THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION
BY DOUGLAS REED
Chapter 38
BY DOUGLAS REED
Chapter 38
THE LITTLE COUNTRY FAR AWAY
In forgotten Palestine during the 1930-1940 decade, while "The Chief" and "Der Fuehrer" reigned in
Washington and Berlin, matters went from bad to worse and at the end a British government was about to
abandon the hopeless task foisted on it by Mr. Balfour (who died in 1930 after a deathbed leavetaking from
Dr. Weizmann) when, on the eve of another war, a Mr. Winston Churchill recommitted his country to it.
Thus the British people, believing that their business was solely with Hitler, once more went into war under
sealed orders, among which was the purpose, unsuspected by them, that had brought them to the brink of
defeat in 1918.
Successive British governments, in this affair, found themselves in the plight of the circus clown who
cannot rid himself of the fly-paper; each time they thought they had shaken it off, Dr. Weizmann affixed it in
a new place. In Palestine the British administrators and soldiers, on whom "the Mandate" had been thrust,
could not do their duty. The Arabs obdurately rebelled; the Zionists in London importuned the government
there to use force against the Arabs; if the men on the spot tried to act impartially between the parties orders
from home restrained them.
British history overseas is probably vindicated by results in every case but this. It produced free
overseas nations in empty lands, and in conquered ones populated by others the oft-proclaimed (and everderided) intention to upraise the conquered and then depart is being carried out; India is only one proof of
that. In the case of Palestine all the rules previously followed by Britain overseas were broken and all
experience set at naught, under the "pressure" exercised in London, or from other capitals if London ever
baulked.
Thus the British officials and troops sent to Palestine were the unluckiest in British history
(characteristically, the only man among them who was publicly honoured after their departure was a traitor).
They knew how to administer a genuine "protectorate"; the word has an honest meaning as well as the false
one mockingly given to it by Hitler in Czechoslovakia. Occupation with the consent, or at the invitation of
native inhabitants can be an admirable thing. I have travelled in one such genuine "protectorate", Basutoland.
The British went there at Basuto request and the consequence was that the Basuto survived as a free nation,
where they would otherwise have been enslaved by stronger neighbours. Their lot and prospect today are
better than they could have become in any other way and they realize this, so that a few dozen white
administrators govern 660,000 Basuto in mutual esteem.
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. The corruption of
"the civil power" in England, from Mr. Balfour's time on, achieved this result. The supreme maxim of Western constitutionalism is that "the civil power" must always be superior to the military one, so
that militarist regimes may not arise. But if the civil power yields to the dictates of a secret third party with
military aims, it becomes in fact inferior to a military power, though not to its native generals. In this way the
supreme maxim is stood on its head, because a nation' s armed forces can then be put at the service of
interests alien to, and destructive of, its own. This happened in Palestine.
The repression of native Arabs as "rebels" did not help Zionism in Palestine. At the start of the 1930-
1940 decade the rise of Hitler strengthened its position in the lobbies of London and Washington, but this
improvement was counterbalanced by the further deterioration which occurred in Palestine itself as the
decade wore on. During this later period Dr. Weizmann, who from 1904 to 1919 had concentrated his efforts on the British government extended his activities to two new places; his orbit covered "Jerusalem, London
and New York" and he dealt with British prime ministers like a man whittling sticks.
His next victim was, once more, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, who after desertion by his Socialist
colleagues became prime minister of a coalition government of all other parties. Young Jimmy Macdonald
from Lossiemouth, Scotland's poor boy made good, was by this time Mr. Ramsay Macdonald of the graying,
floating hair. He made his son, Mr. Malcolm Macdonald, Under-Secretary for the Colonies, and therewith
both Macdonald's left the happy dreamland of Socialist platform oratory for the cold, hard world of
"irresistible pressure". Mr. Macdonald again set out to stop the endless fighting and rioting in Palestine, which
by this time had claimed many British lives, and soon announced that his government would suspend Zionist
immigration, regulate Zionist land purchases, and punish incitements to disorder "in whatever quarter they may
originate ".
Mr. Macdonald at once became the object of violent attack and began to wear the bewildered mien for
which he became famous (and which I observed when I met him in 1935). He received the visit of Dr.
Weizmann and three Zionist associates and was accused of "dealing rather frivolously" with "the moral
implications of promises given to Jews" (Dr. Weizmann). Leading politicians in his own country, America and
South Africa began a furious campaign against him. Intimidated a second time, he appointed a special
Cabinet Committee to reconsider the oft-considered "Palestine policy". A Socialist minister, Mr. Arthur
Henderson, was chairman and Mr. Malcolm Macdonald was secretary; Dr. Weizmann and six leading Zionists
formed "the committee"; the Arabs, as usual, were not represented. [nothing has changed, and here we are in 2020 on the verge of yet more idiocy and cowardice by Western Civilization DC]
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. Mr. Macdonald again
surrendered in a letter to Dr. Weizmann, under the terms of which Zionist immigration to Palestine in 1934 and 1935 exceeded all previous figures. Having dealt with Mr. Macdonald Dr.
Weizmann undertook the grand tour. As the Second War approached he was everywhere, in South Africa,
Turkey, France, Italy, Belgium and other lands. In France he met "every premier between the two wars" and
of these he found M. Leon Blum, a co-religionist, to be especially sympathetic. M. Aristide Briand, the
Foreign Minister, was also well-disposed "although a little vague as to what was going on" (Dr. Weizmann
often refers in such terms to the Western politicians who did his bidding). He saw Mussolini three times. He
spoke to distinguished audiences about the iniquities of Hitler and told them it was "the responsibility of the
civilized world" on this account to expel the Palestinian Arabs (he did not put it so plainly).
Nevertheless, by the later 1930's Zionism in Palestine was disintegrating again. But for the Second War
it would have faded into oblivion, an Arabian Jameson Raid undertaken in irresponsibility and ignominiously
ended.
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. With time Dr. Weizmann's
argument that this refusal was of the essence of "democracy" lost appeal and the British government found
itself in an increasingly difficult dilemma. Mr. Stanley Baldwin (after succeeding Mr. Macdonald) resorted to
the old "pending-basket" procedure; he sent one more commission of investigation (the fifth?) to Palestine,
and at this point the thing became plain farce.[sounds like the "democracy" post 911, not that there was any soundness to it before, but latter day "democracy is a farce and closer to Communism then anything resembling a Republic. DC]
Mr. Macdonald had been cowed by Dr. Weizmann and his bodyguard into cancelling a "Palestine
policy" announced after full consultation with his responsible advisers. Now that Mr. Baldwin sent a
commission to Palestine to discover an alternative policy it was received by Dr. Weizmann! With agility he
hopped from London to Jerusalem and back, telling the British government in London what to do, their
Commissioners in Palestine what to report, and the British government in London, again, what it should do
with the report when it arrived. (Between whiles he visited New York to arrange for more "pressure" from
that quarter).[Yep no manipulation at all, body guard,Dr?...Don...DC]
This Peel Commission received from some quarter a proposal that the eternal dilemma might be
solved by partitioning Palestine, and promptly consulted Dr. Weizmann. Until that moment the pretence had
been kept up, all through the years, that the Zionists did not claim a Jewish state, only the "national home".
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. [We should give the Zionists what they want, then they would no longer be able to hide behind it, draw the lines, sue them for peace ...then the world stands their ground. DC]
His Asiatic mastery of the art of negotiation compels admiration. By invoking the Old Testament he
firmly nailed down the idea of partition without committing himself to any boundaries. He said that he might 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 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".
The Peel Commission recommended partition and stated that "the Mandate" was unworkable. Had the
British Government acted on that report and promptly withdrawn from Palestine much might have been
spared mankind, but within two years the Second World War reinvolved it in the insoluble problem.
As it approached 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".
Hitler's persecution of men was ignored in these private, fateful, interviews in political antechambers;
the plight of one "community" alone was advanced as the argument for war. 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.
In the last twelve months before the Second War the secret arbiters of power exerted their maximum effort to gain control of men and events. Mr. Roosevelt was "committed" but
could only be made use of at a later stage. In England Mr. Baldwin, the Worcestershire squire and
manufacturer, gave way to the Birmingham business-man, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, in whom a serious
obstacle to the exercise of "irresistible pressure" behind the scenes arose.
Mr. Chamberlain's name is linked with the final, fatal act of encouragement to Hitler: the
abandonment and enforced surrender of Czechoslovakia at Munich. For a few weeks the public masses
thought he had saved the peace by this deed and at that moment I, in Budapest and Prague, first understood
what Thomas Jefferson meant when he 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".[So there have always been people who know what 'newspapers' are, says just as much about who Jefferson really was, as it tells us about the purpose of newspapers and the power behind them DC]
Nevertheless, Mr. Chamberlain may have calculated that he was compelled to do what he did by the
state of British weakness and unpreparedness which his predecessor, Mr. Baldwin, had allowed to come
about. I believe he was wrong if he so calculated; even at that late moment firmness would have saved the
day, because the German generals were ready to overthrow Hitler; but he may have been honestly convinced
that he could not act otherwise. Where he unforgivably erred was in depicting the deed of Munich as
something morally right and in bolstering up this contention with allusions to "a small country a long way
away with which we have nothing to do", or similar words.
However, he was at least consistent in this last attitude. He wanted to disentangle England from its
imbroglio in another small country far away where it had found only tribulation bequeathed to it by Mr.Balfour. What he did incurred the bitter enmity of those who were powerful behind the political scenes, and
in my opinion the true source of his overthrow may have been the same as that of Mr. Asquith in 1916.
1938, when the word "partition" rang out, was the bloodiest year in Palestine up to that time; 1500
Arabs were killed. The Peel Commission had recommended partition but could not suggest how it might be
effected. Yet another body of investigators was sent out, this time in search of a means of bisecting the infant
without killing it. This Woodhead Commission reported in October 1938 that it could not devise a practical
plan; in November the von Rath murder and the anti-Jewish disorders which followed it in Germany were
used by the Zionists to intensify their incitements against the Arabs in Palestine.[A lot of the weapons for this were coming from America,particularly from New York and Chicago underworld types, a type that has been falsely driven into the American Psych. as strictly Italian. Careful study shows otherwise DC]
Mr. Chamberlain then 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 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. [They screwed the pooch is what they did, made their problem, the world's.DC]
This plan, if carried out, meant peace in Palestine at last, but no separate Jewish state. 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 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 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.
At that moment 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 rising Socialist party had long forgotten
the wrongs of the working man, the plight of the oppressed and the sad lot of "the underdog"; it was caught
up in international intrigue and wanted to be on the side of the top-dog. Thus Mr. Herbert Morrison, a
Socialist leader, pointed accusingly at Mr. Malcolm Macdonald (whose department was closely identified with
the White Paper) and mourned the heresy of a man who "was once a Socialist". Socialism, too, by this time
meant driving Arabs out of Palestine, and the trade union notables, with their presentation gold watches, did
not care how poor or oppressed those distant people were.
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 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.
Chapter 39
THE ARMING OF ZION
For six years the grappling masses surged to and fro over three continents, and at the end those who
thought themselves the victors were further from the Holy Grail than at the start; at the victor-politicians'
parleys the cock crowed a second time. Three decades earlier President Wilson had striven to cry that "the
causes and objects are obscure . . . the objects of the statesmen on both sides are virtually the same", and the
outcome justified him. The German leaders then had decided to "foment" and Mr. House to "support" the
world-revolution; the Zionists kept their headquarters in Berlin as long as they thought that a victorious
Germany might set up the "Jewish homeland" in Palestine, and only transferred them when victory was seen
to lie with the West. The Second War again bore out the truth of Mr. Wilson's stifled cry. It could not have begun at all without the complicity of the world-revolution in the onslaught of the new "madman in Berlin", and the peoples then overrun could discern no difference between the Communist and the Nazi oppression. Then, when the two turned against each other, Mr. Hopkins (in Mr. House's stead) began to "support" the world revolution again, so that victory could bring no "liberation". 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.
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 (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. Even today, in 1956, Palestine has but 1,600,000 Jews and a state of permanent warfare exists in Arabia in consequence of their introduction; if their number is to be doubled or trebled the shape of the future is apparent and Mr. Churchill, in 1939, presumably saw it.
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 repeated the order on May 29 (while the evacuation from Dunkirk was in progress) and on June 2. On June 6 he complained of military opposition to it, and at the end of June of "difficulties" with two responsible ministers, particularly Lord Lloyd ("who was a convinced anti-Zionist and pro-Arab; I wished to arm the Jewish colonists".
Thus the matter was already being discussed in terms, not of national interest, but of "pro" this and "anti" that, the language of the soap-box. Mr. Churchill continued in this strain, telling Lord Lloyd that the large numbers of troops in Palestine were "the price we have to pay for the anti-Jewish policy which has been persisted in for some years" (the policy of his own White Paper of 1922). If the [335] Jews were properly armed, he said, British troops would be released for service elsewhere "and there would be no danger of the Jews attacking the Arabs". He refused to acquaint Parliament with the views of the responsible minister: "I could certainly not associate myself with such an answer as you have drawn up for me".
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 Tel Aviv . . . Here I encountered every kind of resistance" (July 1940, just before the air attack on Britain began).
Dr. Weizmann evidently thought the time was come to subdue this resistance by "pressure" from another quarter, for in the spring of 1941, he went again to America. At this time (as in the First War) he was nominally giving the British "war effort" the benefit of his scientific knowledge, on this occasion in the field of isoprene. He says he was "absorbed in the work", but he contrived to make himself free from it and, as he was Dr. Weizmann, no difficulties arose about crossing the Atlantic in wartime.
The ground had been prepared for him in America, where Rabbi Stephen Wise [336] was instructing President Roosevelt (as he had instructed the long-dead President Wilson) about his duty towards Zionism: "On May 13, 1941 I found it necessary to send the president firsthand reports from Palestine" (the rabbi' s firsthand reports about a "reported" pogrom in 1933 had produced the boycott in New York) "and write about the imperilled status of the unarmed Jews . . . The British Government ought to be made to understand how enormous would be the shock and how damaging its effect upon the democratic cause, if there should be a general slaughter because of failure adequately to arm the Jews as well as to strengthen the defences of Palestine with guns, tanks and planes".
The president replied, "I can merely call to the attention of the British our deep interest in the defence of Palestine and our concern for the defence of the Jewish population there; and, as best I can, supply the British forces with the material means by which the maximum protection to Palestine will be afforded". Equipped with this letter (as Dr. Weizmann once with a report of an interview written on British Foreign Office letterpaper) Rabbi Stephen Wise "the next day left for Washington, and after conference with high government officials felt more confident that the British would be made to understand that there must be adequate equipment (guns, tanks and planes) for our people in Palestine. . . And probably thanks to the intervention of Mr. Roosevelt, the business of parity had been dropped to a large extent" (the last allusion is to the insistence of responsible British administrators 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).
These Zionist potentates in the various countries applied "irresistible pressure on international politics" in perfect synchronization. If London lagged in compliance, it was "made to understand" by Washington; had the positions been reversed the procedure would have been the opposite. Thus the mechanism had been well oiled when Dr. Weizmann arrived and he soon satisfied himself that "the top political leaders" showed "real sympathy for our Zionist aspirations".
In Washington, as in London, he found the responsible officials a nuisance: "The trouble always began when it came to the experts in the State Department". Below the "top-line politician" in Washington level ministers and high officials, and in Palestine American professors, missionaries and businessmen, all tried to keep American state policy free of this incubus. The chief responsible official in Washington is described by Dr. Weizmann in the identical terms used by Mr. Churchill to Lord Lloyd: "The head of the Eastern Division of the State Department was an avowed anti-Zionist and pro-Arab"; this indicates the original source of political vocabulary at the top level.
Dr. Weizmann realized that from this period on Washington was the place whence pressure might best be maintained on London, and early in 1942 transferred himself thither. His liberation from the scientific work which "absorbed" him in England was easily arranged, 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 potentiate ship 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 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".
For nearly forty years, at that time, Dr. Weizmann had worked "behind the scenes", deviously and in secret; history shows no comparable case. At one more behind-the-scenes meeting with President Roosevelt he then imparted Mr. Churchill's message, or rather (according to his own account) a different one: he said Mr. Churchill had assured him that "the end of the war would see a change in the status of the Jewish National Home, and that the White Paper of 1939 would go". He describes this as Mr. Churchill's "plan" but it is not the message previously quoted, although it might depict Mr. Churchill's mind. What is significant is that Dr. Weizmann omitted Mr. Churchill's main proposal, to make King Ibn Saoud "lord of the Middle East . . . provided he settles with you".
Dr. Weizmann says that President Roosevelt's response to Mr. Churchill's plan (as thus misrepresented to him) was "completely affirmative", which in Zionese means that he said "Yes" to a Jewish state ("a change in the status of the Jewish National Home"). The president, according to Dr. Weizmann, then himself introduced the name of Ibn Saoud, and showed himself "aware of the Arab problem". Dr. Weizmann, if his account is correct, did not then say that Mr. Churchill recommended "a settlement" with Ibn Saoud. On the contrary, Dr. Weizmann "maintained the thesis that we could not rest our cause on the consent of the Arabs". .
That was the opposite of Mr. Churchill's envisaged "settlement" and was specific: it meant war against the Arabs and American support for such a war. Thereon Mr. Roosevelt merely "again assured me of his sympathies and of his desire to settle the problem".
There is some mystery in this reserve of President Roosevelt in the matter of "the Arab problem" which might have had important consequences had he not died, two years later, almost immediately after meeting Ibn Saoud. However, what he cautiously said and privately thought was no longer of vital importance in 1943, because the real decision had been taken. Behind the scenes, under cover of a war in Europe, arms were on their way to the Zionists, and this secret process was to determine the shape of the future. From this moment neither the top-line politicians, if they rebelled, nor the hard-pressed responsible officials had the power to prevent Zionism from planting in Palestine a time-bomb which may yet blow up the second half of the 20th Century.
For the time being Dr. Weizmann, in July 1943, returned to London, assured that "pressure" from Washington would be maintained.
Chapter 40
THE INVASION OF AMERICA
While military invasions and counter-invasions multiplied during the six years of the Second War,
absorbing all thought and energy of the masses locked in combat, a silent invasion went on which produced
more momentous effects than the armed ones. This was the political invasion of the American Republic and
its success was shown by the shape of American state policy at the war's end, which was so directed as to
ensure that the only military invasions that yielded enduring "territorial gains" were those of the revolution
into Europe and of the Zionists into Arabia. Historically surveyed, 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. He began the process at the start of his presidency by his recognition of the Soviet, when the ambassador of the revolution, Maxim Litvinoff, undertook that the revolutionary state would keep its nose out of American domestic affairs; Mr. Roosevelt's mentors were not the men to remind him that when once the fox gets in his nose he'll soon find ways to make his body follow. The story of his support of the revolutionary state by money and arms belongs to a later chapter; this one aims to tell the tale of its penetration of the American Republic on its own soil during his long presidency.
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 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.
The renewal of large-scale immigration formed the background to the political invasion of the Republic. This was 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 way in which control over acts of state policy was achieved (through the "adviserships" which became part of American political life after 1913) has already been shown, this part of the process having preceded the others. The methods used to attempt the capture of government services will be discussed later in this chapter. In what immediately follows the capture of the mass-mind in America, through control of published information, will be described; it was indispensable to the other two thrusts.
This form of political invasion is called by Dr. Weizmann, who exhaustively studied it in his youth, when he was preparing in Russia for his life's work in the west, "the technique of propaganda and the approach to the masses". The operation so described may now be studied in actual operation:
Far back in this book the reader was invited to note that "B'nai B'rith" put out a shoot. B'nai B'rith, until then, might be compared with such groups of other religious affiliation as the Young Men's Christian Association or the Knights of Columbus; 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 fact though not in form. The secret police in countries where the institution is native (Hitler's Gestapo was copied from the Asiatic model, which had a century-old tradition in Russia and Turkey) have the entire power and resources of the state behind them; indeed, they are the state. In America Zionism built the nucleus of a secret police nearly as effective in many ways as those prototypes. It could only become equally effective if it gained full control of the state's resources, including the power of arrest and imprisonment, and in my judgment that was the ultimate goal
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 and more of the like. The vocabulary is fixed and may be traced back to the attacks on Barruel, Robison and Morse after the French revolution; the true nature of any writer's or newspaper's allegiance may be detected by keeping count of the number of times these trade-mark words are used. The achievement of this organization (usually known as the A.D.L.) has been by iteration to make fetishes of them, so that party politicians hasten to deny that they are any of these things. Under this regime reasoned debate became outlawed; there is something of sorcery in this subjugation of two generations of Western men to the mumbo-jumbo of Asiatic conspirators.
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).
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.
The ADL, 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 mass hysteria by their self-styled defenders". *
* The reader need not find any contradiction between this quotation and my statement in the preceding paragraph. Debate and comment are largely free in the Jewish press, which is intended chiefly for perusal "among ourselves", and the newspaper-reader, anywhere in the world, who takes the pains regularly to obtain Jewish newspapers of all opinions will find himself much better informed about what goes on in the world. The black-out is in the non-Jewish press. The Menorah Journal also drew attention to the falsification of news by Jewish news agencies 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, 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).
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 book reviewers immediately slumped; Miss Thompson's portrait and writings are seldom seen in the American press today.
How is the oracle worked? By what means has America (and the entire West) been brought to the state that no public man aspires to office, or editor feels secure at his desk, until he has brought out his prayer-mat and prostrated himself to Zion? How have presidents and prime ministers been led to compete for the approval of this faction like bridesmaids for the bride's bouquet? Why do leading men suffer themselves to be paraded at hundred-dollar-a-plate banquets for Zion, or to be herded on to Zionist platforms to receive "plaques" for services rendered?
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 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 thought control 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.
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 advertising 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".
The name of the body which supplied this mass of suggestive material never reached the public. During the 1940's the system of "syndicated writers" in New York or Washington enveloped the entire American press. One such writer's 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:
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 discretion, he answered No.*
* 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.
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 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).
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- 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:
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 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 high directing intelligence behind this body evidently knows that 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. These secret purposes were advanced between 1916 and 1922 (not between 1914 and 1918) in the First War, and between 1942 and 1948 (not 1939-1945) in the Second War. If a third war were to begin, say, in 1965 and continue until 1970, ostensibly for the purpose of "destroying Communism", the secret effort to realize the full ambition of Zionism and of the communized world-state would come during the period of greatest confusion, say, from 1968 to 1974.
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 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.
* 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".
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 cooperation with the 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 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 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 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.
next
THE REVOLUTION "EXTENDS"
243s
No comments:
Post a Comment