jordan noted down an excerpt from it: ” . . . .had a hell of a time getting these away from Groves” (the chief of the atomic-bomb project). The letter was signed “H. H.” Attached to it were a map of the Oak Ridge atomic plant in Tennessee and a carbon copy of a report, rubber-stamped “Harry Hopkins”, containing a number of names so strange to Major Jordan that he also made a note of them, intending to look up their meaning. Among them were “cyclotron”, “proton” and “deuteron”, and phrases like “energy produced by fission” and “walls five feet thick, of lead and water, to control flying neutrons”. Mr. Hopkins, as already shown, was “the inevitable Roosevelt favourite”, “the Special Adviser to the President”, “the second most important man in the United States”.

In 1944 Major Jordan, more worried than ever, attempted to see the Lend-Lease liaison officer at the State Department but was intercepted by a junior official who told him “Officers who are too officious are likely to find themselves on an island somewhere in the South Seas”. Not long after he was removed from White Falls. His book contains the complete list of Lend-Lease shipments which, as liaison officer, he was able to see and copy. This shows all the chemicals, metals and minerals suitable for use in an atomic pile which were transferred, and some of them may also be suitable for use in the hydrogen bomb; they include beryllium, cadmium, cobalt ore and concentrate (33,600 lbs), cobalt metal and cobalt-bearing scrap (806,941 lbs), uranium metal (2.2 lbs), aluminium tubes [365] (12,766,472 lbs), graphite (7,384,482 lbs), thorium, uranium nitrate, oxide and urano-uranic oxide, aluminium and alloys (366,738,204 lbs), aluminium rods (13,744,709 lbs), aluminium plates (124,052,618 lbs), brass and bronze ingots and bars (76,545,000 lbs), brass or bronze wire (16,139,702 lbs), brass and bronze plates (536,632,390 lbs), insulated copper wire (399,556,720 lbs), and so on.

These lists also include the “purely postwar Russian supplies” (General Groves), such as an oil-refinery plant, forging machinery and parts ($53,856,071), lathes, precision boring-machines, canning machinery, commercial dairy equipment, sawmill machinery, textile machinery, power machines ($60,313,833), foundry equipment, electric station equipment, telephone instruments and equipment ($32,000,000), generators ($222,020,760), motion picture equipment, radio sets and equipment ($52,072,805), 9,594 railway freight cars, 1,168 steam locomotives ($101,075,116), merchant vessels ($123,803,879), motor trucks ($508,367,622), and endlessly on

In 1944 Mr. Henry Morgenthau junior, Mr. Roosevelt’s Secretary of the Treasury, and his Assistant Secretary, Mr. Harry Dexter White (later shown to have been a Soviet agent) ordered the shipment to the Soviet Government of duplicates of the United States Treasury plates to be used for printing money for the use of the forces occupying Germany after the war. This meant that the money printed by the Soviet Government for the use of its troops was redeemable by the American Government as there was no distinction whatever between the paper printed. By the end of 1946, when public protests caused the American Government to stop paying its own troops with these notes, [366] so that the Soviet Government could make no further use of them, the United States Military Government in Germany found that it had redeemed about $250,000,000 in excess of the total of notes issued by its own Finance Office. (The Soviet Government ignored a request to pay the modest sum of some $18,000 for the plates and materials delivered to it, which had enabled it to draw $250,000,000 straight from the United States Treasury).

Thus for four or five years there was an unlimited transfer of the wherewithal of war, of supplies for post-war industrial use, and of wealth in manifold forms to the revolutionary state, and “re-discussion” of this policy lay under ban at the highest level. Moreover, “preference” and “priority” for this policy, in relation to American needs or those of other allies, was explicitly ordered at that level.

MHR SO THE ‘COLD WAR’ WAS CLEARLY A WWF BOUT…FAKED…THE JEW.S.A DELIVERED ALL THE CAPACITY FOR THE JEW.S.S.R TO MAKE NUKES AFTER THE WAR…SO CLEARLY NO REAL ‘THREAT’ OR WISH TO ‘FIGHT’ AGAINST THE JEW.S.S.R EVER…JUST A SCAM…

In view of the vast consequences which General Marshall’s interventions produced the circumstances of his original elevation are of interest. President Roosevelt appointed him Chief of Staff in 1939 over the heads of twenty major generals and fourteen senior brigadiers (six years earlier his nomination to general, being adversely reported on by the Inspector General, had been barred by the then Chief of Staff, General Douglas MacArthur). One of General Marshall’s earliest acts was, in 1940, to ask Senator James F. Byrnes (an intimate of Mr. Bernard Baruch) to propose an amendment to an army estimates bill [367] authorizing the Chief of Staff to override seniority rules in favour of younger officers held by him to be “of unusual ability”. Senator Byrnes’s amendment, then adopted, provided that “in time of war or national emergency . . . any officer of the Regular Army may be appointed to higher temporary grade. . .”, and under this empowerment General Marshall during 1940 made 4,088 promotions, among them that of the fifty-year old Colonel Dwight Eisenhower, who then had no battle or command experience but within three years was to become Supreme Allied Commander. The combination of General Marshall and General Eisenhower was decisive in shaping the outcome of the war in 1945.

Senator Joseph McCarthy, in his oration before the Senate on June 14, 1951 (a carefully-documented indictment which is a major reference-source in this matter) attributed “the planned steady retreat from victory which commenced long before World War II ended” and the fact that America, having power to tip the balance, operated between the policies advocated by Mr.Churchill and the Soviet dictator Stalin “almost invariably in support of the Russian line” TO General George C. Marshall, Chief of Staff of the United States Army.

Mr. Churchill desired to strike from the south as well as from the north and to bring the Balkan and Central European countries under Allied occupation before they could pass merely from Hitlerist enslavement into that of the Red armies; this policy would have led to true victory, have given the world a prospect of peace for the rest of the 20th Century and have largely fulfilled the original “aims” of the war, among which “liberation” was the greatest. General Marshall was resolved to concentrate on the invasion of France and to leave the whole of Eastern, Central and Balkan Europe to the armies of the revolutionary state, and Mr. Roosevelt, whether clear-minded or confused, pursued this policy to the bitter end which the world saw at Yalta, where “defeat was snatched from the jaws of victory”.

The consequences were foreseen and were intended; that is now beyond doubt. The decision was political, not military, and it was made by the men who formed the group around the president. It was, in the field of military operations, the exact parallel of the decision taken in respect of Lend-Lease operations: to subordinate all other considerations to the interest of the revolutionary state.

Thus the war, which could have been ended (probably in 1944) by the Allied liberation of the countries overrun by Hitler, leaving the Soviet state within the natural Russian boundaries or a little more, and Europe in balance, dragged on through 1944 into 1945; while the German armies in Italy were given respite and the wasteful invasion of Southern France lent no impetus to the main invasion of Normandy.

The shape which the war took in its last ten months then was that dictated by the Soviet Government and superimposed on Western military strategy through its agent in the American Government, the man known as Harry Dexter White. Being dead, he cannot testify, but he is commonly held by the best authorities known to me to have been the author of the plan, for the destruction of Germany and the abandonment of Europe to Soviet “domination”, which is known to posterity as the “Morgenthau plan”.

The order to hold back the Allied advance until the Red armies had taken [372] possession of Germany and Central Europe, with its three chief capitals, obviously followed the “policy” which, demonstrably, governed Lend-Lease: that of giving preference to the demands of the Soviet state over all other allies, and even over the needs of America itself.

The contrast, between the initial declaration of high purposes and the final surrender to all the abominations initially denounced, is shown bleakly enough if the first (the Atlantic meeting) and the last (the Yalta Conference) are briefly described.

The “Atlantic Charter” was preceded by President Roosevelt’s third post-election oration, on January 6, 1941, when he told an America not yet at war that he “looked forward to a world founded upon four essential freedoms . . . freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, freedom from fear”. Then the Atlantic Charter of August 14, 1941, the joint product of Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Churchill, reproduced the phraseology with which students of the Protocols of 1905 had long been familiar (one wonders if the “premier-dictators” ever read them). It stated “certain basic principles”, said to govern the [373] “respective policies” of America and Britain, on which the two signatories “base their hopes for a better future for the world”; the first of these was “no aggrandisement, territorial or otherwise”, and the next, “no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned”. The third principle was “the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and the

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 255 —

wish to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to all those who have been forcibly deprived of them”.

The retreat from these lofty purposes followed in the Casablanca and Teheran Conferences of 1943 (at Teheran Stalin was present, and was included in the “Declaration” as being “dedicated. . . to the elimination of tyranny and slavery, oppression and intolerance”), and culminated at Yalta in February 1945, just three and a half years after the “Atlantic Charter”.

At the time of this conference the Anglo-American armies were being held back in Europe so that the Red armies might embed them selves deep in the heart of Europe.

THE Yalta conference MORE LIKE A DRINKING CONTEST : “The first course at breakfast was a medium-sized tumbler containing . . .Crimean brandy. Following the opening toasts and the brandy there were repeated servings of caviar and vodka. . . Then assorted cold cuts were served . . . and with them, a white wine. . . Finally, small hard Crimean apples and with them bountiful glasses of a quite sweet Crimean champagne. . . The final course of this breakfast consisted of tall thin tumblers of boiling hot tea with which brandy was served in snifters. That was just breakfast! How could any man with his stomach full of the above described stuffings make one rational or logical decision in relationship to the welfare of the United States of America. . . Elliott [374] Roosevelt, who went with his father to the conference, said that practically everyone was drunk”. As to dinner in the evening, Mr. Charles E. Bohlen, who was present as Assistant Secretary of State and interpreter to President Roosevelt, says of one such meal that “Marshal Stalin acted as host. The atmosphere of the dinner was most cordial, and forty-five toasts in all were drunk”.

On top of all this, the dying President Roosevelt arrived at Yalta as the signatory of the “Morgenthau Plan”, drafted by a Soviet agent in his own Treasury Department (Mr. Harry Dexter White); and was accompanied by another Soviet agent, later exposed and convicted, Mr. Alger Hiss of his State Department, who at this vital moment was the president’s special adviser about “political affairs”. In effect, therefore, the Soviet government was represented on two sides of the three-sided table, and the outcome of the conference was the logical result. Up to the very eve of the meeting Mr. Churchill continued his effort to save something of Central Europe and the Balkans from the fate to which they were abandoned at Yalta. When he met President Roosevelt at Malta, on the way to Yalta, he once more proposed some operation from the Mediterranean; General Marshall, in the tone of his threat of 1942, then “announced that if the British plan were approved . . . he would recommend to Eisenhower that he had no choice but to be relieved of his command” (Mr. Sherwood).

A month before the meeting at Yalta Mr. Churchill cabled to President Roosevelt, “At the present time I think the end of this war may well prove to be more disappointing than was the last”. He had come a long way from the “finest hour” of 1940, during which year, on acceding to the prime ministership, he wrote, “Power in a national crisis, when a man believes he knows what orders should be given, is a blessing”. He now knew how little true power the “premier-dictators” have and could only hope, at the utmost, to salvage a little from the ruins of victory, which at that moment was being thrown away just before it was won.

What he knew, and told President Roosevelt, was all unknown to the embroiled masses. That complete control of the press, of which the Protocols arrogantly boast, prevented the truth from reaching them, and they were being swept along from day to day on a high tide of inflamed enthusiasm for the great “victory” which they were about to gain. Mr. Churchill’s ”power” was quite impotent to alter that. A few months earlier (August 23, 1944) he had asked his Minister of Information, “Is there any stop on the publicity for the facts about

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 256 —

the agony of Warsaw, which seem, from the papers, to have been practically suppressed?” (Triumph and Tragedy). The enquiry sounds genuine, and in that case Mr. Churchill was ignorant of what any independent journalist could have told him, that such facts were “practically suppressed”. He does not record what answer he received, if any.

The “agony” to which Mr. Churchill refers is the heroic rising of General [375] Bors’s underground army of Poles against the Germans as the Red armies approached Warsaw. The Soviet advance was immediately halted by order from Moscow, and Stalin refused to allow British and American aircraft to use Soviet airfields for the purpose of succouring the Poles. Mr. Churchill says “I could hardly believe my eyes when I read his cruel reply” and records that he urged President Roosevelt to order American aircraft to use the fields, as “Stalin would never have dared fire on them”. Mr. Roosevelt refused and the Poles were abandoned to Hitler’s SS. troops, who razed Warsaw, killed 200,000 of its inhabitants, and deported the surviving 350,000. On October 1, after resisting for eight weeks, Radio Warsaw made this last broadcast, “This is the bitter truth; we have been worse treated than Hitler’s satellites; worse than Italy, worse than Rumania, worse than Finland. . . God is righteous and in his omnipotence he will punish all those responsible for this terrible injury to the Polish nation”

The power which the revolution had gained in the infested West was enough to prevent the publication of facts like these during the Second War, and Mr. Churchill’s enquiry of his Minister of Information vanished into air. The “agony of Warsaw” came just three years after Mr. Roosevelt signed the “declaration of principles” stating that he wished “to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them”.

Such was the background to the Yalta Conference where, at his first meeting with Stalin, President Roosevelt, a man on the grave’s edge, told the Soviet dictator that he “was more bloodthirsty in regard to the Germans than he had been a year ago, and he hoped that Marshal Stalin would again propose a toast to the execution of 50,000 officers of the German Army”. The word “again” alludes to the Teheran Conference of December 1943, where Stalin had proposed such a toast and Mr. Churchill had angrily protested and left the room. Thereon President Roosevelt had suggested that only 49,500 be shot, and his son, Elliott, in convivial mood, had expressed the hope that “hundreds of thousands” would be mown down in battle; “Uncle Joe”, beaming with pleasure, then had risen from his seat to embrace Mr. Elliott Roosevelt.

the explanation for the fate of Vienna, Berlin and Prague; in March, April and May General Eisenhower, in the messages accordingly sent direct to Moscow of which Mr. Churchill complained, submitted his plan of advance and agreed to halt the Allied armies west of these capitals.

The supreme test of Western honour at Yalta lay in the treatment of Poland. The invasion of Poland by the Soviet and Nazi states in partnership had begun the Second War; it was clearly the country chiefly covered by Mr. Roosevelt’s and Mr. Churchill’s declaration of 1941 (the Atlantic Charter) that “sovereign rights and self-government” must be “restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them”. At the time of the Yalta Conference, when the European war had only ten weeks to run, Poland had in fact been

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 257 —

abandoned to the revolution; that was implicit in the desertion of the Warsaw Poles and as explicit as it could be in Mr. Roosevelt’s order to General Eisenhower to subordinate his plan of advance to Soviet wishes. This meant that Poland, and with it all the European countries east and south-east of Berlin, would in fact be annexed to the Soviet, or incorporated in the area of the revolution.

Mr. Edward Stettinius, who was nominally his Secretary of State at that time but seems to have had no part in forming policy, records that “the President asked me to get a lawyer to consult with him over the wording of the Polish boundary statement; I called Alger Hiss”.

Mr. Churchill was left alone to make the last protest on behalf of the original “principles” and objects of the Second World War: “This is what we went to war against Germany for: that Poland should be free and sovereign. Everyone here knows the result to us, unprepared as we were, and that it nearly cost us our life as a nation. Great Britain had no material interest in Poland. Her interest is only one of honour because we drew the sword for Poland against Hitler’s brutal attack. Never could I be content with any solution that would not leave Poland as a free and independent state” . . . (later, when the pressure of Mr. Roosevelt and Stalin were proving too strong for him) “It would be said that the British Government had given way completely on the frontiers, had accepted the Soviet view and had championed it. . . Great Britain would be charged with forsaking the cause of Poland . . .”

But in the end he signed (and later Polish troops, the first to fight Hitler, remained mourning in their quarters while the great “Victory Parade” was held in London).

MHR SO THE TOTAL LIE / MYTH THAT THE ALLIES WERE FIGHTING TO RESTORE POLISH INDEPENDENCE TOO OBVIOUS TO MISS…AND YET TODAY MOST PEOPLE TOTALLY UNAWARE OF THE BITTER IRONY / DECEPTION…THE WAR WAS TO EXTEND THE TALMUDIC CULT OCCUPIED JEW.S.S.R’S BOUNDARIES AND POWER…JUSTIFY ISRAELI STATE, AND THUS ENSURE THE FUTURE WORLD TALMUDIC CULT DICTATORSHIP… THE BIGGEST CLUE ABOUT THE TRUE PLAN OF THE JEW.N / U.N WAS THAT THE MASSIVE POST WAR SUPPLIES SENT TO RUSSIA WERE MARKED ‘U.N’..AS IF WHAT MOST PEOPLE THINK OF AS THE ‘UNITED NATIONS MISSION’ HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH WORLD WIDE COMMUNISM OF THE ‘SOVIET’ STYLE !!!

Under the “Protocol on German Reparations” the basic device of Soviet terrorism, slave labour, was approved and extended to the conquered peoples, for this document authorized “the three governments” to obtain reparation from Germany in the form of “the use of German labour”.

Under some subsidiary agreement the Western Allies agreed to regard all Russian prisoners as “deserters”, to be driven back to the Soviet state. All these matters read soberly on paper; the picture of their results for human beings appears in such words as those of the Rev. James B. Chuter, a British Army chaplain and one of 4,000 prisoners from a disintegrated German prisoner-of-war camp who made their way towards the advancing Allies in 1945: “Along the eastern bank of the river Mulde was encamped a great multitude. . . This was the end of the journey for the tens of thousands of refugees who had passed us. The Mulde was the agreed line at which the Americans halted and to which the Russians would advance. The Americans would let none save German military [378] personnel and Allied prisoners of war cross the river. From time to time some desperate soul would fling himself into the flood in a vain attempt to escape from the unknown fury of the Russian arrival. It was to avoid such incidents and to discourage them that the occasional splutter of American machine guns on the Western banks was heard . . . sounding, in that most frightening manner, a plain warning to all who thought to cross the river line”.

Such was the outcome of the Second World War, and the agreement which sanctified it all, (in which Stalin’s signature was added to those of the two signatories of the Atlantic Charter of 1941) said, “By this declaration we reaffirm our faith in the principles of the Atlantic Charter”.

MHR SO THE ALLIES SANCTIONED SLAVE LABOR…SUCH A TYPICAL CULT OF JUDAISM / OLD TESTAMENT / TALMUDIC CULT PRACTISE…TO INVADE, KILL, RAPE, AND ENSLAVE…THIS IS YOUR JEW WORLD ORDER TO COME, FOLKS…

AND DON’T FORGET THAT RUSSIA HAD PLANNED THE INVASION OF EUROPE IN THE NEAR FUTURE, HITLER HAD MERELY BEAT THEM TO THE GATE…SO MUCH FOR DEFINING IT ALL AS ‘REPARATIONS’…

On the same, last day of the full conference Stalin asked Mr. Roosevelt if he meant to make any concessions to King Ibn Saoud, and the President replied “that there was only one concession he thought he might offer “and that was to give him” (Ibn Saoud) “the six million Jews in the United States”. (This last quotation is authentic but was expunged from the official record).

the end of the Yalta Conference, but for a significant footnote. At a last “man-to-man” meeting between President Roosevelt and Stalin, on the eve of the president’s departure to visit King Ibn Saoud, Stalin said “the Jewish problem was a very difficult one, that they had tried to establish a national home for the Jews in Birobidzhan but that they had only stayed there two or three years and then scattered to the cities”.

The newspapers next morning broke out in headlines, of which one in the Montreal Star is typical: “World Capitals Dismayed, Shocked over Disclosures of Yalta Secrets”. This was nonsense; by 1955 the masses were apathetic about such things, having been brought by control of the press to the condition of impotent confusion foretold in the Protocols of 1905

these Yalta documents are incriminating enough, but they are not complete. Much was expunged…Two State Department officials charged with preparing the papers for publication, Dr. Donald M. Dozer and Mr. Bryton Barron, pressed for prompt and full publication and were dismissed and retired, respectively, early in 1956, in the face of President Eisenhower’s statement in April 1955, “I think that to hold secret any document of the war, including my own mistakes. . . is foolish. Everything ought to be given out that helps the public of the United States to profit from past mistakes and make decisions of the moment”. Mr. Barron, before his retirement, was “subjected to gruelling brain-washing sessions to secure his consent to the deletion of important documents” and informed his superiors that the compilation they were preparing to issue would be “a distorted, incomplete, badly expurgated one that tends to shield the previous Administration and will mislead the American people”.

This history of the Yalta papers shows that, ten years after the Second World War, power was still in the hands of the essentially “foreign group” which during the war had been able to divert supplies, military operations and State policy to the purpose of “extending” the revolution. They were still able to override the public undertakings of presidents and to frustrate the will of Congress; they still held the reins. This meant that the infestation of the American government and its departments by agents of the revolution, which began with Mr. Roosevelt’s first presidency in 1933, had not been remedied in 1955, despite many exposures; and that, as this was the case, American energies in any third war could in the same way be diverted to promote the overriding plan for a communized world-society (Lenin’s third stage in the process). Once more the embroiled masses would fight to bring about results, the direct opposites of the causes held out to them at any new “Pearl Harbour”.

MHR OF COURSE THE ‘NEW PEARL HABOR’ WAS 911…THE CULMMINATION OF THE SECRET GOVT / TALMUDIC CULT OCCUPATIONAL GOVT. / WITH WORLD WIDE ‘PATRIOT ACTS’ AND ‘MARTIAL LAWS’ AND ‘HATE SPEECH’ AND …

This undermining of the West was not confined to the United States; it was general throughout the Western world , Britain, from which the great overseas nations originally sprang, and in the two greatest of these, Canada and Australia.

The first exposure came in Canada, immediately after the war’s end, and this is the only one of the four Cases in which full governmental investigation and full public disclosure of the results followed; also, it lit the fuse which in time led to all the other exposures, in America, Australia and Britain. A Russian, at the risk of his life, disclosed to the Canadian Government the network of governmentalinfestation and espionage of

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 259 —

which the Soviet Embassy at Ottawa was the centre (despite the leading part taken by Russians in this process of warning Western [380] politicians and the press continued to incite their peoples against “Russians”, not against the revolutionary conspiracy of which Russia was the captive). The full public investigation, which would otherwise be surprising, seems to be accounted for by the fact that the Canadian Prime Minister of that day, Mr. Mackenzie King, although a wily politician, was in all else a simple man, more interested in communing with the spirit world than anything else. When he was convinced by documents of the truth of Igor Gouzenko’s statements he saw that they revealed “as serious a situation as ever existed in Canada at any time” and flew at once to inform the American president (Mr. Roosevelt’s successor) and the British Prime Minister (then Mr. Clement Attlee) that this situation was shown by them to be “even more serious in the United States and England”.

At that time Mr. Whittaker Chambers’s documentary proof that Mr. Alger Hiss was the centre of a Soviet network in the American State Department had been available to, but ignored by, two American presidents for six years, and three years later Mr. Truman was publicly to deride all such stories as “a Red herring”. The exposure of Mr. Hiss and his associates followed in a trial which was entirely the result of efforts by individual patriots (including Mr. Richard Nixon, a later Vice-President) to wring the truth from a reluctant government and to compel exposure. In the sequence to the Hiss affair a mass of disclosures followed, which showed American government departments to have been riddled with Soviet agents at all levels. The literature of this period and subject is now too great even to summarize here, but it is conclusive, and much of it is official, though reluctant.

MHR ANOTHER REASON FOR NIXON’S LATER TROUBLES…AFTER HIS ‘JEWS HAVE TO START THINKING OF THEMSELVES FIRST AS AMERICANS, RATHER THAN JEWS’ COMMENTS RECORDED ON TAPE !!!

In England, for six years after the Canadian Prime Minister’s warning, nothing was done to remedy a condition revealed by the highest authority. Then in 1951 two Foreign Office officials, one of them a senior and rising young man, and both of them notorious characters who had evidently been protected and advanced in their official careers by some powerful hand, suddenly disappeared. It was known that they had fled to Moscow, fearing exposure on the Hiss model. For four more years British governments (Socialist and Conservative) refused all public investigation or any information beyond the bland statement that “all possible inquiries are being made”. Then in 1955 the British Foreign Office suddenly announced that the two men had been under suspicion of conveying secret information to the Soviet Government from 1949 (they disappeared in 1951). This belated announcement was not spontaneous; it was extorted from the British government only by the fact that one more Russian, Vladimir Petrov of the Soviet Embassy at Canberra, had fled his captivity and had revealed that these two men, Burgess and Maclean, had been recruited as spies for the Soviet during their student days at Cambridge University twenty years earlier (1930-1935; this is the method, of capturing men in their unwary youth, on which the Weishaupt documents and the Protocols alike lay emphasis; the career of Alger Hiss affords an exact parallel in America). Immediately after this tardy Foreign [381] Office admission Burgess and Maclean were proudly paraded before international newspapermen in Moscow as officials of the Soviet Foreign Ministry (and immediately after that the Soviet leaders of the moment, Kruschev and Bulganin, were invited to pay a ceremonial visit to London).

The Petrov disclosures brought about an investigation in Australia, the fourth great country infested, by a Royal Commission of three judges. Of the entire series, only this investigation can be compared with the Canadian one of nine years earlier. It was fairly thorough and the “public report (September 14, 1955) stated that the Soviet Embassy in Canberra from 1943 on “controlled and operated an espionage organization in Australia” and gave warning that Soviet intelligence agents were still operating in Australia through undercover agents entering the country as immigrants. The Australian Foreign Minister, Mr. R. Casey, at that time stated that there was “a nest of traitors” among Australian civil servants. His words confirmed what Mr. Mackenzie King had said ten years before, and in that decade nothing truly effective had been done in any of the four great countries affected, or infected, to remedy the mortally dangerous condition exposed.

A chief reason for this was that all the governmental, parliamentary and judicial investigations of the decade (with one exception) misinformed public opinion more than they informed it, by concentrating on the issue of “espionage”, which in fact is a minor one. The fact that great countries try to obtain knowledge, through spies and agents, of military and other matters which other great countries try to keep secret is generally known so that the masses probably were not much moved even by the extent of espionage which was revealed; this, they told each other, was something for counter-intelligence to handle.

Thus the investigations diverted public attention from the truly grave condition which was exposed. This was not the mere theft of documents, but the control of state policy at the highest level which was gained by the infestation of the Western countries. It was this that enabled arms, supplies, wealth, military operations and

D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion

— 260 —

the conduct of Western politicians at top-level conferences all to be guided into a channel where they would produce the maximum gain, in territory and armed strength, for the revolutionary state.

Exposure of this condition came only in the Hiss trial and its numerous attendant investigations and disclosures. These showed that the revolution had its agents at the top-levels of political power, where they could direct State policy and the entire energies of nations; the two men both purveyed secret papers, but this was a small function auxiliary to their major accomplishment, which was to produce the map of and the situation in Europe with which the world is confronted today.

The names of Mr. Alger Hiss and Mr. Harry Dexter White are inseparable from that denouement. Mr. Hiss, from his university days in the 1930’s, rose as [382] rapidly in the public service, under some protection, as Mr. Donald Maclean in the British one. He was denounced as a Soviet agent in 1939 by a fellow-Communist who awoke to his duty when the Communist state joined with Hitler in the attack on Poland, and the proof then lay disregarded for many years while two American presidents continued to advance him. He was constantly at Mr. Roosevelt’s side (sometimes in separate meetings with Stalin) at Yalta and the abandonment of Eastern Europe to the revolution cannot be dissociated from his name; the disclosures about his activity made at his trial make that conclusion inescapable. After Yalta, and evidently as a sign of the especial confidence placed in him by the international group which was in control of events during that confusion-period, he was made first Secretary General of the United Nations, which thus came in to being at San Francisco in April 1945 under the directorship of an agent of the revolution.

AS I’VE BEEN SAYING, IT IS THE ‘JEW.N’…THE TALMUDIC CULT’S WORLD GOVT. … THIS IS RESPONSIBLE FOR TAKING AWAY OUR GUNS, OUR LAST CHANCE TO FIGHT BACK…

The decisive part played by Hiss at Yalta is indicated by a few significant quotations. The nominal Secretary of State, Mr. Edward Stettinius, on the eve of Yalta instructed his State Department staff that “all memoranda for the President on topics to be discussed at the meeting of the Big Three should be in the hands of Mr. Hiss not later than Monday, January 15”. In this way Hiss was put in charge of the State Department’s briefing papers for the President on all questions expected to arise at Yalta. Mr. James F. Byrnes, an earlier Secretary of State who was present at Yalta in a later capacity (director of the Office of War Mobilization and Reconversion) says, “So far as I could see, the President had made little preparation for the Yalta Conference. . . Not until the day before we landed at Malta did I learn that we had on board a very complete file of studies and recommendations prepared by the State Department. . . Later, when I saw some of these splendid studies I greatly regretted that they had not been considered on board ship. I am sure the failure to study them while en route was due to the President’s illness”.

These papers prepared by the experts and professionals of the State Department expressed views about future relations with the Soviet which Mr. Roosevelt’s utterances at Yalta did not reflect, and as he had not looked at them this was natural. Mr. Hiss in fact made American policy at Yalta. Mr. Stettinius records Hiss’s presence “behind the President” at the formal conferences, and says that he himself always “conferred” with Hiss before and after these meetings. The official, but expurgated American report of the Yalta Conference apparently was edited with an eye to the concealment of Hiss’s part; it contains only notes and jottings made by him which mean nothing when separated from their essential background: his membership of the conspiracy. Mr. Bryton Barron (one of the two State Department historians whose refusal to “distort history” and “suppress official data” led to their dismissal, as earlier mentioned) at Chicago in February l956 publicly stated that, if he were allowed, he could “relate incidents to demonstrate the power Alger Hiss exercised . . . and how he [383] operated at high levels”, adding that the official publication “failed to list many of his more significant activities at that fateful conference”.

The name of Alger Hiss is the best known in this context, because of his public trial and conviction. The first authority in this question, Mr. Whittaker Chambers, thinks that the man known as “Harry Dexter White”, whom he calls “one of the most influential men on earth”, may have played an even greater part in shaping American State policy in the Soviet interest.

According to the American newspapers, no birth certificate of any man called “Harry Dexter White” exists and none knows who he was! Mr. Henry Morgenthau junior (the only Cabinet officer to continue in office through nearly the entire twelve years of Mr. Roosevelt’s presidency), very soon after his appointment introduced “Harry Dexter White” (1934) into the United States Treasury. His rise there (like Mr. Hiss’s in the State Department) was of the rapid kind which indicates influential backing. Immediately after Pearl Harbour he was invested with “full responsibility for all matters with which the Treasury Department has to deal having a bearing on foreign relations”, and later was appointed Assistant to the Secretary himself.

During all these years the man whose true identity apparently will never be known was a Soviet agent, and the proof was proffered to but refused by President Roosevelt. Mr. Whittaker Chambers states that he first received secret Treasury documents from Mr. White (for transmission to the Soviet Government) in 1935, and in 1939 (after the Hit