HE COHTRUVERSV UE ZION 



the blood of lambs and goats, with the fat of 
the kidneys of rams : for k the Lord hath a 
facrificc in Bozrah, and a great llaughter in 
the land of Idumea. 

7 And the || unicorns fhall come down with 
them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and 
their land fhall be || (baked with blood, and 
their duft made fat with fatnefs. 

8 For it is the day of the Lord's 'vengeance, 
and the year of recompenses for the contro- 
verfy of Zion. 


re afraid ; fearful- 
lypocritcs. Who 
he devouring fire? 
! OkMilallin^r 


generation to generation it fhall lie wade ; none 
lhall pals through it for ever and ever. 

M *u^:l'j;‘, || cormorant and the bittern 

the owl alio and the raven 
Hit : and s l*.e lhall ftrctch out 
Ih^NHbf confufion, and the doncs of 


itc terror. b Where 
receiver? where is 


P’.jBpf our foB| 
Jcrufalcm a quiet 
lhall not be taken 
akes thereof lhall 
11 any of the cords 


ca ^ ^ 1C n °hlcs thereof to the 
kingdom, but none Jba/l be there, and all her 
princes (hall be nothing. 

13 And r thorns lhall come up in her a 
laces, nettles and brambles in the fortredes 
thereof: and ‘it fhall be an habitation of dra¬ 
gons, and a court for || + owls. 

14. + The wild bealts of the dclcrt fhall alio 
meet with + the wild beads of the ifland, and 
the fatyr fhall cry to his fellow ^ the || fcrccch 
owl alio (hall reft there, and find for hcrlclf a 
place of reft. 

15 There (hall the great owl make her red, 
ancHa\\ and hatch, an^pljie|^r^aLhcr fha- 

(vSlhciBhffSic vVS* aBrl^Hthcrcd, 


Lord will be unto 
/ers and ftreams ; 
.vith oars, neither 




DOUGLAS 


DOLPHIN PRESS 









THE AUTHOR 


It is one of the commonplaces of history that adverse 
circumstances offer no obstacle to men of outstanding energy and 
ability. Douglas Reed, who described himself as “relatively 
unschooled”, started out in life as an office boy at the age of 13 
and was a bank clerk at 19 before enlisting at the outbreak of 
World War I. A less promising preparation for a man destined to 
be one of the most brilliant political analysts and descriptive 
writers of the century could hardly be imagined. He was already 
26 years old when he reached the London Times in 1921 as a 
telephonist and clerk; and he was 30 when he finally reached 
journalism as sub-editor. Thereafter there was no stopping this 
late-starter. Three years later he became assistant Times 
correspondent in Berlin before moving on to Vienna as Chief 
Central European correspondent stationed at Vienna. Reed broke 
with The Times in October 1938, almost simultaneously with the 
appearance of a book which was to win him instant world fame — 
Insanity Fair, a charming combination of autobiography and 
contemporary history. This was followed a year later by another 
runaway best-seller, Disgrace Abounding . Other best-sellers 
followed in quick succession — A Prophet at Home, All Our 
Tomorrows, Lest We Regret, Somewhere South of Suez and Far 
and Wide . After Far and Wide Reed was virtually banned by the 
establishment publishers and booksellers, but he emerged from his 
enforced retirement as a writer in 1966 with The Battle for 
Rhodesia , followed by The Siege of Southern Africa a year later. 


THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


DOUGLAS REED 

The Controversy of Zion was written 
by Douglas Reed when at the peak of his 
writing career. It is the product of more 
than three years of full-time research, 
much of it carried out at the New York 
Central Library, and drawing on sources 
not easily accessible. He combines with 
information acquired in this way all the 
background knowledge and experience of 
a former London Times foreign 
correspondent who observed political 
developments in Europe at close range 
over a number of years. 

The book is written in a tone of 
sympathetic understanding of the 
situation in which millions of Jews have 
found themselves down the centuries, and 
he explores at depth (drawing much of his 
material from authoritative Jewish 
sources) central moral issues over which 
the Jews themselves have frequently been 
deeply divided and which have always 
involved the possibility of dangerous 
alienation from the main stream of 
mankind. 

Many will find that the real issue which 
set up violent antagonism between the 
Founder of Christianity and the Pharisees 
has been made clear by Reed, with 
quotations from Biblical and Talmudic 
sources, reinforced with others supplied by 
Jewish scholars, both ancient and modern. 

Religious information and 
interpretation acquire an extra dimension 
of interest and importance when set in 
proper relationship with historical 
developments from before the Babylonian 
Captivity until modern times. For Reed 
shows once again how news of 


contemporary political happenings, which 
many people have given up trying to 
understand, can be rendered instantly 
intelligible when presented in the total 
historical context to which they belong. 

Much of the revisionist historv to be 
found in modern conservative literature, 
like that dealing with the Alger Hiss trial, 
the persecution of Senator Joseph 
McCarthy, the Yalta Agreement, the 
Nuremberg Trials, the Morgenthau Plan, 
etc. has been amplified and illuminated 
and fitted into the grand mosaic of more 
than 2 000 years of human striving and 
suffering. 


OTHER WORKS BY DOUGLAS 
REED 

The Burning of Reichstag (1934). 
Insanity Fair (Jonathan Cape, 1938). 
Disgrace Abounding (do., 1939). 
Nemesis? The Story of Otto Strasser. 

A Prophet at Home (do., 1941). 

All Our Tomorrows (do., 1942). 

Lest We Regret (do., 1943). 

From Smoke to Smother (do., 1948). 
Somewhere South of Suez (do., 1949). 
Far and Wide (do., 1951). 

The Battle for Rhodesia (HAUM, 1966). 
The Siege of Southern Africa 
(Macmillan, 1974). 

Behind the Scene (Dolphin Press, 1975). 
The Grand Design of the 20th Century 
(Dolphin Press, 1977). 

Novels: Galanty Show. Reasons of 
Health. Rule of Three. 

Play: Downfall. 


continued on back page 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


"For it is the day of the Lord’s vengeance and the 
year of recompences for the controversy of Zion" 
— Isaiah 34:8. 


DOUGLAS REED 

An event has happened, upon which it is difficult 
to speak and impossible to be silent” 

— Edmund Burke, 1789. 


Dolphin Press (Pty) Ltd., 

P.O. Box 3145, Durban, Natal, South Africa. 



Copyright < Douglas Reed 1978. 


Published in 1978 by: 

Dolphin Press (Pty) Ltd., 

P.O. Box 3145, Durban. Natal, South Africa. 


All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by 
any mea ns without the permission of the publishers, excepting brief quotes used 
in connection with reviews written specially for inclusion in a magazine or 


newspaper. 


Ack nowledgements N. M. G. 


Typesetting by: 

Lithotone (Pty) Ltd., 

73 Gale Street, Durban, Natal. South Africa. 


n 



THE CONTROVERY OF ZION 


PREFACE 


This preface is meant to serve only one purpose, that of bringing to the 
attention of the reader the unusual circumstances in which the book w as written, 
and how the manuscript, after having remained hidden for more than 20 years, 
came to light and was at last made available for publication. The story of the 
book itself, here told very briefly, is part of the history of our century, throwing 
some light on a struggle, of which the multitudes know nothing — that conducted 
relentlesslv and unceasingly on the battleground of the human mind. 

For the rest. The Controversy of Zion can be left to speak for itself: indeed, it is 
one of the rare qualities of this work of revisionist history and religious 
exposition that it can be opened anywhere at random, and the reader's interest is 
at once awakened and his attention firmly grasped. 

The central message, too, is revealed in almost every page, understanding and 
compassionate of people, but severely critical of the inordinate and dangerous 
ambitions of their leaders. 


The importance to be attached to a work of this kind will rest partly on what is 
written and partly on the identity, qualifications and status of the person who 
wrote it — in this case, Douglas Launcelot Reed, former Fondon Times 
correspondent in Central Europe, later to win great fame with books like Insanity 
Fair, Disgraee Abounding, Somewhere South of Suez, Far and Wide and several 
others, each amplifying a hundredfold the scope available to him as one of the 
world's leading foreign correspondents. 

In the years immediately before and after World War II an introductory 
preface would have been superfluous, because the name of Douglas Reed was 
then on everyone's lips, his books were being sold by scores of thousand, and he 
was known with intimate familiarity throughout the English-speaking world by a 
vast army of readers and admirers. 

A change wrought by the passage of time calls for some effort at correction. 
There are still those of the older generation who remember Douglas Reed with 
admiration and affection, and these have continued down the years to gather, 
and hoard like treasure trove, copies of his works still to be found from time to 
time in secondhand book stores and in other places. But far greater is the number 
of those younger folk who never heard of Douglas Reed and never enjoyed the 
pleasure and instruction his writings provide. 

The disappearance into almost total oblivion of Douglas Reed and all his 
works was a change that could not have been wrought by time alone. Indeed, the 
correctness of his interpretation of the unfolding history of his time found some 
confirmation in what happened to him when at the height of his powers. 

After 1951, with the publication of Far and Wide, in which he set the history of 
the United States of America into the context of all he had learned in Europe of 
the politics of the world, Reed found himself banished from the bookstands, all 
publishers' doors closed on him, and those books already written liable to be 


v 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


withdrawn from library shelves and 'lost", never to be replaced. 

His public career as a writer now apparently at an end, Reed w as at last free to 
undertake a great task for which all that had gone before, his years as a foreign 
correspondent, his travels in Europe and America, his conversations and 
contacts with the great political leaders of his day, plus his eager absorption 
through reading and observation of all that was best In European culture, were 
but a kind of preparation and education that no university could provide and 
which only the fortunate and gifted few could fully use. 

Experiences which other men might have accepted as defeat, served only to 
focus Reed's powers on what was to be his most important undertaking that of 
researching and retelling the story of the last 2000 years and more in such a way 
as to render intelligible much of modern history which, for the masses, remains in 
our time steeped in darkness and closely guarded by the terrors of an invisible 
system of censorship. 

Commencing in 1951. Douglas Reed spent more than three vears. much of this 
time separated from his wife and young family, working in the New York Central 
L ibrary, or tapping away at his typewriter in spartan lodgings in New York or 
Montreal. With workmanlike zeal, the book was re-w ritten, all 300 000 words of 
it, and the epilogue only added in 1956. 

If any other preface than this were required, the epilogue, brought to the front 
of the book, would suffice, for it epitomises the entire work, reflecting, too. in 
words that Now with light and kindly warmth, the total man who wrote them. 

It needed some unusual source of personal power and motivation to bring to 
completion so big a book involving so much laborious research and cross¬ 
checking, a book, moreover, which seemed to have little or no chance ol being 
published in the author's lifetime. Although there is correspondence to show that 
the title was briefly discussed with one publisher, the manuscript was never 
submitted, but remained for 22 years stowed away in three zippered files on top of 
a wardrobe in Reed's Durban home. 

Relaxed and at peace with himself in the knowledge that he had carried his 
great enterprise as far as was possible in the circumstances of the times, Douglas 
Reed patiently accepted his forced retirement as journalist and waiter, put behind 
him all that belonged to the past and adjusted himself cheerfully to a different 
mode of existence in which most of his new-found friends and acquaintances, 
charmed by his lively mind and rich sense of humour, remained for years wholly 
unaware that this was indeed the Douglas Reed of literary tame. 

Of this he w as sure, whether or not it w ould happen in his lifetime, there would 
come a time when circumstances would permit, and the means be found, to 
communicate to the world his message of history re-written and the central 
message of Christianity restated. 

Th ere would have to be some signs that mankind was beginning to fight back 
against falsehood and suppression and w as reaching out for that kind of truth 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


which, as the Bible tells, sets men free. Such signs had already begun to appear 
several years before Reed's derail in 1976 at the age of 82 - early and unexpected 
in one so youthful in outlook and full of vitality. 

All over the world, and especially in the United States, most powerful 
therefore worst afflicted with corrupted communications, there had come into 

Jl 

existence, as if at the command of Providence, innumerable groups and 
organisations and intrepid, articulate individuals, all locked in a struggle with 
what they saw and felt as a pervasive evil threatening Western Christian 
civilisation. 

Different in approach and different in the language they used, their central 
message was the same, a summons to stand up and be counted in a struggle to 
preserve all :hose things which make life worth having. 

With books like None Dure Call It Treason with sales running into millions, 
and other weightier tomes, their writers and distributors had demonstrated that 
channels had at last been created through which it was possible to reach a 
significant portion of mankind with some portion ofthe truth hitherto smothered 
and hidden. 

These, however, turned out to be only the shock-troops or pioneers who went 
before a nd helped to clear the way for a f ew generation of courageous revisionist 
historians in. or from, the great centres of learning, the universities, with books 
like Dr. Carroll Quigley’s "history of the world in our century"', entitled Tragedy 
and Hope, Dr. Antony Sutton’s National Suicide and Wall Street and the 
Bolshevik Revolution, to mention only two examples of a fast growing literature 
of historical revision and academic correction. 

Scholarship, by its nature disinclined to militancy, had at length awakened to 
find itself in the centre of a struggle for the mind and soul of man: scholarship had 
found itself defending imperilled scholarship; Shockley. Jensen, Butz and many 
others, its heroes were riding forth to offer battle to the forces of darkness. 

Milton’s inspired lines are a fitting epitaph for Douglas Reed and an apt 
comment on his re-emergence, after years of suppression, as one ofthe bravest 
prophets of his time ----- 

Servant of God, well done! Well hast thou fought the better fight, who single 
hast maintained against revolted multitudes the cause of truth, in word 
mightier than they in arms, and for the testimony of truth hast borne universal 
reproach, far worse to hear than violence' for this was ad thy care — to stand 
approved in sight of God, though worlds judged thee perverse. The easier 
concpiest now remains thee, aided by this host of friends . . . ( Book VI, 
Paradise Lost). 

IVOR BENSON. 

Durban, Natal, August 1978. 




THE CONTROVERSY OE ZION 
CONTENTS 

PREFACE . 

THE START OF THE AFFAIR . 

THE END OF ISRAEL. 

THE LEV'ITES AND THE LAW . 

THE FORGING OF THE CHAINS . 

THE FALL OF BABYLON . 

THE PEOPLE WEPT . 

THE TRANSLATION OF THE LAW . 

THE LAW AND THE I DU MEANS . 

THE RISE OE' THE PHARISEES . 

THE MAN FROM GALILEE . 

THE PHARISAIC PHOENIX . 

THE LIGHT AND THE SHADOW . 

THE FENCE AROUND THE LAW . 

THE MOVABLE GOVERNMENT . 

THE TALMUD AND THE GHETTOES . 

THE MESSIANIC LONGING . 

THE DESTRUCTIVE MISSION . 

THE NAPOLEONIC INTERROGATION . 

THE WORLD REVOLUTION . 

THE DESIGN . 

THE WARNINGS OE DISRAELI . 

THE MANAGERS . 

THE • PROPHET’ . 

THE COMING OF ZIONISM . 

THE WORLD ZIONIST ORGANIZATION . 

THE HERESY OF DR. HERZL . 

THE -PROTOCOLS’’ . 

THE ABERRATION OF MR. BALFOUR . 

THE AMBITION OF MR. HOUSE . 

THE DECISIVE BATTLE . 

THE WEB OF INTRIGUE . 

THE WORLD REVOLUTION AGAIN . 

THE LEAGUE TO ENFORC E PEACE . 

THE END OF LORD NORTHCLIFFE . 

THE NATIONAL HOME . 

THE STRANGE ROLE OF THE PRESS . 

THE MANAGERS, THE MESSIAHS AND THE MASSES 

THE LITTLE COUNTRY FAR AWAY ... 

THE ARMING OF ZION . 

THE INVASION OF AMERICA . 


1 

6 

13 

23 
36 
40 
49 
52 
55 
59 
69 
71 
76 
80 
88 
98 
105 
125 
132 
138 
165 
176 
182 
192 
198 
202 
209 
224 
231 
244 
261 
27? 
283 
291 
303 
307 
31 1 

P 5 

333 

339 


in 












































THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


THE REVOLUTION ‘EXTENDS" 353 

THE TALMUDIC VENGEANCE 391 

THE ZIONIST STATE 423 

THE WORLD INSTRUMENT 470 

THE JEWISH SOUL “ 479 

THE CLIMACTERIC 495 

1. The Revolution 495 

2. The Zionist State 510 

3. The Years of Climax 524 

EPILOGUE 568 

APPENDIX The Torah. The New Testament. 572 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 574 

OTHER WORKS BY DOUGLAS REED 579 

A SHORT LIST OF BOOKS FOR FURTHER READING 579 

INDEX 581 


AUTHOR’S NOTE 

Where italics have been used in this book they have in all cases been added by 
the author, to direct attention to a word or passage which he holds to be of 
especial significance. 

Where a passage is quoted without its source, it is taken from the last authority 
previously quoted. 


IV 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


THE START OF THE AFFAIR 

The true start of this affair occurred on a day in 458 BC which this narrative 
will reach in its sixth chapter. On that day 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, and what today is known as “the West" could not even be imagined. Now 
the Christian era is nearly two thousand years old and “Western civilization", 
which grew out of it, is threatened with disintegration. 

The creed born in Judah 2 500 years ago, in the author's opinion, has chiefly 
brought this about. The process, from original cause to present effect, can be 
fairly clearly traced because the period is, in the main, one of verifiable history. 

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. Why it was born at that particular moment, or ever, is 
something that none can explain. This is among the greatest mysteries of our 
world, unless the theory that every action produces an equal and opposite 
reaction is valid in the area of religious thought; so that the impulse which at that 
remote time set many men searching for a universal, loving God produced this 
fierce counter-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. Today the claim is often made that the religious 
man, Christian, Muslim or other, must pay respect to Judaism, whatever its 
errors, on one incontestable ground: it was the first universal religion, so that in a 
sense all universal religions descend from it. Every Jewish child is taught this. In 
truth, 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 + he 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 


1 



fHFi CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 ;he theory of the master-race this denial is 
necessary and inevitable. A master-race, if there be one. must itself be God. 

1 he creed which was given force oi daily law in Judah in 458 BC was then and 
stili is unique in the world It rested on the assertion, attributed to the tribal deity 
Elehovah), that "the Israelites" (in fact, the Judahites) were nis "chosen people" 
who. if they did all his "statutes and judgments”, would be set over all other 
peoples and be established in a "promised land”. Out of this theory, whether by 
forethought or unforeseen necessity, grew the pendent theories of "captivity" 
and "destruction”. If Jehovah were to be worshipped, as he demanded, at a 
certain place in a specified land, all his worshippers had to live there. 

Obviously ail of them could not live there but if they lived elsewhere, whether 
bv constraint or their own choice, ihev automatical) v became "captives” of "the 

m J J k 

stranger”, whom they had to "root out’ , "puli down' and "destroy”. Given this 
basic tenet of the creed, it made no difference whether the "captors' were 
conquerors or friendly hosts; their ordained lot was to be destruction or 
enslavement. 

Before they were destroyed or enslaved, they vveie. for a time, to be "captors” 
of the Judahites. not in their own right. but because the Judahites. having faded 
in "observance . deserved punishment. In (his way, Jehovah levealed himself as 
the one-God of all-peor les: though he "knew” oniy the "chosen people”, he 
would employ the heathen to punish them for their "transgressions”, before 
metim? 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. I he Israelites, from all 
the evidence, never knew this racial creed which was to come dowm through the 
centuries as the Jewish religion, or Judaism. It stands, for all time, as the product 
of Judah of the Levites. 

What happened before 458 BC is largely lore, legend and mythology, as 
distinct from the period following, the main events of w hich are known. 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 w ho segregated the Judahites and established the w orship 
of Jehovah as the god of racialism, hatred and revenge. 

In the earlier tradition Moses was a great tribal leader who heard the voice of 


7 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


one-God speak from a burning bush and came down from a mountain bearing 
this one-God’s moral commandments to the people. The time when this tradition 
took shape was one when the idea of religion was first moving in the minds of men 
and when all the peoples were borrowing from each other’s traditions and 
thought. 

Whence the idea of one-God may have come has already been shown, 
although the earlier Egyptians themselves may have received it from others. 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 Tie 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, and by this means 
apparently were well on the way to a universal religion when they were swallowed 
up by mankind. 

Then Judah put the process into reverse, so that the effect is that of a film run 
backward. The masters of Judah, the Levites, as they drew up their Law 7 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. 

The creed, or revelation of God as thus presented, was based on a version of 
history, every event of which had to conform with, and to confirm the teaching. 


3 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


This version of history went back to the Creation, the exact moment of which was 
known; as the priests also claimed to possess the future, this was 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. 

The theme of mass-captivity, ending in a Jehovan vengeance ("all the firstborn 
of Egypt"), appears when this version of history reaches the Egyptian phase, 
leading up to the mass-exodus and mass-conquest of the promised land. This 
episode was necessary if the Judahites were to be organized as a permanent 
disruptive force among nations and for that reason, evidently, was invented; the 
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 


4 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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. 

It was evidently invented to turn the Judahites away from the earlier tradition 
of the God who, from the burning bush, laid down a simple law of moral 
behaviour and neighbourliness; by the insertion of imaginary, allegorical 
incident, presented as historical truth, this tradition was converted into its 
opposite and 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. 

From the moment when it first appears as an entity 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”. The 
Levitical Scriptures include it among the tribes of Israel, and as the others 
mingled themselves with mankind this would leave it the last claimant to the 
rewards promised by Jehovah to “the chosen people”. However, even this claim 
seems to be false, for the Jewish Encyclopaedia impartially says that-Judah was 
“in all likelihood a non-Israelitish tribe". 


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. 


5 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


THE END OF ISRAEL 


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 adoption of the name “Israel” by the Zionist state which was set up in 
Palestine in 1948 was transparent false pretence). 

The events which led to the short-lived, unhappy union covered earlier 
centuries. 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? The thing is mysterious, like much else in 
the Levitical Scriptures, and only the inner sect could supply an answer. 

Anyway, those 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 


6 



THE CONTROVERSY OE ZION 


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: ail 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 il 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 holv war by attacking the Amalekites 'kind utterly 
destroy ail 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 tins he was excommunicated by Samuel, who 
secretly chose one David, of Judah, to be Saul's successor. Thereafter Saul vainly 
strove by zeal in “Titter destruction" to appease the Levites. and then by 
attempting Dav id'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 “Titter 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 w as 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, 
w hereon the re-division into Israel and Judah ““really took place' 1 . 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 worldlv kina 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. 


7 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


Racial discrimination and segregation were clearly unknown to the 
tribespeople in those days of the association between Israel and Judah, for 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 (this story of David and 
Bathsheba, as related in the Old Testament, was bowdlerized in a Hollywood- 
made moving pictui of our day). 

Such was the racial descent of Solomon, the last king of the riven confederacy, 
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, hut 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 existenc q 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." 

Thus the cause of the breach and separation is made clear. Israel believed that 
its destiny lay with involvement in mankind, and rejected Judah on the very 
grounds which recurrently, in the ensuing three thousand years, caused other 
peoples to turn in alarm, resentment and repudiation from Judaism. Judah 
“demanded separation, absolute differentiation”. (However, Dr. Kastein, 
though he says “Judah”, means “the Levites”. How could even the tribespeople 
of Judah, at that stage, have demanded “separation, absolute differentiation”, 
when Solomon had had a thousand wives?) 

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 Eevites and the creed which they were constructing. These voices 
still call to mankind out of the tribal darkness which beclouds much of th; Old 


8 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


Testament, for they scarified the creed which was in the making just as Jesus 
scarified it seven or eight hundred years later, when it was long established, at the 
Temple in Jerusalem. 

These men were nearly all Israelites; most of them were Josephites. They were 
on the road to the one-God of all-peoples and to participation in mankind. They 
were not unique among men in this: soon the Buddha, in India, was to oppose his 
Sermon at Benares and his Five Commands of Uprightness to the creed of 
Brahma, the creator of caste-segregation, and to the worship of idols. They were 
in truth Israelite remonstrants against the Levitical teaching which was to 
become identified with the name of Judah. The name “Hebrew prophets’' is inapt 
because they made no pretence to power of divination and were angered by the 
description (“I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet’s son”, Amos). They were 
protestants in their time and gave simple warning of the calculable consequences 
of the racial creed; their warning remains valid today. 

The claims of the Levite priesthood moved them to these protests, particularly 
the priestly claim to the firstborn (“That which openeth the womb is mine,” 
Exodus ), and the priestly insistence on sacrificial rites. The Israelite expostulants 
(to whom this “so-called law of Moses” was unknown, according to Mr. 
Montefiore) saw no virtue in the bloodying of priests, the endless sacrifice of 
animals and the “burnt offerings”, the “sweet savour” of which was supposed to 
please Jehovah. They rebuked the priestly doetrine 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. 

Today’s student cannot explain, for instance, why King David suffers Nathan 
publicly to rebuke him for taking Uriah’s wife and having Uriah murdered. 
Possibly among the later scribes who compiled the historical narrative, long after 
Israel and the Israelite expostulants were gone, were some of their mind, who 
contrived in this way to continue their protest. 

Conversely, these 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. 

Whatever the explanation, these Israelite protests against the heresy of Judah 
have an ageless appeal and form the monument to vanished Israel. They force 
their way, like little blades of truth, between the dark stones of tribal saga. They 
pointed the way to the rising and widening road of common involvement in 


9 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


mankind and away from the tribal abyss. 

Elijah and Elisha both worked in Israel, and Amos spoke solely to the 
Joseph lies. He in particular attacked the blood sacrifices and priestly rites: T 
hate. I despise your feasts and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Yea, 
though ye offer me burnt offerings and your meal offerings, I will not accept 
them. Neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts. Take thou away 
from me the noise of thv songs'" (the Levites' chanted liturgies) 'kind let me not 
hear die melody of thy viols. But let judgment run as water and righteousness as a 
mighty stream”. And then the immortal rebuke to the "‘peculiar people” 
doctrine: “Are ye not as the children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of 
Israel, saith the Lord”. 

Hosca, 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 MiealTs lime the Levites apparently still demanded the sacrifice of all the 
! i rs t bo r n t o J e h o va h: 

“Wherewith shall I come before the Lord and bow myself before God on high? 
Shall 1 come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a vcar old? Will the 
Lord be pleased with thousands of rams or with ten thousands of rivers of oil. 
Shall I yire my first horn 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 


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 
Egvpt. and the stronghold of the Levitica! sect. 

At that point “the children of Israel” disappear from history and if promises 
made to them are to be redeemed, this redemption must evidently be from among 
the ranks of mankind, in which they became involved and merged. Given the 
prevalent westward trend among the movements of peoples during the last 
twenty-seven hundred years, it is probable that much of their blood has gone into 
the European and American peoples. 

The Judaist claim, on the other hand, is that Israel was totally and deservedly 
“lost”, because it rejected the Levitical creed and chose “rapprochement with 
neighbouring peoples”. Dr. Kastem. whose words these are, nearly twenty-seven 


10 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


centuries later ardently rejoiced, on that very account, in their downfall: "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 student of the controversy of Zion has to plod far before he begins to 
unveil its mysteries, but very soon discovers that in all things it speaks with two 
tongues, one for "the heathen” and one for the initiates. 

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”. 

Peoples do not become extinct; the North American Indians, the Australian 
Blackfellows, the New Zealand Maoris, the South African Bantu and others are 
the proofs of that. For that matter, the Israelites could not have been "taken 
away captive”, had they been physically exterminated. Their blood and thought 
survive in mankind, somewhere, today. 

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”. 

Hie 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 ami Benjamin with a certain number 
of descendants of the tribe of Eevi”. 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, 
w hich 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 that was the motive for the misuse of the name "Israel”, the expedient may 


11 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


for the time being have been successful; the multitude was ever easily 
"persuaded 1 *. However, truth will out in the long run, as the surviving 
remonstrances of the Israelite prophets show. 

If the Zionist state of 1948 could lay claim to any name whatever taken from 
far antiquity, this could only be "Judah 11 , as this chapter has shown. 


12 



THE CONTROVERSY OE ZION 


THE LEVITES AND THE LAW 


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. 

Thi s 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 
commentaries-on-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 during this Twentieth Century. Deuteronomy is of direct relevancy to 
the events of our day, and much of the confusion surrounding them disperses if 
thev are studied in its light. 

It was read, in 621 BC, to so small an audience in so small a place that its great 
effects for the whole world, through the following centuries into our time, are by 
contrast the more striking. 

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 as the Greek poets to Kentucky hillsfolk today. 

That Deuteronomy was different from anything that had been known or 
understood before is implicit in 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". 

Significantly, 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 


13 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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). 

For that matter, 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, k 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 winch 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, w hen 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 


14 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


under a governing Law, as il were) which in effect cancel them. 

Thus the moral commandments against murder, stealing, adultery, coveting, 
bad neighbourlincss, and the like are vitiated by a mass of’‘statutes 1 '' expressly 
enjoining the massacre of other peoples, the murder of apostates individually or 
in communities, the tar ing of concubines from among women captives. ’Titter 
destruction" that leaves ‘’nothing alive", the exclusion of’The stranger" from 

4... 

debt-remission and the like. 

By the time the end o (Deuteronomy is readied 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 1 he 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 , 
remain s. 

'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 ts 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 uimaiier. of ail 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, ///tolerance is specified as observance; 
tolerance as //////-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 
M oses: 

"The Lord spake unto me, saving . . This day will 1 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). 



T HE CONTROVERSY OE ZION 


These first examples of the power of Jehovah to destroy the heathen are 
followed by the first of many warnings that unless “the statutes and judgments" 
are observed Jehovah will punish his special people by dispersing them among 
these heathen. The enumeration of these “statutes and judgments" follows the 
Commandments, the moral validity of which is at once destroyed by a promise of 
tribal massacre: 


“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 shew 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 . . . Rut 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. Lor instance, the Arab population of Palestine 
Hed 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 chaper 7 of the book of The Law which 
the Levites completed and read in 621 BC. 

The incitements and allurements of Deuteronomy continue: “. . . Go in to 


possess nations greater and mightier than theyself . . . the Lord thy God is he 
which goeth over before thee; as a consuming lire 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 . . . Lor 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 


16 



THE CONTROVERSY OE ZION 


than yourselves . . . even unto the uttermost sea shall your eoast 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 11 which 
must be “observed 11 if all these rewards are to be gained, and again “the Law 11 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. 11 

This tenet of “the Law 11 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 11 , 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 11 under this 
“statute' 1 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 11 ; 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 and copied in 
Germany by the National Socialists in 1933. 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. 


Characteristically, Deuteronomy prescribes that the hand of the blood- 
kinsman or spouse shall be “first upon 11 the victim of denunciation at the killing, 
mid 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' 1 might hold this to be 


17 



THE CONTROVERSY OF 7 ZION 


murder, so that a formal pronunciation of “death"' and ceremony of mourning 
symbolically lakes 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 cemuries was often infected in closed Jewish 
communities where the law of "the stranger'' could not reach. 

The Law also demands that entire comm*unities shall be massacred on the 
charge of apostasy: “Thou shall surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the 
edge of the sword, destroy ing it utterly, and all that is therein". 

In this matter of destroying cities, Deuteronomy distinguishes between near 
(that is, Palestinian) and far cities. When a “far off city" has been captured, 
“thou shall 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, shall 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 cih 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, tliou shall save alive nothing that 
hreatheth; But thou shat! 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 Dcir Vasin, where nothing that breathed was saved 
alive. They saw that literal fulfilment of the Law of 621 BC was the order of the 
dav in 1948 AD. and that the mi ant of the West was behind this fulfilment of the 

j 

Law of “utter destruction".* 

The Second Law continues: “Thou art an noly people unto the Lord thy God, 
and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the 
nations that are upon the earth", further “statutes and judgments" then provide 
that “anything that dieth of itself \ being unclean, may not be eaten, but “thou 
shall give it to the stranger. . . or thou mayest sell it to the alien; for thou art an 
holy people unto the Lord thy God". 

Every seven years a creditor shall remit his “neighbour's' debt, but “of a 
loreigner 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 shall 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- 
biessmg 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. 


18 



THE CONTROVERSY OE ZION 


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 
shah lend unto many nations , and thou shah not borrow. And the Lord shall make 
thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shall not 
be beneath ..." 

These blessings occupy thirteen verses; the cursings some fifty or sixty. The 
deity in whose name the curses are uttered clearly was held capable of doing evil 
(indeed, this is explicitly stated in a later book, Ezekiel . as will be shown). 

Literal Judaism is ultimately based on terror and tear and the list of curses set 
out m chapter 28 of Lhc 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 non- 
observance, 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 . A 

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. Mends wives are to lie with other men; their children are to 
be lost into slavery; am 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 
arc 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 1 have set before you life and death, 
blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thv seed may live 
for ever". 

Such w ; as the life and the blessing which the Judahites, gathered in the Temple 
in 621 BC, w'ere 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. 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 Ford, 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 modern 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. 

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 w ho 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, and they are not 


20 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


consciously hypocritical in this. In the Twentieth Century this standard of 
judgment has been projected into the lives of other peoples and applied to all 
major events in the ordeal of the West. Thus we live in the century of the Levitieal 
fallacv. 

Having undertaken to put ‘dill 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? 

But if in fact all the Old Testament, including these and other commands, is of 
“equal divine authority" with the New, then the latterday Westerner is entitled to 
invoke it in justification of those deeds by which Christendom most denied itself: 
the British settlers' importation of African slaves to America, the American and 
Canadian settlers' treatment of the North American Indian, and the Afrikaners' 


harsh rule over the South African Bantu. He may justly put the responsibility for 
all these things directly on his Christian priest or bishop, if that man teaches that 
the Old Testament, with its repeated injunction to slay, enslave, and despoil, is of 
“equal divine authority". No Christian divine can hold himself blameless if he so 
teaches. The theological decision which set up this dogma cast over Christendom 
and the centuries to come the shadow of Deuteronomy, just as it fell on the 
Judahites themselves when it was read to them in 621 BC. 


Only one other piece of writing has had any comparable effect on the minds of 
men and on future generations; if any simplification is permissible, the most 
tempting one is to see the whole story of the West, and particularly of this decisive 
Twentieth Century, as a struggle between the Mosaic Law and the New 
Testament and between the two bodies of mankind which rank themselves 


21 



THE CONTROVERSY OE ZION 


behind one or other of those two messages of hatred and love respectively. 

In Deuteronomy Judaism was born, yet this would have been a stillbirth, and 
Deuteronomy might never again have been heard of, if that question had rested 
only with the Levites and their captive Judahites. They were not numerous, and a 
nation a hundred times as many could never have hoped to enforce this 
barbarous creed on the world by force of its own muscle. There was only one way 
in which “the Mosaic Law " could gain life and potency and become a disturbing 
influence in the life of other peoples during the centuries to follow. This was if 
some powerful “stranger" (among all those strangers yet to be accursed), some 
mighty king of those “heathen'’ yet to be destroyed, should support it with arms 
and treasure. 


Precisely that was about to happen when Josiah read The Second Law 7 to the 
people in 621 BC, and it was to repeat itself continually down the centuries to our 
day: the gigantic improbability of the thing confronts the equally large, 
demonstrable fact that it is so! The rulers of those “other nations" w hich w 7 ere to 
be dispossessed and destroyed repeatedly espoused the destructive creed, did the 
bidding of the dominant sect, and at the expense of their own peoples helped to 
further its strange ambition. 

Some twenty years after the reading of Deuteronomy in Jerusalem, Judah was 
conquered by the Babylonian king, in about 596 BC. At the time, this looked like 
the end of the affair, which was a petty one in itself, among the great events of 
that period. Judah never again existed as an independent state, and but for the 
Levites, their Second Law and the foreign helper the Judahites, like the Israelites, 
would have become involved in mankind. 


Instead, the Babvlonian victory was the start of the affair, or of its great 
consequences for the world. 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-wdthin-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. 

As for the Judahites, or the Judaists and Jews who sprang from them, they 
seem to have acquired the unhappiesl future of all. Anyway, it was not a happy 
man (though it wvts a Jewish writer of our day, 2 500 years later, Mr. Maurice 
Samuel) who wrote: “. . . we Jews, the destroyers, will remain the destroyer 
forever . . . nothing that the Gentiles will do will meet our needs and demands". 

At first sight this seems mocking, venomous, shameless. The diligent student of 
the controversy of Zionism discovers that it is more in the nature of a cry of 
hopelessness, such as the “Mosaic Law" must wring from any man who feels he 
cannot escape its remorseless doctrine of destruction. 


22 



THE CONTROVERSY OF /ION 


THE FORGING OF THE CHAINS 


The Babylonian episode was decisive in its consequences, both for the petty 
tribe of Judah at the time and for the Western world today. 

During this period the Levites achieved things which were permanently to 
affect the life of peoples. They added four Books to Deuteronomy and thus set up 
a Law of racio-rcligious 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: 
at any rate, what is known confutes it and as Exodus was completed after the 
Babylonian incident the Eevitical 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. 

In any case, 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 JewYsh nation later 
emerged, was already self-distributed far and w r ide about the known world (that 
is, around the Mediterranean, in lands west and east of Judah), having gone 
w herever 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. 

Nor were the Judahites unique in this dispersion, although the literature of 
lamentation implies that. 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 

23 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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. 

This was the direct result of the experiments made and the experience gained 
by the Levites in Babylon, where they were first able to test the creed in an alien 
environment. 

The benevolent behaviour of the Babylonian conquerors towards their 
Judahite prisoners was the exact opposite of that enjoined on the Judahites, in the 
reverse circumstances, by the Second Law which had been read to them just 
before their defeat: “Save nothing alive that breatheth . . .” Dr. Kastein says the 
captives “enjoyed complete freedom” of residence, worship, occupation and self¬ 
administration. 

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 
Talmudic ruling of the Christian era, which decreed the excommunication of 
Jews if without permission they sold “neighbour-property” to “strangers”, 
comes down from that first experiment in self-segregation, in Babylon. 

The support of the foreign ruler was necessary for this corralling of expatriates 
by their own priests, and it was given on this lirst 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 

24 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


“the stranger”, theologically and juridically, had no existence, and any 
pretension to enforce one was “persecution”, as Jehovah’s was the only law. 

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 
(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 


25 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 t he 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 ail 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 


26 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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! 

Moreover, in the Talmudic strongholds of Jewry this ritual bloodying of 
priests has continued into our time; this is not a reminiscence from antiquity. 
Twenty-four centuries after Exodus was compiled the Reform Rabbis of America 
(at Pittsburgh in 1885) declared: “We expect neither a return to Palestine, nor a 
sacrificial worship under die administration of the sons of Aaron, nor the 
restoration of any of the laws concerning the Jewish State”. The importance of 
this statement lay in the need, thus felt in 1885, to make it publicly; it shows that 
the opposite school of Jewry still practised literal observance, including the ritual 
of “sacrificial worship”. (By the 1950’s the Reform Rabbis of America had lost 
much ground and were in retreat before the force of Zionist chauvinism). 

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 eompiled these Books of the Law, the Levitical scribes included 
manv 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”. 


27 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 Levi tie us 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. 

Levitieus went much further. It, too, began with the admonition to love: “The 


28 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and 
thou shall 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 
shah 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 w ould not count against that of her ow ner, 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 w'hich the 
Levites w 7 ent. The transgression committed by the two allegorical characters in 
this case (w ho 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 live 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 


29 



THE CONTROVERSY OE ZION 


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, 1 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 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 high priest'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. 


30 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 racio-religious 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! 

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!” 

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 racio- 
religious 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 


31 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 anti 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 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. 

The theologians of Christendom claim more for this Law than the scholars of 
Jewry, I have before me a Christian Bible, recently published, with an 
explanatory note which says the five books of the Torah are “accepted as true", 
and for that matter also the historical, prophetic and poetic books. This logically 
flows from the dogma, earlier quoted, that the Old Testament is of “equal divine 
authority" with the New. 

The Judaist scholars say differently. Dr. Kastein, for instance, says that 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. The 


Torah was not revealed religion but, as Mr. Montefiore remarked, “revealed 
legislation", enacted to an end. 

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, 


32 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 tip 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: l 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: 

“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 >s 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 vour 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 . . 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 words without change in respect of Zionism, for the state of affairs 
is similar and the ultimate consequence seems equally foreseeable. 

When Judah fell Jeremiah gave his most famous message of all, the one to 
which the Jewish masses today often instinctively turn, and the one which the 
ruling sect ever and again forbids them to heed: “Seek the peace of the city 
whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the Lord 
for it; for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace' ’. The 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 he 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 ”. 

In Jeremiah’s admonition and the Levites’ reply lies the whole story of the 
controversy of Zion, and of its effects for others, down to our day. 

Jeremiah, who was apparently put to death, would today be attacked as a 
“crackpot”, “paranoiac”, “antisemite” and the like; the phrase then used was 
“prophet and dreamer of dreams”. He describes the methods of defamation, 
used against such men, in words exactly applicable to our time and to many men 
whose public lives and reputations have been destroyed by them (as this narrative 
will show when it reaches the present century): “For I heard the defaming of 
many, fear on every side. Report, they say, and we will report it. All my familiars 
watched for my halting, saying, Peradventure he will be enticed, and we shall 
prevail against him, and w ; e shall take our revenge on him”. 

While Jeremiah was a refugee in Egypt, the second Isaiah, in Babylon, wrote 
those benevolent words which glov/ like the last light of day against the dark 
background of the teaching which wais about to triumph: “Thus saith the Lord, 
Keep ye judgment, and do justice ... let not the son of the stranger, that hath 


34 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


joined himself to the Lord, speak, saying The Lord hath utterly separated me 
from his people . . . The sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to 
serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants . . . even them will 
1 bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer . . .for 
mine house shall he called an house of prayer for all people \ 

With this glimpse of a loving God of all mankind the protests ended. The 
Levites and their Law were left paramount, and therewith the true captivity of 
‘'the Jews' 1 began, for their enslavement to the law of racial and religious hatred 
is the only genuine captivity they have suffered. 

Jeremiah and the Second Isaiah, like the earlier Israelite remonstrants, spoke 
for mankind, which was slowly groping its way towards the light when the 
Levites reverted to darkness. Before the Law was even completed Prince Sidhatta 
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 
master-caste (which strongly resembles literal Judaism). 

Five hundred years ahead lay a second universal religion, and five hundred 
years after that a third. The little nation of Judah was held back in the Law’s 
chains from this movement of mankind; it was arrested in the fossil stage of 


spiritual development, and yet its primitive tribal creed 


retained life and vigour. 


The Levitical Law, still potent in the Twentieth Century, is in its nature a survival 


from sunken times. 


Such a Law was bound to cause curiousity, first, and alarm next among 
peoples with whom the Judahitcs dwelt, or to their neightbours, if they dwelt 
alone. 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, being felt by ever 
greater numbers of peoples, and in our century has produced its greatest 
disturbances among them. 


35 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


THE FALL OF BABYLON 


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 A D: 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 wns 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 centurv have conformed, in their outcomes, 
to the pattern of the Babylonian-Persian war of antiquity as depicted n the Old 
Testament. 

Presumably the peoples who fought that ancient war thought that something 
more than the cause of the Judahites was at stake, and that they strove for some 
purpose or interest of their own. But in the narrative that has come down through 
the centuries all else has been expunged. The only significant results, in (he 
picture which has been imprinted on the minds of peoples, are the Jehovan 
vengeance and Judahite triumph, and the two world wars of this century 
followed that same pattern. 

King Belshazzar survives only as the symbolic foreign “persecutor” of the 

36 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


Judahites (although Jehovah made them his captives, as a punishment, he is 
nevertheless their “persecutor” and hence must be barbarously destroyed). King 
Cyrus, similarly, is but the fulfilling instrument of Jehovah’s promise to visit “all 
these curses” on “thine enemies” when they have served their turn as captors 
(and thus deserves no credit in his own right, either as conqueror or liberator; he 
is not truly any better than King Belshazzar, and his house will in turn be 
destroyed). 

King Cyrus, from what true history tells of him, seems to have been an 
enlightened man, as well as the founder of an empire which spread over all 
Western Asia. According to the encyclopaedias, “he left the nations he subjected 
free in the observance of their religions and the maintenance of their 
institutions”. Thus the Judahites may have benefited by a policy which he 
impartially applied to all, and possibly King Cyrus, could he return to earth 
today, would be surprised to find that his portrait in history is that of a man 
whose only notable and enduring achievement was to restore a few thousand 
Judahites to Jerusalem. 


However, if by any chance he thought this particular question to be of 
paramount importance among his undertakings (as the Twentieth Century 
politicians demonstrably think), he would at his return to earth today be much 
gratified, for he would find that through this act he exerted a greater influence on 
human events in the 2 500 years to come, probably than any other temporal ruler 
of any age. No other deed of antiquity has had consequences in the present time 
so great or so plain to trace. 

In the Twentieth Century AD two generations of Western politicians, in the 
quest for Jewish favour, competed with each other to play the part of King Cyrus. 
The result was that the two World Wars produced only two enduring and 
significant results: the Jehovan vengeance on the symbolic “persecutor” and the 
Jewish triumph in the form of a new “restoration”. Thus the symbolic legend of 
what happened at Babylon had by the Twentieth Century gained the force of the 
supreme “Law”, overriding all other laws, and of truth and history. 

The legend itself seems to have been two-thirds untruth, or what today would 
be called 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 g<ite 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 J udahites 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. 


37 



THE CONTROVERSY OE ZION 

“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. 

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 Encyelopaedia, 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 


38 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 w'orked 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 super-national 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 bv their Law dedicated. 


39 



THE CONTROVERSY OE ZION 

THE PEOPLE WEPT . . . 


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 w 7 ere 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 w ho desired the privilege of remaining in Babylon 


(under their own prince, the Lxilarch, in his own capital!) were mulcted in lines 


(just as the wealthy Jew's 


of America are pressed today to provide funds for the 


Zionist state). 


40 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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. 

This watching mass had seen the means by which the success had been 
achieved, the conqueror undone and overthrown, and the “captivity” 
transformed into the “return”. Segregation had proved effective, and the chief 
methods of enforcing this segregation w'ere 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 nation-within-nations. state-wilhin-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 raider unqwstioniug 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 bv diligent study he may sain some idea of them. 

The weapon of excommunication is a dreaded one. and the fear which it 


41 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 only-Law 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 7 , 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 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 / commanded not, neither 
came it into my heard' . Ezekiel is not much concerned about the lot of the sons 
and daughters but is clearly enraged by the charge that the Ford 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 1 might make them desolate, to 
the end that they might know that I am the Lord A 
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". 

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 


43 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 eart h . . . 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 ra in, 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 enforee 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. 


44 



THE CONTROVERSY OE ZION 


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. 


45 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 cup¬ 
bearer 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, 


46 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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. 

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. 

Where does responsibility lie between those who incite to a deed and those who 
commit it? If the answer is that the greater and final responsibility lies with the 
perpetrator, then the verdict of history is incontestably, though strangely, that 
responsibility for the heresy of Judaism lies with 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 


47 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 7 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 7 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 7 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. 


48 



THE CONTROVERSY OE ZION 


THE TRANSLATION OF THE LAW 


The most important event (as it proved) of the next four hundred years was the 
first translation of the Judaic scriptures (later to become known as the Old 
Testament) into a foreign tongue, Greek. This enabled, and still enables, “the 
heathen” to become partially acquainted with the Law that ordained their own 
enslavement and destruction and the supremacy of Judah. Save for this 
translation the nature of literal Judaism must have remained a matter of surmise, 
whereas the translation made it appear to be one of evidence and proof. 

For that reason it is at first sight surprising that 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 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 

Dr. Kastein’s words in this instance are ca relessly chosen if they were intended 
to disguise what occurred: a matter is not made “comprehensible” to others by 
distorting and twisting it, changing its meaning, and substituting ambiguous 
terms for precise ones. Moreover, 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. 

Above all, the elders could not foresee that centuries later a new religion would 
arise in the world which would take over their scriptures as part of its own Bible, 
and thus bring “the Mosaic Law” before the eyes of all mankind. Had that been 
anticipated, the Greek translation might never have been made. 

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 


49 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 Mieah 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 


50 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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. 

In view of the changes which were made, at the translation, (see Dr. Kastein's 
words, above), none but Judaist scholars could tell today how closely the Old 
Testament in the Hebrew-Aramaic original compares with the version which has 
come down, from the first translation into Greek, as one of the two sections of 
Christendom's Bible. Clearly substantial changes were made, and quite apart 
from that there 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. 

Nevertheless, the essence of it is all in the Old Testament as it has come down to 


Christendom, and that is a surprising thing. Whatever may have been expunged 
or modified, the vengeful, tribal deity, the savage creed and the law of destruction 
and enslavement remain plain for all to ponder. The fact is that no amount of 
twisting, distortion, changing or other subterfuge could conceal the nature of the 
Judaic Law, once it was translated; although glosses were made, the writing 
beneath remains clear, and this is the best evidence that, when the first translation 


was authorized, the universal audience it would ultimately reach was not 
foreseen. 


With that translation the Old Testament, as we now call and know it, entered 
the West, its teaching of racial hatred and destruction only a little muted by the 
emendations. That was before the story of the West even had truly begun. 

By the time the West, and Christianity, w ere nineteen and a half centuries old, 
the political leaders there, being much in awe of the central sect of Judaism, had 
begun to speak wuth pious aw e 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. 


51 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


THE LAW AND THE IDT .MEANS 


While the Judaic scriptures, thus compiled, were on their way, thus translated, 
from the Alexandrine Jews to the Greeks and thereafter to the other heathen, 
Persian, Greek and Roman overlords followed each other in little Judea. 

These chaotic centuries brought in their course the second significant event of 
the period: 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”. 

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 Taw. 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-lsrael. This 


s? 

mt 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 '‘saving 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 . . 

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). 

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 Hyrcanus, 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 
Hyrcanus to “utterly destroy” and “save nothing alive that breatheth” of “our 
brethren, the children of Esau”? He disobeyed that law r , 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 


53 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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. 


54 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 of 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. 

Nevertheless, 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 with the Roman overlords. 
The Pharisees and the Sadducees were bitter foes. This internal dissension among 
Jews has continued for twenty-five hundred years into our time. 

It is chiefly of academic interest to the rest of mankind (though it has to be 
recorded) because 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. 


55 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 Tamudists 
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 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 mv 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 1 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 Jew s. The later Talmud confirmed 
this, if any doubt remained, bv ruling that “the non-Jews are as such precluded 


56 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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”. It was the very opposite road from that, leading over ruined 
nations to a temple filled with gold, towards which the Pharisees beckoned them. 


57 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


crying “Observer 

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 
“trangressing”, 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. 


58 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 
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 he 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”. 

The fact that he found so large a following among the Judeans shows that, 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 
realized 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 reponse 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? 

What manner of man was this? Another paradox in the story of Zion is that in 
our generation Christian divines and theologians often insist that “Jesus was a 
Jew”, whereas the Judaist elders refuse to allow this (those Zionist rabbis who 
occasionally tell political or “interfaith” audiences that Jesus was a Jew are not 


59 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


true exceptions to this rule; they would not make the statement among Jews and 
seek to produce an effect among their non-Jewish listeners, for political 
reasons).* 


This public assertion, “Jesus was a Jew 11 , is always used in our century for 


political purposes. It is often employed to quell objections to the Zionist influence 
in international politics or to the Zionist invasion of Palestine, the suggestion 
being that, as Jesus was a Jew, none ought to object to anyihing purporting to be 
done in the name of Jews. The irrelevance is obvious, but mobs are moved by 
such phrases, and the paradoxical result, once again, is that a statement, most 
offensive to literal Jews, is most frequently made by non-Jewish politicians and 
ecclesiastics who seek Jewish favour. 

The English abbreviation, "dew 11 , is recent and does not correspond to 
anything denoted by the Aramaic, Greek or Roman terms for ‘"Judahite 11 or 
""Judean 11 , which were in use during the lifetime of Jesus. In fact, the English 
noun ""Jew 11 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). 

If the statement, ""Jesus was a Jew 11 , has meaning therefore, it must apply to the 
conditions prevailing in his time. In that case it would mean one of three things, 
or all of them: that Jesus was of the tribe of Judah (therefore Judahite); that he 
was of Judean domicile (and therefore Judean); that he was religiously “a Jew 11 if 
any religion denoted by that term existed in his time. 

Race, residence, religion, then. 

This book is not the place to argue the question of Jesus's racial descent, and 
the surprising thing is that Christian divines allow themselves some of the 
statements which they make. The reader should form his own opinion, if he 
desires to have one in this question. 

The genealogy of Mary is not given in the New Testament, but three passages 
might imply that she was of Davidic descent; St. Matthew and St. Luke trace the 
descent of Joseph from David and Judah, but Joseph was not the blood father of 
Jesus. The Judaist authorities discredit all these references to descent, holding 
that they were inserted to bring the narrative into line with prophecy. 

As to residence, St. John states that Jesus was born at Bethlehem in Judea 
through the chance that his mother had to go there from Galilee to register; the 


*Rabbi Stephen Wise, the leading Zionist organizer in the United States during the 1910-1950 period, used this 
phrase for the obvious political motive, of confusing non-Jewish hearers. Speaking to such an "inter-faith” meeting 
at the Carnegie Hall at Christmastide 1925, he 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, but a Christian Ministers 
Association “hailed me as a brother”. Rabbi W ise adds the characteristic comment: "1 know not which was more 


hurtful, the acceptance of me as a brother and welcoming me into the Christian fold, or the violent diatribe of the 
rabbis”. 


60 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


Judaist authorities, again, hold that this was 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. 

Was this Galilean, religiously, what might today be called, "a Jew”? The 
Judaist authorities, of course, deny that most strenuously of all; the statement, 
often heard from the platform and pulpit, might cause a riot in the synagogue. 

It is difficult to see what responsible public men can mean when they use the 
phrase. 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 parlies, and the most powerful of them were the 
Pharisees with their "oral traditions” of what God had said to Moses. 

If today the Zionists are "the Jews” (and this is the claim accepted by all great 
Western nations), then 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 foes 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. 

None can say with certainty who or what he was, and these suggestive 
statements by non-Jewish politicians ring as false as the derisive and mocking 
lampoons about "the bastard” which circulated in the Jewish ghettoes. 

What he did and said is of such transcendental importance that nothing else 
counts. On a much lesser scale Shakespeare's case is somew hat comparable. The 
quality of inspiration in his works is clear, so that it is of little account whether he 
wrote them, or who wrote them if he did not, yet the vain argument goes on. 

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



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


What is much more significant, he had known no rabbinical schools or priestly 
training. His enemies, the Pharisees, testify to that; had he been of their clan or 
kind they would not have asked, '‘Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these 
mighty works”. 

What gives the teaching of this unlettered young man its effect of blinding 
revelation, the quality of light first discovered, is the black background, of the 
Levitical Law and the Pharisaic tradition, against which he moved when he went 
to Judea. Even today the sudden fullness of enlightenment, in the Sermon on the 
Mount, dazzles the student who has emerged from a critical perusal of the Old 
Testament; it is as if high noon came at midnight. 

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 silk worms, 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 feliow-Judeans. Jesus now 
reinstated the forgotten, earlier tradition, of neighbourly love irrespective of race 
or creed; this was clearly what he meant by the words, “I am not come to destroy 
the law, but to fulfil”. He made his meaning plain when he added, “Ye have heard 
that it hath been said . . . hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your 
enemy”. (The artful objection is sometimes made that the specific 
commandment, “Hate thine enemy”, nowhere appears in the Old Testament. 
Jesus’s meaning was clear; the innumerable injunctions to the murder and 
massacre of neighbours who were not “neighbours”, in which the Old Testament 
abounds, certainly required hatred and enmity). 

This was a direct challenge to The Law as the Pharisees represented it, and 
Jesus carried the challenge further by deliberately refusing to play the part of the 
nationalist liberator and conqueror of territory for which the prophecies had cast 
the Messiah. Probably he could have had a much larger following, and possibly 


62 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 

the support of the Pharisees, if he had accepted that role. 

His rebuke, again, was terse and clear: '‘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 steak'. 

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 non-observance 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". 
Echo may answer, “Only!" This was of course the great cleavage, between the 
idea of the tribal deity and the idea of the universal god; between the creed of 
hatred and the teaching of love. The challenge was clear and the Pharisees 
accepted it at once. They began to bait their traps, in the very manner described 
by Jeremiah long before: “All my familiars watched for my halting, saying, 
Peradventure he will be enticed, and we shall prevail against him, and we shall 
take our revenge on him". 

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 


63 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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". 


With these words Jesus cast public scorn on one of the most jealously-guarded 
of the priestly prerogatives, involving the great mass of dietary laws with the 
whole ritual of slaughter, draining of blood, rejection of “that which dieth of 
itself", and so on. All this was 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, and asked for an explanation, remarking that the 
Pharisees “were offended, after they heard this saying". 

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; hut to eat with 
unw ashen hands defileth not a mans 

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 


64 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 1 ’, 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 l 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 LevificaLPherisaic 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 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


“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?” 

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 . . .” 

Some critics profess to find the last six words surprisingly harsh. However, if 
they are read in the context of the three sentences which precede them they are 
seen to be an explicit allusion to his approaching end, made by a man about to die 
to those who were about to put him to death, and at such a moment hardly any 
words could be hard enough. (However, even the deadly reproach, “Fill ye up 
then the measure of your fathers”, had a later sequel: “Father, forgive them; for 
they know not what they do”.) 

The end approached. The “chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders” (the 

66 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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. 

According to St. Matthew, Judas later hanged himself and if he thus chose the 
form of death “accursed of God”, his deed presumably brought him no 
happiness. To Zionist historians of Dr. Kastein’s school Judas is a sympathetic 
figure; Dr. Kastein explains that he was a good man who became disappointed 
with Jesus and therefore “secretly broke” with him (the words “secretly broke” 
could only occur in Zionist literature). 

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. 

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. 


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 


67 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 1 ’ 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 persauded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and 
destroy Jesus 1 ’. 

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. 

These Pharisees had taught the people of Judea to expect a Messiah, and now 
had crucified the first claimant. That meant that the Messiah was still to come. 
According to the Pharisees the Davidic king had yet to appear and claim his 
empire of the world, and that is still the situation today. 

Dr. Kastein, in his survey of Judaism from its start, devotes a chapter to the life 
of Jesus. After explaining that Jesus was a failure, he dismissed the episode with 
the characteristic words, "His life and death are our affair". 


68 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 
THE PHARISAIC PHOENIX 


Then comes the familiar , recurrent paradox: the catastrophe of Judea, which 
followed within a few decades of the death of Jesus, was the triumph of the 
Pharisees, for it left them supreme in Jewry. By the crucifixion of Jesus they rid 
themselves of a “prophet and dreamer" who would have cast down their Law. 
The brief remaining years of Judea rid them of all other parties that contended 
with them for power under that Law. 

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 reconstructedfrom 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 ’ ’. 


Thus, 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" edi ting, 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 began 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 


69 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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). 

Dr. Kastein calls the seventy years which ended with the Roman destruction of 
Jerusalem “The Heroic Age'’, presumably because of the Pharisaic triumph over 
all others in the contest for the soul of Judaism. He can hardly intend to apply the 
adjective to the lighting against the Romans, as this was so largely done by the 
alien Galileans, of whom he is no admirer. 


70 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 
THE LIGHT AND THE SHADOW 


Before Jerusalem fell in 70 AD two bands of travellers passed through its gates. 
The disciples bore a new message to mankind, for Christianity had been born. 
The Pharisees, foreseeing the fate which they had brought on Jerusalem, 
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. 

These two small groups of travellers were the vanguard of parties of light and 
of darkness which, like a man and his shadow, have gone ever since through the 
centuries, and ever westward. 

The crisis of “the West” today traces directly back to that departure from 
doomed Jerusalem nineteen centuries ago, for the two groups bore into the West 
ideas that could never be reconciled. One had to prevail over the other, sooner or 
later, and the great bid for victory of the destructive idea is being witnessed in our 
generation. 

In the centuries between the story of the West was always, in essentials, that of 
the struggle between the two ideas. When “the Law” according to the Levites and 
Pharisees was in the ascendant, the West made slaves of men, brought heretics 
before an inquisition, put apostates to death, and yielded to primitive visions of 
master-racehood; thus the Twentieth Century was the time of the worst 
backsliding in the West. When the West made men and nations free, established 
justice between them, set up the right of fair and open trial, repudiated master- 
racehood and acknowledged the universal fatherhood of God, it followed the 
teaching of him who had come to “fulfil the Law”. 

The Romans, when they took Jerusalem, struck medals with the inscription, 
“Judaea devicta, Judaea capta”. This was a premature paean; 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, but in the outer world they espied a new enemy. The sect which believed 
that the Messiah had appeared, and called itself Christian, did not acknowledge 
this enmity; on the contrary, its ruling tenet was “love your enemies”. But as the 
first tenet of the Pharisaic law was “hate your enemies”, this was in itself a 
deliberate affront and challenge to the elders in their retreat. 

They saw from the start that the new religion would have to be destroyed if 
their “Law” were to prevail, and they were not deterred by the warning voices 
which (at this juncture as on all earlier and later occasions) were heard within 
their own ranks; for instance, GamaliePs words when the high priest and council 
were about to have Peter and John scourged for preaching in the temple: 
“Consider well what vou are about to do. If this be the work of men, it will soon 


71 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


fall to nothing; but if it be the work of God you canrtot destroy it”. The majority 
of the Pharisees felt strong enough, in their own manmade Law, to “destroy it”, 
and if necessary to work for centuries at that task. 

Thus 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. 

Previously their tribal creed had been one among many tribal creeds. Blood 
vengeance had been the rule among all men and clans. The neighbouring 
“heathen” might have been alarmed by the especial fierceness and vindictiveness 
of the Judaic creed, but had not offered anything much more enlightened. From 
this time on, however, the ruling sect was confronted by a creed which directly 
controverted every tenet of their own “Law”, as white controverts black. 
Moreover, this new idea in the world, by the manner and place of its birth, was 
forever a rebuke to themselves. 

The Pharisees in their stronghold prepared to vanquish this new force that had 
risen in the world. Their task was larger than that of the Levites in Babylon. The 
temple was destroyed and Jerusalem w'as 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”, in the form that was already becoming known to the outer world, 
could not again be amended, or new historical chapters be added to it. Moreover, 
Jesus had addressed his rebukes specifically to the falsification of these 
“commandments of men” by the scribes. He had been killed but not controverted 
or even (as the grow th of the Christian sect showed) given his quietus. Thus his 
arraignment of the Law stood and was so conclusive that not even the Pharisees 
could expect to convince anybody simply by calling him a transgressor of it. 

Nevertheless, 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 anti-Christian extension of the 
Torah. 

The Talmud became, in the course of centuries, “the fence around the Law”; 
the outer tribal stockade around the inner tribal stockade. Its significance lies in 
the period at which it was begun: when Judea was gone, when “the people” were 
scattered among all nations, and when a new religion was taking shape which 


72 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


taught that God was the father of all men, not merely the patron of a selected 
tribe. 

Looking back from this distance of time, the task which the Pharisees 
undertook looks hopeless, for the wish to become part of mankind must surely 
have had strong appeal to a scattered people. 

The Pharisees, as the event has proved, were successful in their huge 
undertaking. The Talmud was effective in interposing a fence between the Jew's 
and the forces of integration released by Christianity. 

Two examples from our present time illustrate the effect of the Talmud, many 
centuries after its compilation. The brothers Thoreau in their books give the 
diligent student some rare glimpses behind the Talmudic walls; in one book they 
depict the little Jewish boy in Poland who had been taught to spit, quite 
mechanically, as he passed the wayside Calvary and to say, “Cursed be thou who 
created another religion”. In 1953, in New York, a young missionary of the 
Moravian Church in Jerusalem described the seizure by the Zionists of the 
Moravian leper home there, called “The Jesus Mission”; their first act was to 
putty over the name “Jesus" which for more than a hundred years had been 
inscribed above its door. 

Such incidents as these (and 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. For this reason 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. 

While the Pharisaic Talmudists, in their new academy at Jamnia, worked on 
the new Law, the tidings of Jesus’s life and lesson spread through the territories of 
Rome. 

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 follow er of Christ . He preached to Jew and Gentile alike, 
until he was prevented, and he told the Jews, “It was necessary that the w ; ord 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”. 

Dr. Kastein .says of Saul, named Paul, that “he made all those whom he 
persuaded to believe in his prophecy renegades in the widest sense, whether they 
were Jew 7 or Gentile”. 

However, what Paul (and others) said was m fact inevitable at that point in 
time, because men everywhere were groping towards the universal God and 
turned to the teaching of Jesus as growing things to the light. 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. 


73 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


This was a fateful moment for that great area, then little known or populated, 
which today is called The West. Had not the disciples turned their faces 
westward, the term, "the West”, and that which it denotes, might never have 
come about. 

What is called “Western civilization” cannot be conceived without 
Christianity. During the nineteen hundred years which followed the death of 
Jesus the West improved so greatly that it left the rest of the world behind. In 
material things its advance was so great that at the time when this book was 
written it was on the brink of the conquest of space; it was about to open the 
universe to exploration by man. But that was much the lesser part of its 
achievement. 

Its greatest improvement was in the field of the spirit and of man’s behaviour 
towards man. The West established men’s right to public charge and open trial, 
or release, (a right which was again in jeopardy in the Twentieth Century) and 
this was the greatest advance in the entire history of man; on the survival or 
destruction of this achievement depends his future. 

The shadow that followed the disciples out of the gates of Jerusalem, before the 
Romans entered, also followed Christianity into the West and the Talmudic sect 
dogged it during all those centuries. The West, in the Twentieth Century, became 
the scene of the struggle between the nations which had risen with Christianity 
and the sect dedicated to the destructive idea. 

Not only the West is involved in its issue. 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 


74 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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”. 

Towards this strange denouement, nineteen centuries ahead, the two parties of 
men set out from Jerusalem long ago. 


75 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


THE FENCE AROUND THE LAW 


The story of Zion, from its start, falls into five distinct phases: those of the 
Levites, the Pharisees, the Talmudists, the “emancipation” interlude and the 
Zionists. This narrative has now reached the third phase. 

The Levitical phase was that of isolated Judah, the Babylonian “captivity” 
and “return”, and the production and enforcement of “the Mosaic Law”. The 
Pharisaic phase, which followed and roughly coincided with the Roman 
overlordship of the province of Judea, ended with the second destruction of 
Jerusalem, the dispersion of the last Judeans, the Pharisaic supremacy and the 
withdrawal of the “government” to its new “centre” at Jamnia. 

The third, Talmudic phase was much the longest for it lasted seventeen 
centuries, from 70 AD to about 1800 AD. During this period the Jews entered the 
West and the “government”, from a succession of “centres”, worked tirelessly to 
keep the dispersed nation under its control, subject to “the Law”, and separate 
from other peoples. 

As this was also the period of Western civilization and of the rise of 
Christianity, it was inevitable that Christendom specifically (and riot merely the 
generic “heathen”, or “strangers”, or “other gods”) should become the chief 
target of the Law’s destructive commands. 

In the eyes of the dominant sect and its devotees, this period, which seems so 
long and important to Western minds, was essentially as insignificant as the 
Babylonian period. The fact that the one lasted seventeen centuries and the other 
fifty years made no real difference: both were merely periods of “exile” for the 
special people; and under the Law the long Western episode, like the short 
Babylonian one, was ordained to terminate in disaster for the “captors”, a Jewish 
triumph and a new “return”, all of which some new Daniel would interpret in 
those terms. 

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”. 

To a literal Zionist like Dr. Kastein, therefore, the seventeen centuries which 
saw the rise of Christendom form a page of history which is blank save for the 
record of “Jewish persecution” inscribed on it. The rest was all sound and fury, 
signifying nothing; it was a period of time during winch Jehovah used the heathen 
to plague the Jew s while he prepared the triumph of his special people; and for 
what they did the heathen have yet to pay (he cries). The one positive result of the 
seventeen Christian centuries, for him, is that the Jews emerged from them still 
segregated from mankind, thanks to their Talmudic governors. 

Certainly this was an astounding feat; in the entire history of negative 
achievement, nothing can approach the results obtained by the elders of Zion. In 
the Talmud they built that “fence around the Law” which successfully 


76 



THE CONTROVERSY OE ZION 


withstood, during seventeen hundred years, all the centrifugal forces which 
attracted the Jews towards mankind. 

While they reinforced their stockade, European men, having accepted 
Christianity, toiled through the centuries to apply its moral law to daily life, by 
abolishing serfdom and slavery, reducing privilege and inequality and generally 
raising the dignity of man. This process was know n as ''■emancipation” and by 
the year 1800 it was about to prevail over the system of absolute rulers and 
privileged castes. 

The Jews, directed bv their Talmudic rulers, took a leading part in the struggle 
for emancipation. That in itself was fair enough. The masses of Christendom held 
from the start that the liberties to be won should ultimately accrue to all men, 
without distinction of race, class or creed; that was the very meaning of the 
struggle itself, and anything else or less would have made it meaningless. 

Nevertheless, in the case of the Jews there was an obvious paradox which 
repeatedly baffled and alarmed the peoples among whom they dwelt. The Jewish 
Law expressed the theory of the master-race in the most arrogant and vindictive 
form conceivable to the human imagination; how then could the Jews attack 
nationhood in others? Why did the Jews demand the levelling of barriers between 
men when they built an ever stronger barrier between the Jews and other men? 
How could people., who claimed that God had made the very world itself for 
them to rule, and forbade them to mix with lesser breeds, complain of 
discrimination? 

Now that another hundred and fifty years have passed, the answer to such 
questions has been given by events. 

It was true that the Jewish clamour for emancipation was not truly concerned 
with the great idea or principle at issue: human liberty. The Judaic Law denied 
that idea and principle. The Talmudic governors of Jewry saw that the quickest 
way to remove the barriers between themselves and power over nations was to 
destroy legitimate government in these nations; and the quickest way to that end 
was to cry ‘'emancipation!”. 

Thus the door opened by emancipation could be used to introduce the 
permanent revolutionary force into the life of nations; w ith the destruction of all 
legitimate government, the revolutionaries would succeed to power, and these 
revolutionaries would be Talmud-trained and Talmud-controlled. They would 
act always under the Mosaic Law, and in this w ay the end of Babylon could be 
reproduced in the West. 

The evidence of events in the Twentieth Century now shows that this was the 
plan to which the Talmudic elders worked during the third phase of the story of 
Zion, from 70 AD to about 1800 AD. Thus there was the widest possible 
difference in the understanding of "emancipation” by the Christianized 
European peoples among whom the Jews dwelt and among the Talmudic rulers 
of the Jews. For the great mass of peoples emancipation represented an end: the 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


end of servitude. For the powerful, secret sect it represented a means to the 
opposite end; the imposition of a new and harsher servitude. 

One great danger attended this undertaking. It was, that the destruction of 
barriers between men might also destroy the barrier between the Jews and other 
men; this would have destroyed the plan itself, for that force would have been 
dispersed which was to be used, emancipation once gained, to “pull down and 
destroy'’ the nations. 

This very nearly happened in the fourth phase of the story of Zion; 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. For that reason our 
Zionist historian. Dr. Kastein, considers the Nineteenth Century to be the 
darkest age in all Jewish history, fraught with the deadly peril of involvement in 
mankind, which happily was averted. He cannot contemplate without horror the 
destruction, through assimilation, of the Judaic barriers of race and creed. Thus 
he calls the Nineteenth Century movement towards emancipation “retrograde” 
and thanks God that “the Zionist ideology” preserved the Jews from the fate of 
assimilation. 

That led to the fifth phase, the one which began in about 1900 and in which we 
live. The Talmudic stockade held fast and at the end of the fourth phase the Jews, 
fully “emancipated” in the Western understanding, were still segregated under 
their own Law. Those who tended to escape, towards “assimilation”, were then 
drawn back into the tribal enclosure by the mystic power of nationalism. 

Using the power over governments which it had gained through emancipation, 
the ruling sect achieved a second “return” to the chosen land, and thus re¬ 
established the Law of 458 BC, with its destructive and imperial mission. A 
chauvinist fever, which yet must run its course, was injected into the veins of 
world Jewry; the great power wielded over Western governments was used to a 
co-ordinated end; and the whole destructive ordeal of the West in the Twentieth 


Century was related to and dominated by the ancient ambition of Zion, revived 
from antiquity to become the dogma of Western politics. 

This fifth phase is about fifty-five years old as the present book is written, and 
its first results are formidable. The “Mosaic Law” has been superimposed on the 
life of Western peoples, which in fact is governed by that law, not by any law of 
their own. The political and military operations of two world wars have been 
diverted to promote the Zionist ambition and the life and treasure of the West 
have been poured out in support of it. 

Forty years of continuous bloodshed in Palestine have obviously been but the 
prelude to what is yet to come there. Any third world war may begin and spread 
outward from Palestine, and if one were to start elsewhere it would in its course 


foreseeably revolve around and turn on the ambition of Zion, which will not be 


78 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 

fulfilled until a much greater area in the Middle East has been conquered, "other 
Gods” have been thrown down, and "all nations” have been enslaved. 

Dr. Kastein sees in this fifth phase the golden age when "history may be 
resumed” (after the meaningless interregnum known as the Christian era) and 
Zionism, as "the possessor of a world mission”, will re-enter into a destined 
inheritance, culminating in world dominion, of which it was criminally 
dispossessed in AD 70 (when "history” was interrupted). 

This narrative has now reached the third of these five phases, the long one 
when the Talmudic scribes in the Academy at Jamnia began with infinite industry 
to spin The Law into a much greater web, of endless ramifications, from which a 
Jew could hardly escape without dire penalty. By means of it the seemingly 
impossible was achieved: a breed of people dispersed throughout the world was 
for seventeen hundred years kept apart from mankind and was trained for a 
destructive task in the Twentieth Century of the Christian era. 

Some account of that remarkable period of preparation and organization, 
when a fence was built around the Judaic Law, so that "liberty” should not 
absorb the special people or weaken their destructive force, is here appropriate. 


79 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 
THE MOVABLE GOVERNMENT 


The Pharisaic elders who moved to Jamnia from Jerusalem before its 
destruction in 70 AD intended, like the Levites in Babylon earlier, to set up a 
centre of power and remote-control, from which they might keep in subjection a 
tribal organization, by that time distributed over the earth. They took with them 
to Jamnia the accumulated experience of Jerusalem and Babylon and the stored 
secrets of ages and they succeeded in establishing a mobile government which has 
continued to exercise authority over the Jews until the present day. 

Before the last battles with Rome (says Dr. Kastein) “a group of teachers, 
scholars and educators repaired to Jamnia, taking the fate of their people on their 
shoulders so as to be responsible for it through the ages... At Jamnia the central 
body for the administration of the Jewish people was established . . . As a rule, 
when a nation has been utterly routed as the Jews were on this occasion, they 
perish altogether. But the Jewish people did not perish . . . They had already 
learnt how to change their attitude during the Babylonian captivity . . . And they 
followed a similar course now”. 

At Jamnia the Old Sanhedrin, the source of all legislative, administrative and 
judicial authority, was established under a new name. In addition, an academy 
was created for the further development of The Law. In it, the scribes continued 
the revelation of Jehovah's mind and the interpretation of The Law, so often said 
to have been put in its final form. In fact, as the dogma is that the Law governs 
every act of human life in circumstances which continually change, it never could 
or can be finally codified and must ever be expanded. 

Apart from that permanent reason for revision, the new factor, Christianity, 
had arisen and the Law's application to it had to be defined. Thus the Torah (the 
Law) began to receive its huge supplement, the Talmud, which was of equal or 
greater authority. 

From Jamnia the Law was administered which “raised an insuperable barrier 
against the outside world", enforced a discipline rigid to ihc point ofdccidlincss\ 
and “kept proselytes at arm's length" 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". 

In this way, “the centre of the circle was finally fixed and the circle itself fully 
described in the form of the law and the hedge that was set about the people". 
During this neriod (before Chrislianitv became the religion of Rome) 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 


80 



THE CONTROVERSY OE ZION 


was transferred to Usha in Galilee, where the Sanhedrin was re-established. 
‘"Judaism set limitations about itself and grew e"er 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 L aw of exclusion and 
"‘stranger”-slavery administered by the Talmudic government at Usha. but they 
w ; ere 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 Lizekiei, 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 intrepretation or application of the Taw 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 


81 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 


82 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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. 

What was to become of vital importance to the West was that the Jewish 
government was now in Europe. The directing centre and the destructive idea had 
both entered the West. 


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 Spam 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 
my stery 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 


83 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 substantia! 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. 

But when a Zionist historian thus slurs over something the seeker after 
knowledge may be fairly sure that the root of the matter may by perserverance be 
found. 

So it is in this case; behind Dr. Eastern's artless conjecture the most important 
fact in the later story of Zion is concealed. The “centre” of Jewish government 
was at this time planted among a large community of people who were unknow n 
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-Mongohan 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 
Idumcans 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. 

This development (which will be further discussed in a later chapter) was of 
vital, and perhaps even mortal importance to the West. The natural instinct of 
Europe was always to expect the greatest danger to its survival from Asia. From 
the moment when “the centre” was transferred to Poland these Asiatics began to 
move towards, and later to enter the West in the guise of “Jews” and they 
brought Europe to its greatest crisis. Though their conversion had occurred so 
long before they were so remote that the world might never have known of them, 
had not the Talmudic centre been set up among them, so that they came to group 
themselves around it. 

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 


84 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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! 

From this period the Talmudic government operated with a masse de 
manoeuvre of a different Asiatic order. 

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. 

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 Lurid\ (This quotation reveals the inner meaning of 
Dr. Kastein’s frequent, but cautious, allusions to “iron discipline", “inexorable 
discipline", “discipline rigid to the point of deadliness’, and the like). 

In effect, a Jewish state, Talmud-ruled, was recreated on the soil of Poland. 

As Dr. Kastein says, “Such was the const hut ion of the Jewish state, planted on 
foreign soil, hemmed in by a wall of foreign laws, with a structure partly self- 
chosen and partly forced upon it ... It had its own Jewish law, its own 
priesthood, its own schools, and its own social institutions, and its own 
representatives in the Polish government... in fact, it possessed all the elements 
which go to form a state". The achievement of this status was due “in no small 
measure to the co-operation of the Polish Government". 

Then, 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. At that point, for the first time in more 
than 2500 years and less than two hundred years before our own day, the 


85 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


“centre” of Jewish government disappears from sight. Up to 1772 there had 
always been one: in Poland, Spain, Babylonia, Galilee, Judea, Babylon and 
Judah. 

Dr. Kastein says that “the centre ceased to exist”. The suggestion is that the 
centralized control of Jewry at that moment ended, but the length and strength of 
its earlier survival, and the significant events of the ensuing century, confute that. 
In a later passage Dr. Kastein himself reveals the truth, when he jubilantly 
records that in the Nineteenth Century “a Jewish international took shape”. 

Clearly “the centre” continued, but from 1772 in secret. The reason for the 
withdrawal into concealment may be deduced from the shape of later events. 

The century which followed was that of the revolutionary conspiracy, 
Communist and Zionist, culminating in the open appearance of these two 
movements, which have dominated the present century. The Talmudic “centre” 
was also the centre of this conspiracy. Had it remained in the open the source of 
conspiracy would have been visible, and the identification of the Talmudic, 
Eastern Jews with it obvious. 

In the event 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. 

The Russians, among whom this largest single community of Jews at that time 
dwelt, knew what had happened. Dr. Kastein says, “The Russians wondered 
what could possibly be the reason why the Jews did not amalgamate with the rest 
of the population, and came to the conclusion that in their secret Kahals they 
possessed a strong reserve, and that a 'World KahaV existed”. Dr. Kastein later 
confirms what the Russians believed, by his own allusion to the “Jewish 
international” of the Nineteenth Century. 

In other words, the “government” continued, but in concealment, and 
probably in the different form suggested by Dr. Kastein’s word “international”. 
The strong presumption is that the “centre” today is not located in any one 
country and that, although 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. 

The manner in which this international directorate gains and wields its power 
over Gentile governments is no longer quite mysterious; enough authentic, 


86 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


published information has come out of these last fifty years to explain that, as this 
book will later show. 

The mystery of its agelong hold over "Jews” is more difficult to penetrate. 
How has a sect been able to keep people, distributed around the globe, in the 
clutch of a primitive tribalism during twenty-five centuries? 

The next chapter seeks to give some insight into the methods used during the 
third and longest phase of the story of Zion, the Talmudic period which lasted 
from AD 70 to about 1800. These methods have so much of the Orient and of 
Asia in them that they are puzzling to Western minds and are best comprehended 
by those whose own experience took them much among the communities of 
"Eastern Jews” before the Second World War, and into secret-police states, 
where rule is also by fear and terror. 


87 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 
THE TALMUD AND THE GHETTOES 


Whatever else is in dispute, one thing is incontestable: that great force must 
repose in a Law which for nineteen centuries obtains obedience from people 
scattered over the earth, w'hen by an effort of will they could escape its thrall. The 
Talmud was (and is) such a law, and the only one of its kind. 

‘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). “The absolute superiority of the Talmud over the Bible of Moses 
must be recognized by all” (the Archives Israelites , quoted by Mgr. Landrieux). 
“The words of the elders are more important than the words of the Prophets " (the 
Talmud, Treatise Berachoth, i.4.). 

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 wais 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, w'hich thus was produced during the Christian era, is anti- 
Christian. 11 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 copy of the Christian Bible which I have states that “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. A question therefore arises: 
in what way wuis the inspiration of the Talmud different from that of the Torah? 
If it was not different, then why should not the anti-Christian Talmud be added to 
the Christian Bible? 


If that w'ere done the entire work would extend along several shelves of a 
library, and the New Testament would be a tiny pamphlet, lost among and 
excommunicated by the Talmudic mass, the teaching of which is thus 
summarized by the Talmudic scholar Drach: 

“The precepts of justice, of equity, of charity towards one’s neighbours, 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 


88 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


non-Jew from death ... to restore lost goods, etc., to him, to have pity on him”. 

The theological decision about the “equal divine authority” of the Torah 
seems to have introduced an element of confusion into the Christian lesson from 
which Christianity itself in the end might not recover. 

The Talmudic precepts just quoted are not essentially different in nature from 
those included in Deuteronomy when that “second Law” was made public a 
thousand years before the Palestinian Talmud was completed, they are merely 
given a specifically anti-Christian application. 

Why was the Talmud necessary at all? The reasons seem clear. The Judeans 
had been finally dispersed about the world, or at any rate until such time as these 
"exiles” should be “in-gathered” and congregate again around the temple. The 
world where they were scattered contained a new "enemy” in the form of a 
religion which had been born in the very declaration that Phariseeism was heresy: 
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” Moreover, the Judaic Law 
had become known through translation to the heathen world, which had even 
found some things in it that it could use. Thus the special people, if they were to 
be kept apart, needed a new Law of their own, which could be kept from the eyes 
of the Gentiles. The Torah needed "a hedge” about it, strong enough to preserve 
the exiles both from absorption by other peoples and from "a-whoring after 
other gods”. 

The Talmud was essentially the hostile answer to Christianity, the order-of- 
battle revised in the light of "the enemy's” new dispositions. The lay 
encyclopaedias (which in our generation have been made untrustworthy on 
subjects related to Judaism) disguise this fact from Gentile readers. The one now 
before me, for instance, says, "The Talmud has been attacked by Christians at 
times — quite unfairly — as anti-Christian”. The insertion of two suggestive 
words by some partisan scribe causes this volume to purvey demonstrable 
untruth and to convert a factual statement into a propagandist one. The attack 
on Christianity gave the Talmud its distinctive tone and is indeed the only new 
thing in the Talmud. Its other teaching remains that of Ezekiel and the Pharisees. 

The Jewish Eneyelopaedia says, "It is the tendency of Jewish legends in the 
Talmud, the Midrash” (the sermons in the synagogues) “and in the Life of Jesus 
Christ (Tole doth Jeshua) that originated in the Middle Ages to belittle the person 
of Jesus by ascribing to him illegitimate birth, magic and a shameful death”. Fie is 
generally alluded to as "that anonymous one”, "liar”, “impostor” or “bastard” 
(the attribution of bastardy is intended to bring him under The Law as stated in 
Deuteronomy 23.2: “A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the 
Lord”). Mention of the name, Jesus, is prohibited in Jewish households. 

The work cited by the Jewish Eneyelopaedia as having "originated in the 
Middle Ages” is not merely a discreditable memory of an ancient past, as that 
allusion might suggest; it is used in Hebrew schools today. It was a rabbinical 
production of the Talmudic era and repeated all the ritual of mockery of Calvary 


89 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


itself in a different form. 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. 

The Talmud also refers to Jesus as “Fool”, “sorcerer”, “profane person”, 
“idolator”, “dog”, “child of lust” and the like more; the effect of this teaching, 
over a period of centuries, is shown by the book of the Spanish Jew Mose de 
Leon, republished in 1880, which speaks of Jesus as a “dead dog” that lies 
“buried in a dunghill”. The original Hebrew texts of these Talmudic allusions 
appear in Laible’s Jesus Christas im Talmud. This scholar says that during the 
period of the Talmudists hatred of Jesus became “the most national trait of 
Judaism”, that “at the approach of Christianity the Jews were seized ever and 
again with a fury and hatred that were akin to madness”, that “the hatred and 
scorn of the Jews was always directed in the first place against the person of 
Jesus” and that “the Jesus-hatred of the Jews is a firmly-established fact, but they 
want to show it as little as possible”. 

This wish to conceal from the outer world that which was taught behind the 
Talmudic hedge led to the censoring of the above-quoted passages during the 
seventeenth century. Knowledge of the Talmud became fairly widespread then (it 
was frequently denounced by remonstrant Jews) and the embarrassment thus 
caused to the Talmudic elders led to the following edict (quoted in the original 
Hebrew and in translation by P.L.B. Drach, who was brought up in a Talmudic 
school and later became converted to Christianity): 

“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. At the present time, 
when public enquiry into such matters, or objection to them, has been virtually 
forbidden by Gentile governments, these passages, according to report, have 
been restored in the Hebrew editions of the Talmud). 

This vilification of the founder of another religion sets Judaism apart from 


90 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


other creeds and the Talmud from other literature published in the name of 
religion. Muslims, Buddhists, Confucians, Christians and others do not hate 
other creeds or their founders as such. They are content to differ and to believe 
that the paths may one day meet, God deciding the meeting-point. 

For instance, 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 w 7 ith 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 central message of the Talmud, the newest "new Law”, is plain: it 
specifically extended the Law to apply to Christianity and left no doubt about the 
dutv of a Jew towards it. 

Another motive for the new compendium was the problem created for the 
inner sect by the fact that the Gentiles had found much in the translated Torah 
that appealed to them (despite the obvious fact that it was lethally directed 
against them). The earlier Levitical scribes could not foresee that (because they 
could not foresee the translation itself). The ruling sect needed a new Law of its 
own, into which "stranger” eyes could not pry, and it needed to make the Jews 
understand that, though the heathen inexplicably had bound the racio-religious 
Law into the Christian Bible, this Law nevertheless still was the Law of the Jew's 


alone, and inexorably in force. 

Thus the Talmud set out to widen the gap and heighten the barrier between the 
Jews and others. Ail example of the different language which the Torah spoke, 
for Jews and for Gentiles, has previously been given: the obscure and apparently 
harmless allusion to "a foolish nation” (Deuteronomy, 32.21). According to the 
article on Discrimination against Gentiles in the Jewish Encyclopaedia the allusion 
in the original Hebrew is to "vile and vicious Gentiles”, so that Jew and Gentile 
received very different meanings from the same passage in the original and in the 
translation. The Talmud, however, which was to reach only Jewish eyes, 
removed any doubt that might have been caused in Jewish minds by perusal of 
the milder translation; it specifically 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”! In this spirit was the 
"interpretation” of The Law continued by the Talmudists. 

The Talmudic edicts were all to similar effect. 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. Eclipses were of bad augury for Gentiles only. Rabbi Levi laid 
down that the injunction not to take revenge (Leviticus 19 18) did not apply to 


91 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


Gentiles, and apparently invoked Ecclesiastes 8.4 in support of his ruling (a 
discriminatory interpretation then being given to a passage in which the Gentile 
could not suspect any such intention). 

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 ‘Tor 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 Ford 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. 

An illustrative glimpse from our present time sometimes best shows the effect 
produced on human minds by centuries of Talmudic rule. In 1952 a Mr. Frank 
Chodorov published this anecdote: "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 
mitva/y or blessing, on a non-believer. This was the first time, I believe, that 1 
came smack up against the doctrine of the ‘chosen people 1 , and it struck me as 
stupid and mean”. 

So much for the "hedge” which the Talmud set up between the Jews and 
mankind, and for the feeling of contempt and hatred for "strangers” which it set 
out to instil in the Jews. What did it do to the Jews themselves? Of this, the Jewish 
Encyclopaedia says, "The Talmudists made the Torah into a penal code ”. For 
once, in this painstakingly accurate work, the meaning is not quite clear; the 
Torah already was a penal code (as perusal of it today will show), and its penalties 
had sometimes been applied (by Ezra and Nehemiah against the Jews; and for 
that matter by the Romans, at the behest of the Sanhedrin, against the "prophet 
and dreamer of dreams”, Jesus). Possibly the meaning is that, under the 
Talmudists, the penal code was regularly enforced, and its provisions 
strengthened. 

That is certainly true; the rabbinical practice, previously cited, of 
"encouraging lynching as an extra-legal preventive”, because they were not 
allowed by host-governments to pronounce death sentences, shows in how real a 
sense the Talmud could be applied as "a penal code”. It was a very far cry from 
the few moral commandments of remote tradition to the multitudinous laws and 
regulations of the Talmud, which often forbade moral behaviour and assigned 
drastic punishments for "transgressions”. Observance of these laws, not moral 


92 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


behaviour, remained the basis. 

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 came! 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”. 

Was Dr. Johnson acquainted with or ignorant of the Talmud; the subject 
might prove a fascinating one for a literary debating society. He gave one 
argument its quietus by declaring, "There is no settling the point of precedence 
between a louse and a flea”. Precisely this point had been discussed, and settled, 
among the 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. 

"The Talmud became the unbreakable husk around a kernel determined to 
survive; it encased the heart of the Jew with a spirituality which though cold as ice 
was strong as steel to protect . . . The Talmud, which they carried with them 
everywhere, became their home”. A home made of ice and steel, behedged and 
walled around, with all the windows stopped and the doors barred; the picture is 
Dr. Eastern's. 

In this home 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 ccntre'\ The planet swam in space, among the 
my riad stars, only to enthrone them on a mound of gold in a temple surrounded 
by heathen dead; "the L.aw raised an insuperable barrier against the outside 
world”. 

No Jew, save a Talmudic scholar, could know all of this huge compendium. 
Probably no Gentile could gain access to an unedited version. A college of 
specialists and a lifetime of work would be needed to compare such translations 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


as have been made with the originals, if they were made available. Many 
students, until recently, found the lack of translations significant, but the present 
writer cannot see that this is important. 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 Per alte and dec neue Glaube im Jude mum, Strack’s Einleitnng in den 
Talmud, Laible's Jesus Christas im Talmud, 13racids De THarmoni entre l’EgUse 
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. 

The reason for the difference is obvious: Mosaic manuscripts “hoary with the 
dust of ages" could not be indefinitely discovered. The scribes had to accept the 
responsibility, simply declaring that in doing so they used the absolute power of 
interpretation “orally" given to the first of their fine. Thus they revealed the 
truth: that they, and none other, were God! 

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", or 
he would have been accurate had he said, “these scribes" instead of “this 
people". The earlier generation of scribes had willed the revelation made in 
Deuteronomy; the later one willed the Talmudic God and demanded that “these 
people" accept the Talmud as a continuation of the revelation earlier “willed". 

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 indicted the New' 
Covenant on the Judahites in Jerusalem in 444BC. 

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". 

The Twentieth Century is witnessing the attempt to consummate that hope. 

Probably the institution of the ghetto chiefly helped the Talmudists to this 
success. 

In the Twentieth Century the masses have been misled to think of “the ghetto" 
as a kind of concentration camp for Jews set up by Gentile persecutors. The same 
operation on fact has been performed on the entire history of oppression in the 
West; in the Twentieth Century all else has been drained away until what remains 
is presented solely as “the Jewish persecution". 

The many persecutions of men during the last 1900 years have involved the 
Jews in proportion to their numbers, so that their share of the total mass of 
suffering was small (in the most notorious case of the present century, that of 


94 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


Russia, they were the oppressors, not the oppressed). I do not know if 1 should 
ever have elicited this fact, had not my own experience confronted me so sharply 
with it. 

The ghetto was not something indicted 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 1 ' 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 1 ’ 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. This 
institution is probably the most onerous part of the modern Jew’s spiritual 
inheritance: 


“The ghetto, friend, the ghetto, where all hopes at birth decay”. 

Jew s 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 wdiich their 
ancestors surrendered. It was the perfect means of corralling a scattered 
congregation, imprisoning people's minds, and wielding powder over them. 

The demand for a ghetto often came from the Talmudists (that is to say, 
outside Poland, wTere 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 
alw ; ays 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 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). The ghettoes of Russia and Poland were an essential 
and integral part of the Talmudic 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 


wxirds as these: 


“One of the most unique phenomena of Jewish life in Goluth is gone. Where 
but a few months ago a vibrant Jew ish life was pulsating, there now 7 remains a few 


95 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 Jewish Encyclopaedia recorded in its 1903 edition that "in the whole 
civilized world there is now not a single ghetto, in the original meaning of the 
word's The qualification is important, because in many places and ways the Jews 
continue the closed-community life, though without the identifying walls, and 
the law forbidding the sale of neighbour-land to Gentiles, without permission, 
has not lapsed (to give one instance, illustrative to those who know the city: in 
Montreal an entire district east of the Mountain has by such methods been made 
almost as solidly Jewish as if it were a ghetto). 

The decline of the ghetto, during the century of emancipation, was a blow to 
the main prop of Talmudic power. A substitute had to be found unless the ghetto- 
spirit (as distinct from the physical ghetto) was to disintegrate altogether, and 
one was found in Zionism, w'hich is the new' method devised to re-corral the 
communities: 

“There are many who desire greater control over Jews by Jews, and who resent 
the dissolution of this control in Russia, where once a ghetto made such control 
easy and absolute” (Rabbi Elmer Berger). “Only the intellectually blind can fail 
to note that the promotion of group life, centered around ancient religious 
traditions and cultures, is a return to the ghetto . . . There can be no glory in a 
group of people striving to perpetuate ghetto life . . . Even a cursory reading of 
history shows that the Jew built his own ghettoes ” (Mr. Bernard J. Brown). 

Zionism is the true revival of Talmudic ghettoism, as these two Jewish 
authorities state. It is designed to undo the work of emancipation, to re-segregate 
the Jew's, and to reimpose the creed of “severance” on them in full force. The 
chauvinist appeal of conquest and empire in the Middle East is being used to 
disguise this true meaning of the process. 

The direction in which Jews were moving before Zionism set out to recapture 
them may be seen in this quotation from the article on The Attitude of Modern 
Judaism in the Jewish Encyclopaedia, 1916: 

“Modern Judaism as inculcated in the catechism and explained in the 
declarations of the various rabbinical conferences, and as interpreted in the 
sermons of modern rabbis, is founded on the recognition of the unity of the 
human races; the law 7 of righteousness and truth being supreme over all men, 
without distinction of race or creed, and its fulfilment being possible for all. 



THE CONTROVERSY OE ZION 


Righteousness is not conditioned by birth. The Gentiles may attain unto as 
perfect a righteousness as the Jews ... In the modern synagogues, "Thou shalt 
love thy neighbour like thyself’ (Leviticus 29) signified every human being”. 

Much has changed since 1916, and in 1955 these words are but the picture of 
what might have been. No doubt individual rabbis continue to “interpret their 
sermons” in this sense, but unless they are of the stuff of which heroes and 
martyrs are made they cannot long defy their congregations, and these have been 
taken back centuries by the appeal of Zionism. 

The Zionists have gained political control over Gentile governments and the 
Jewish masses alike, so that what the individual remonstrant says is of little 
weight. The Zionists have restored the Levitical Law, in its Pharisaic and 
Talmudic interpretations, in full force. Their actions towards others in the past 
have been and in the future will be guided by that, and not by what “the attitude 
of modern Judaism” was in 1916. 


The great change came in the year, 1917, which followed the publication of the 
words quoted above. The tradition of the Talmud and the ghettoes was still too 
strong, among the masses of Jewry, for “the attitude of modern Judaism” to 
prevail over the fanatical elders who then appeared. 


97 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


THE MESSIANIC LONGING 


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 1 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 11 at the reading of The Law. The Talmud forbade the Jew r 
almost every activity other than the amassing of money ("they only conceded just 
enough to the people about them to make their economic activities possible 1 ’; Dr. 
Kastein) and the study of the Talmud ("whenever the Law could not be 
unequivocally applied to the relations of life, they endeavoured to discover its 
interpretation 11 ). 

The energies of the people were directed to spinning ever more tightly about 
themselves the net in which they were enmeshed: "They not only set a hedge 
about the Law, but, by cutting themselves off more definitely than ever from the 
outside world, and by binding themselves more exclusively to a given circle of 
laws, they set a hedge about themselves”. With every breath they drew and 
movement they made, they had to ask themselves, "Does the Talmud allow or 
forbid this”, and the ruling sect decided. 

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 ”, says Mr. Alfred Edersheim. The people 
submitted to, but could not always inwardly accept so obviously political a claim, 
and this inner rebellion against something outwardly professed often led to 
strange happenings. 

For instance, a Portuguese Marrano (a converted, or sometimes a secret Jew) 
called Uriel da Costa was once reconverted to Judaism, and then became 
appalled by the Talmud. In 1616, at Hamburg, he published his Thesis against 
Tradition in which he attacked "the Pharisees”, charging that the Talmudic laws 
were their creation and not of any divine origin. The treatise was addressed to the 
Jews of Venice and the rabbi there, one Leo Modena, thereon by command 
pronounced the dreaded "Ban 11 on da Costa. At Rabbi Modena’s death papers 
found among his effects showed that he had held exactly the same view as da 
Costa, but had not dared to declare that for which he excommunicated da Costa. 


98 



THE CONTROVERSY OH /ION 


As a Communist Leo Modena would be a familiar figure in our own century. 
In effect, he sentenced to death the man whose beliefs he shared. Da Costa 
returned to the attack in 1624 with his Test of the Pharisaical Tradition by 
Comparing it with the Written Law. The Talmudists of Amsterdam, where da 
Costa then was, denounced him to the Dutch courts on the ground that his 
treatise was subversive of the Christian faith, and it was burned at the order of 
these Gentile authorities, who thus carried out the Talmudic Law! 

This act of Gentile submission to the ruling sect recurs through all history from 
the time of Babylon to the present day. Da Costa was literally hounded to death 
and in 1640 shot himself. 

Jewish history shows many such episodes. The student of this subject walks 
w ith terror as he turns its pages. 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 savs, “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, for 
this same authority (as earlier quoted) states that “even the Bible" is secondary to 
the Talmud. Moreover, Mr. M.L. Rodkinson, the scholar who was selected to 
make an English translation of the Talmud, says that “not a single line’ of the 
Talmud has been modified. For that matter, the Talmud, in this case, only carries 
on the law of cursing as earlier laid down, by the Levites, in Deuteronomy. 

The practice of cursing and of the evil eye, therefore, is still part of “The Law", 
as the quotations given above show. (The student may find a present-day 
example of the Talmudic “angry, fixed look" in operation if he refer to Mr. 
Whittaker Chambers’s description of his confrontation with the attorneys of Mr. 
Alger Hiss; and the student may form his own opinion of the fact that soon 
afterwards Mr. Chambers felt himself driven to commit suicide, failing in this 
attempt only through a chance). 

Thus excommunication was a deadly thing. Mr. Rodkinson makes this 
remarkable reference to it: 

“We can conceive their" (the Talmudic rabbinate's) “terrible vengeance 
against an ordinary man or scholar who ventured to express opinions in any 
degree at variance with their own, or to transgress the Sabbath by carrying a 


99 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


handkerchief or drinking of Gentile wine, which in their opinion is against the 
law. Who, then, could resist their terrible weapon of excommunication , which they 
used for the purpose of making a man a ravening wolf whom every human being 
fied from and shunned as the plague-smitten? Many who drank of this hitter cun 
were driven to the grave and mam others went mad”. 

This fate befell some of the great remonstrants. Moses Maimonides (born at 
the Talmudic centre, Cordova, in 11 35) drew up a famous code of the principles 
of Judaism and wrote, “It is foribdden to defraud or deceive any person in 
business. Judoist and non-Judoist are to he 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 Eord 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' 1 . 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". 

Dr. Kastein’s presentation is typical: he says the Inquisition persecuted 
“heretics and peoples of alien creeds" and then adds, “that is to say, principally 
Jews", anc from that point on he conveys the impression of a solely Jewish 
persecution. (In the same way. in our century. Hitler's persecution was through 
four stages of propagandist misrepresentation transformed from one of 
“political opponents" into one of “political opponents and Jews", then of “Jews 
and political opponents", and last, “of Jews"). 

The Inquisition sometimes burned the Talmud; it would have done better to 
translate and publish the significant parts, and that would still be w ise. However, 
it also burned remonstrances against the Talmud, at the demand of the ruling 
sect. For instance, in 1240 the Talmud was denounced to it by a converted Jew 7 , 
the Dominican Nicholas Donin, in Paris, and nothing was done, but in 1232, at 
the denunciation of the Talmudists, it had ordered the anti-Talmudic work of 
Maimonides to be publicly burned! 

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 


100 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 cw sings 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 corne nigh unto him”. 

Spinoza was banished from Amsterdam and exposed to “a persecution which 
threatened his life”, as one encyclopaedia puts it. Tn 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. Elis 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 7 almudic 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 forbidden under penalty 
of excommunication to use the translation”. They then had the translation 
publicly burned in Berlin. 

The great remonstrants of Judaism always stirred Jewry, but always failed; the 
ruling sect always prevailed. There were two reasons for this: the invariable 
support given by Gentile governments to the dominant sect and its dogma, and 
an element of self-surrender among the Jewish masses. In this 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. 


In our century remonstrant Jews affirmed, too soon, that the terror was no 
longer potent. In 1933 Mr. Bernard J. Brown wrote, “The bite of excommunica¬ 
tion has lost its sting . . . The rabbis and the priests have lost their grip on human 


101 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


thought and men are free to believe as they please without let or hindrance”; and 
in 1946 Rabbi Elmer Berger said, “The average Jew is no longer subject to the 
punishment of excommunication”. 

Both were premature. The years which followed these statements show that the 
paramount sect was still able to enforce the submission of Jews throughout the 
world. 

Nevertheless, the fierceness of the Talmudic rule, within the ghettoes, often 
produced a weeping, groaning and rattling of chains. This caused the Talmudists 
enough concern for them to introduce what seemed to be a mitigation. In about 
900 AD “discussion about the Talmud and religious dogma became allowable” 
(Dr. Kastein). On the face of it this appeared to be in itself a reversion of the 
dogma, whereunder no dot or comma of any rabbinical ruling might be called in 
question, or any doubt expressed about the derivation from Mount Sinai. 

Genuine debate would have let fresh air into the ghettoes, but if any intention 
to allow that had existed, Maimonides and Spinoza need never have been 
persecuted. What was actually permitted in the synagogues and schools was a 
unique form of dialectics, designed still further to strengthen the edifice of The 
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 


102 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


TalmucT 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 w as 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. Mass- 
emotions 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 
themselves 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 


103 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


himself converted to Islam and ended his days at the Suntan'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 followers. A tiny remant 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, leading to the 
same inevitable disappointment. After the passing of Sabbatai Zevi, and the hope 
they had put in him, the Jewish masses relapsed into the captivity of the ghettoes. 
Deprived of the hope of liberation, they reverted, beneath the stern gaze of their 
masters, to the study of The Law and its destructive message. They were being 
prepared for a task. 


104 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 
THE DESTRUCTIVE MISSION 


The study of hundreds of volumes, during many years, gradually brought 
realization that the essential truth of 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”. 


At first hearing they sound vainglorious or neurotic, but increasing knowledge 
of the subject shows them to be honestly meant and carefully chosen. They mean 
that a man who is born and continues a Jew acquires a destructive mission wdiich 
he cannot elude. If he deviates from this “Law” he is not a good Jew, in the eyes of 
the elders; if he wishes or is compelled to be a good Jew, he must conform to it. 

This is the reason w 7 hy the part played by those w 7 ho directed “the Jews” in 
history was bound to be a destructive one; and in our generation of the Twentieth 
Century the destructive mission has attained its greatest force, with results which 
cannot even yet be fully foreseen. 

This is not an opinion of the present writer. 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 7 and “history” are the same, and there is only Jev/ish 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. 

By this method of portrayal the w hole picture of other nations’ lives collapses 
into almost nothing, like the bamboo-and-paper framework of a Chinese 
lantern. It is salutary for the Gentile to contemplate his world, past and present, 
through these eyes and to find that wdiat he always thought to be significant, 
worthy of pride, or shameful, does not even exist, save as a blurred background 
to the story of Zion. It is like looking at himself through the wrong end of a 
telescope with one eye and at Judah through a magnifying glass with the other. 

To the literal Jew the w^orld is still flat and Judah, its inheritant, is the centre of 
the universe. The ruling sect has been able, in great measure, to impose this 
theory of life on the great nations of the West, as it originally inflicted The Law on 
the Judahites themselves. 


105 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


The command, ‘■‘destroy 1 ’, 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. 

This was the kind of perversion which Jesus attacked: “teaching for doctrine 
the commandments of men \ 

It comes first at the very start of the story, being attributed directly to God in 
the original promise of the promised land: “I will . . . destroy all the people to 
whom thou shah come”. Even before that the first act of destruction has been 
imputed to God, in the form of the first “vengeance” on the heathen: “I will 
stretch out my hand and smite Egypt... I will smite all the first born in the land 
of Egypt . . . And Pharaoh’s servants said unto him . . . knowest thou not yet 
that Egypt is destroyedT ’ (Exodus) 

From that beginning the teaching, “destroy”, runs through all The Law, first, 
and all the portrayal of historical events, next. 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: 

“//'thou shall 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, //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 


106 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


allegorical massacre of the Midianiles 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; therein lies the great 
truth of Mr. Samuel's words in our time. 

As long as any large body of people, distributed among the nations, submitted 
to such a Law their energies, wherever they were, were bound to be directed to a 
destructive end. Out of the experience of 4.58-444 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. This process caused much tribulation to the Gentiles (which they 
brought on themselves by their servience to the ruling sect) and no true 
gratification to the Jews (who inherited a melancholy mission). 

The Gentiles have survived and will survive; despite the Daniels and 
Mordecais and their latterday successors, the “full end" of those nations 
“whither I have driven thee" is further off than ever. 

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, ihey 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 


107 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 ytids 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 allegorica l anecdote, a symbolic heathen "persecutor”, 
Human, 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 then 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, Hainan’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, Human adds, "If it please the king, let it be 
written that they may be destroyed ”, and king Ahasuerus gives the order. 
(Human 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 wJio was raised to be his consort. At Esther's intercession the king cancels 
the order and has Human and his ten sons hanged on gallows which Hainan 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. 


108 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


Apparently Hainan, 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 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 
ehau vi nist 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 T he 
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. 

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. 

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 Jew s 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. 


109 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


As this tale goes along, with its inevitable allusions to “the Jews A 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 Human, Mordecai and Esther to be “the essence of all the 
history of the Jewish people 1 '; whereas Mr. Brown himself (also of Chicago) says 
the celebration of Purim ought to be discontinued and forgotten, being m 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 twenty-seven 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 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 w orld; 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 11 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 

110 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 hound 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. 


Ill 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 Elaccus 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 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 civiliza tion of Europe w as 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’ 1 . 

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 11 and then participated, “with the fury of men bent on avenging themselves 
for three hundred years of oppression \ in “a wholesale massacre of Christians 11 , 
(again according to Dr. Kastein, to whom, as above shown, the ban on the 
enslavement of Christians is oppression). 

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 11 , 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 lind the most violent of all men in enmity against the true 


112 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 , Tank . . . 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 gales to the victorious Arabs, receiving them with acclamations 
and thus avenged themselves for the many miseries which had befallen them . . . The 
capita! also was 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. 


113 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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"! 

If the Arab conquerors counted on thankfulness from those to whom they had 
"entrusted the capital" and the great cities, they misreckoned. After the conquest 
Judah Halevi of Cordova sang: 

". . . how fulfil my sacred vows, deserve my consecration, 

While Zion still remains Rome’s thrall, and I an Arab minion? 

As trash to me all Spanish treasure, wealth or Spanish good. 

When dust as purest gold I treasure, where once our temple stood!” 

This spirit disquietened the Caliph’s advisers, as it had disquietened the 
Visigoth kings, Muhammad and the statesmen of Rome. Abu Ishak of Elvira 
spoke to the Caliph at Cordova in words which again recall those of 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, C) 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 
eon versos, or Marranos. The genuineness of their conversion was not belie ved, 
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 



THE CONTROVERSY OE ZION 


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 Eaw about 'lending to 
all nations and borrowing from none’ 1 , for Dr. Kastein records that they gave 
"‘financial help" to the Christian north in its final assault on the Mohammedan 
south. 

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 Spa ini" 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. 

At that point 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 


115 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


idea and of the seel 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 
Hebrew's, 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 point now 
reached, in following the course of the destructive idea through the centuries, 
calls for some further description of these people (mentioned in the chapter on 
The Movable Gove) ament). 

Even at the start of the 800 years in Spain (from 711 to 1492) the Jews there (the 
largest single community of Jews) were no longer Judahite or Judeans; not even 
they could claim to be of the pure line of Judah, or of Palenstinian ancestry. 
Professor Graetz says of them, "The first settlement of Jews in beautiful Hesperia 
is buried in dim obscurity", and adds that the Jews there "desired to lay claim to 
high antiquity" for their ancestry, so that they simply asserted that "they had 
been transported thither after the destruction of the temple by 
Nebuchadnezzar". 

Through many centuries the processes of nature and of man had enforced a 
mingling. The idea of a people chosen to rule the world over the bodies of fallen 
heathen appealed to primitive tribespeople in many places; the already- 
circumcized Arab could become a Jew and hardly notice any change; Rabbis in 
north African deserts and towns were remote from the "centre" and gladly 
extended their congregations. When the Roman emperors began to persecute 
"pagan religions" Judaism never fell under a general prohibition, so that many 
worshippers of Isis, Baal and Adonis, if they did not become Christians, entered 
the synagogues. The fierce law of tribal segregation could not at that time be 
enforced in places far from Babylon. 

Thus 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 
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 Eneyclopaedia 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 Eneyclopaedia says, of the Sephardim who were thus dispersed: 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


“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 Jew ry, 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 wath other Jews they rarely 
intermarried with them ... 7/7 modem limes the Sephardim have lost the authority 
which for several eenturies they e.xereised 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 w hose name it had 
asserted authority for two thousand years, abruptly changed its nature as by 


maeic. 

The J ews hitherto known to the world, who had just emerged from their first 
impact between their Law and the peoples of the West, and were in reflective 
mood, suddenly began to lose caste in Jewry and to dwindle in numbers! 

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 wuld 
folk wJio had not known the cautionary experience in Spain. 

In 1951 a N ew 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 Judoist 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 Abd el Rahman, Suitan 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. 


117 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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. 

When the Khazars became converted the Talmud was complete, and after the 
collapse of their kingdom (in about 1000 A D) 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 nation-within-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. 


After 1500, therefore, the Jews fell into two distinct groups: the scattered 
communities of the West, w ho 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 


118 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZJON 


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. 
KasteiiTs 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 forbidden 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). 

These were recognizable marks of authorship. The Torah-Talmud is the only 
original fount of such ideas that research can discover. “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 a barbaric Asiatic people, 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? 

In that respect there is a great difference between the first two and the last one. 


119 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZiON 


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: “T hou 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 w'ho 
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 


120 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 
themselves 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 descent! 
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 1 ? (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.) 

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 


121 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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, the 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 


122 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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). 

Therefore the French revolution, in retrospect, assumes the look, common to 
its English predecessor and to so many violent events in history, of a Jewish 
triumph in its outcome; if it was not that in truth, then “history” has made it so. 
Presumably the masses concerned expected something quite different at its outset 
(and in that respect they resemble the masses which later were engaged in the two 
Twentieth Century wars). 

The emancipation of the Jews was one enduring result of a revolution which 
achieved little else of permanence and left France in a condition of spiritual 
apathy from which it has never truly rallied. The history of France since the 
revolution is one of a long interregnum, in the course of which it has 
experimented, with almost every form of government known to man but has not 
until now again found happiness or stability. 

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 wuts inevitable, given the creed to which they adhered and the 
fact that this religion was also The Faw governing every act of their daily lives. 
Under the J udaic Faw 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 Faw. 

Nevertheless not all “the Jews” wnote this story, nor is the story that of all “the 
Jews”; to omit this qualification would be like condemning “the Germans” for 


123 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


National Socialism or “the Russians 1 ' for an essentially alien Communism. 

Resistance to the Eaw of destruction has been continual in Jewry, as this 
account has shown. At all times and places [he 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' 1 , wherever used in this discussion, need always to be 
read with this qualification. 

Within three hundred years of the expulsion from Spain, then, “the Jewish 
question” twice came to the forefront during violent civil conflicts which seemed, 
when they began, to have been caused by the clash of native interests: the 
revolutions in England and France (this narrative will in its later course come to 
the all-significant matter of the revolution in Russia, and the Jewish part in it). 

The aftermath of the revolution in France produced a man who also tried to 
settle the controversy of Zion. History records attempts to solve “the Jewish 
question” by almost every imaginable method, from force and suppression to 
placation, compromise and capitulation. They all failed, leaving this question 
still a thorn in the side of the Gentiles (and, for that matter, of the Jews, who were 
somewhat in the condition of people sent into the world with a burr beneath their 
skins). 

The method he chose was the simplest conceivable and possibly for that reason 
is remembered even now with some consternation by the devotees of Zion; this 
upstart was very nearly too clever for them! 

He failed, apparently because this question cannot be solved by man at all, 
only by God in his good time. 

The man was Napoleon, whose attempt needs to be considered before the 
study of the revolution which threw him up is resumed. 



THE CONTROVERSY OH ZION 

THE NAPOLEONIC INTERROGATION 


When Napoleon reached his dizzy peak of power he presumably hoped to do 
great things for France and the French, as well as for himself (and his family). 

Very soon after he became Emperor (or possibly even before) he found that 
one of the most difficult problems which would confront him was not a French 
affair at all but an alien one: “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 7 , or did they secretly acknowledge another law which 
commanded them to destroy and dominate the peoples among whom they dwelt? 

However, this famous Interrogation was Napoleon's second attempt to solve 
the Jewish riddle and the tale of the little known earlier one should briefly be told. 

Napoleon was one of the first men to conceive the idea of conquering 
Jerusalem for the Jew's and thus “fulfilling prophecy", in the currently 
fashionable phrase. He thus set an example imitated in the present century by all 
those British and American leaders who probably w 7 ould most dislike to be 
compared with him: Messrs. Balfour and Lloyd George, Woodrow Wilson, 
Franklin Roosevelt and Ham Truman, and Sir Winston Churchill. 

Napoleon’s venture w as so shortlived that history says almost nothing of it or 
of his motives. As he wars at the time not yet ruler of France, only the commander 
in chief, he may have hoped by it merely to gain military support from the Jews of 
the Middle Fast for his campaign there. If he already pictured himself as First 
Consul and Emperor, he may (like Cromw ell) have looked for monetary support 
from the Jews of Europe in that greater ambition. 

In any case, he 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! In doing, this he espoused the theory of separate 
Jewish nationhood wTiich he later arraigned. 

The story is authentic but brief. It rests entirely on two reports published in 
Napoleon’s Paris Moniteur in 1799, when he was in command of the French 
expedition sent to strike at English power through Egypt. 

The first, dated from Constantinople on April 17, 1799, and published on May 
22, 1799, said: “Buonaparte has published a proclamation in which he invites all 
the Jew-'s 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". 


125 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZfON 


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 'Tings 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. 

Today's student feels somewhat resentful that Napoleon’s Zionist bid was 
soon cut short, for if he had been able to press on with it a deputation of Zionist 
elders might soon have been examining his ancestry (like Cromwell’s, earlier) for 
some trace of Davidic descent which would qualify him to be proclaimed the 
Messiah. 

Thus all that remains today of this venture of Napoleon’s is a significant 
comment made on it in our time by Mr. Philip Guedalla (1925): "An angry man 
had missed, as he thought, his destiny. But a patient race still waited; and after a 
century, when other conquerors had tramped the same dusty roads, it was seen 
that we had not missed ours". 

The reference is to the British troops of 1917, who in this typical Zionist 
presentation of history are merely instruments in the fulfilment of Jewish destiny, 
a part missed by Napoleon. Mr. Guedalla uttered these words in the presence of 
Mr. Lloyd George, the British Prime Minister of 1917 who had sent those 
soldiers along those same "dusty roads”. Mr. Lloyd George thus was able to sun 
himself in the approving gaze of an audience which looked on him as "an 
instrument in the hands of the Jewish God” (Dr. Kastein). 

In 1804 Napoleon was crowned Emperor; and by 1806 "the Jewish question” 
was so large among his cares that he made his renowned second attempt to solve 
it. 


Amid all his campaigns he was engrossed by it, like many potentates before 
him, and now he tried the reverse method of settling it: having briefly undertaken 
to restore "ancient Jerusalem” (and thus the Jewish nation), he now demanded 
that the Jews choose publicly between separate nationhood and integration in the 
nation wherein they dwelt. 

He was in bad odour with the French at this time because of the favour which 
(they said) he showed to Jews. Complaints and appeals for protection against 
them poured in on him, so that he told the Council of State, "These Jews are 
locusts and caterpillars, they devour my France . . . They are a nation within the 
nation ". Even Orthodox Judaism at that time strenuously denied this description. 


126 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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. 

The strange world in which Napoleon thus set foot is little understood by 
Gentiles. It is illumined by the following two quotations: 

“Owing to the acceptance of the idea of the Chosen People and of salvation, 
the Jew ish world was Judeocentnc, 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 w orld, indeed, 
the history of the whole cosmos, the one thing about which the Creator of the 
w orld troubles himself. It is as if the circles ahvays become narrower; at last only 
the central point remains: the Ego ” (Mr. Houston Stew'art 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. 

Indeed, the student of this question finds that there is really no disagreement 
about such matters between the Talmudic-Jewish scholars and those objectors 
whom they accuse of prejudice; what the Jewish extremists really complain of is 
that any criticism should be made from quarters “outside the law”; this is to them 
intolerable. 

The questions devised by Napoleon show' that, unlike the British and 
American politicians of this century who have taken up Zionism, he perfectly 
understood the nature of Judaism and the problem of human realtionships 
thrown up by it. 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 ow n fame and power) was 
calculated simply to bring about the Jewish triumph. 

Napoleon in his day comprehended the J udaic 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 w ? as one who determined the date not only of one 
people hut 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 7 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 shrew'dly 
devised questions which were equally impossible to answer without repudiating 


127 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 w'all 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 anecdotes' \ This is Dr, Kastein’s 
way of saying that they could only evade the questions by falsehood, for they 
w'ere not “called upon to refute charges”; they w ; ere merely asked to answer 
truthfully. 

The Jewish delegates ardently affirmed that there w as no longer any such thing 
as a Jewish nation; that they did not desire to live in closed, self-governed 
communities; that they w 7 eie in every respect Frenchmen and nothing more. They 


128 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 

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 kk 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 
powder 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 w'ould commit Jew's 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 recentl ' ceased publicly to 
function, so that the idea of a directing body of Jewry was real and live. 

The Sanhedrin w'ent 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 "Jewdsh persecution” at Christian hands). 

The Sanhedrin acknowledged the extinction of the Jewish nation to he 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 
no t ional rehab Hit a t ion. 

It was a unique triumph for Napoleon (and who knows how much it may have 
contributed to his dowmfall?). 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 


129 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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: 

“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 o lEurope, 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 


130 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 Bern 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. 


131 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 
THE WORLD REVOLUTION 


For the sake of orderly sequence this narrative has been carried through to 
Napoleon's Sanhedrin; the answers given by it closed the third, and opened the 
fourth period in the story of Zion, which began with the public renunciation of 
separate-nationhood and ended, ninety years later, with the public re-affirmation 
of separate-nationhood in its extrernest form. 

Before it continues into that fourth phase, the narrative now must move back 
twenty years to the start of the uw/J-revolution, and consider what part, if any, 
was played by “the Jews’" in that. 

The 19th Century, in the West, differed from the preceding eighteen centuries 
of the Christian era there in the emergence of two movements with a converging 
aim, which by the century’s end dominated all its affairs. 

The one movement, Zionism, aimed at reassembling a dispersed nation in a 
territory promised to it by the Jewish god; the second movement, Communism, 
aimed at the destruction of separate nationhood as such. 

Thus these two movements appeared at first sight to be fixedly opposed to each 
other, for the one made nationalism its religion, even its god, and the other 
declared war to the death on nationalism. This antagonism was only apparent, 
and in truth the two movements ran on parallel tracks, not head on towards a 
collision on the same line. For 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; either by accident or by design, it 
too was doing the will of Jehovah. 

That being so, the historian's task is to find out, if he can, w hat relationship 
existed betw een the organizers of Zionism and those of the world-revolution. If 
there w as none, and the parallelism of purpose was coincident al, then history was 
evidently having a little joke with the West. If a relationship can be shown, the 
pattern of the last 170 years prefigures the shape of coming events; in that case the 
world-revolution has been the handmaiden of Zion. 

These 170 years have probably been the most profligate and least creditable in 
the history of the West. At the start of the 19th Century it had behind it seventeen 
centuries of Christian achievement; the world had never before seen man so 
much improve his own state and his conduct to others; even warfare was 
becoming subject to a civilized code, and the future seemed certain to continue 
this upward process. By the middle of the 20th Century much of this achievement 
had been lost; a large area of the West had been surrendered to Asiatic 
barbarism; the question whether the remaining West and its faith could even 
survive clearly hung in the balance and probably would be answered during the 
closing decades of the century. 


132 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


The period which saw this deterioration was that of the rise of the Judaist 
power to a peak of influence in the affairs of the West which hardly any European 
potentate or pontiff, doctrine or dogma had ever attained. The picture of this 
swelling might, spreading over Europe like an eastern thundercloud, is given in 
two quotations from the beginning and end of the 19th Century. In 1 791 the great 
German historian Johann Gottfried von Herder, looking back on the hundred 
years behind him, wrote: 

‘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 < liniate, 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 V 

The newspaper reader of 1807, when he learned of the Sanhedrin’s ardent 
avowals of non-nationhood, would presumably have dismissed von Herder as a 
‘'bigot’’ (or even an “antisemite”), but the years and events have shown that he, 
like many before him, was but a scholar speaking truth. A hundred years later, in 
1899, another, Mr. Houston Stewart Chamberlain, looked back on what Herder 
had written and recorded the further, continuing usurpation of power: 

b ‘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 Hohrt 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’. T oday 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 aff ecting not only the present, but also the f uture 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 


133 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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! 

In the sixty years which have passed since Chamberlain wrote the process 
observed by him and Herder has gathered pace and power. The question no 
longer simply “affects the future of the world’"; it is with us every day and we have 
no present that is not shaped by it; it has already altered the nature of the world 
and of man’s lot in it. “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. 


The West has come to this dilemma through the pressure of two millstones, 
Communism and Zionism, the nation-destroying w orld-revolution and the new, 
nation-creating, ruling-class. The one has incited the mob; the other has gained 
mastery over rulers. Are the organizers of both the same? This book seeks to 
answer the question in its remaining chapters. What is clear is that each stage in 
the ruination of the West, during these 170 years, has been accompanied by 
successive stages of “the return” to the promised land. That is an indication of 
common managership too strong to be set aside unless it can be conclusively 
disproved. To the “heathen” masses of Christendom the process which began 
with the emergence of the world-revolution in 1789 has been merely one of sound 
and fury, signifying nothing; but the student perceives that in majestic rhythm it 
fulfils The Law and The Prophets of Judah. 

The 19th Century was one of conspiracy, of which the things we witness in the 
20th Century are the results. Conspiracy bred Communism and Zionism, and 
these took the future of the West in a pincer-like clutch. What were their origins? 
Why did they germinate in darkness until they broke ground together in the 19th 
Century? Had they a common root? The w 7 ay to answer that question is to 
examine the roots of each separately and find out if they join, and the purpose of 
this chapter and the next is to trace the root-idea of world-revolution. 

The French revolution was the uwW-revolution in action, not a revolution in 
France. From the moment of the event in France no doubt remains on that score. 


Before then people might indulge notions about suffering peasants, stung to 
sudden uprising by arrogant aristocrats and the like, but diligent study of the 
background of the French revolution dispels such illusions. It was the result of a 
plan and the work of a secret organization revealed before it occurred; it was not 
merely a French outburst produced by French causes. The plan behind it is the 
plan of Communism today; and Communism today, which is the world- 
revolution in permanence, has inherited the organization which evolved the plan. 

The French revolution of 1789 is the one that provides the key to the mystery. 
It forms the link between the English one of 1640 and the Russian one of 1917 
and reveals the whole process as a planned and continuing one which, having 


134 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


passed through these three stages, clearly will reach its final orgasm at some 
moment not far distant, probably during this century. That climax, foreseeably, 
will take the shape of an attempt to consummate and complete the world- 
revolution by setting up a world-government under the control of the 
organization which has guided the revolutionary process from its start. This 
would establish the sway of a new ruling-class over the submerged nations. (As 
Dr. Kastein would say, it would “determine the fate of the whole world’ 1 ). 

This picture, which only slowly emerged as the three centuries passed, is today 
clear in its historical perspective, where each of the three great revolutions is seen 
in the light thrown on it by the next: 

(1) The English revolution appeared at the time to be a spontaneous English 
episode, directed only against the pretensions, at that moment, of a particular 
royal house, the Stuarts, and a particular form of religion, called “Popery”. No 
contemporary dreamed of considering it as the start of a vwrW-movement 
against all religion and all legitimate government. (The ruling sect of Jewry 
supplied the revolutionary dictator with funds and by means of this, traditional 
“abetting” part the Jewish leaders became chief beneficiaries of the revolution; if 
they had any part in the original instigation of it, this cannot be shown, nor has 
any evidence of a long-term, master-plan behind the revolution survived). 

(2) The nature and course of the French revolution, however, puts the English 
one in a different light. It was not, and even at the time did not seem to be, a native 
French episode caused merely by French conditions. On the contrary, it followed 
a plan for universal revolution discovered and made public some years before; 
and the secret organization then exposed had members in many countries and all 
classes. Therefore its most characteristic acts (regicide and sacrilege), though 
they repeated those of the revolution in England, were seen not to be 
spontaneously vengeful deeds committed in the heat of a moment, but actions 
deliberately symbolic of a continuing plan and purpose: the destruction of all 
religion and all legitimate government, everywhere. Inevitably, this revelation 
leads to the surmise that the English revolution too may have been prepared by 
this secret organization with the aim of destroying all nationhood. (In the French 
revolution, as in the English one, the Judaist sect emerged as a chief beneficiary; 
the general emancipation of Jews, which came of it, was used by it as a cover for 
its conspiratorial work during the ensuing decades. Original Judaist instigation is 
not shown by any evidence now available.) 

Thus the French revolution, unlike the English one, demonstrably was the 
product of a major conspiracy, with worldwide aims and deep roots. From this 
instant, the nature of the plan was plain, but the conspirators, wherever they were 
unmasked, seemed to be horde of individuals with no bond of union between 
them save that of the arsonist’s lust for destruction. The purpose was beyond 
doubt, but the identity of the organizers was still mysterious. This half-clarified 
scene was depicted in famous words by a classic authority on the subject, Lord 
Acton: 


135 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


'The appalling thing in the revolution is not the tumult but the design. 
Through all the lire and smoke we perceive the evidence of calculating 
organization. The Managers remain studiously concealed and masked but there is 
no doubt about their presence from the firs f\ 

The French revolution, then, revealed a design behind revolution, and it was 
the design of a set purpose in a worldwide field. What had seemed planless at the 
time of the English revolution now was seen to be, or had become the result of a 
plan and a pattern, and the conspiracy clearly was of such strength and age that 
its complicity in the earlier revolution had to be allowed for. However, this 
second revolution still left "the managers” masked, so that only half of the 
mystery had been solved (Lord Acton died in 1902 and thus did not see the third 
revolution). 

(3) The revolution in Russia, again, opened room for new theories about the 
French and English revolutions. Its acts of regicide and sacrilege were as 
unmistakable an identity-card as the Muslim's greeting is a token of his faith; by 
them it informed all who wished to hear that it was still working to "the design” 
of worldwide destruction first revealed by the French revolution. Moreover, the 
secret, for a hundred years called "a lie”, was no longer even denied; from 1917 
on the world-revolution was avowedly permanent, avowedly worldwide in 
purpose, and the erstwhile secret conspiracy became a political party, operating 
in all countries under orders from a central headquarters in Moscow. 

Thus the Russian revolution threw a brighter light on the French one, 
clarifying its outlines and origins. However, in the matter of the "studiously 
concealed” and "masked” managers, the Russian revolution threw an entirely 
different light on the two earlier ones, or at the least it opened up conjectures 
about their possible origins which none had previously spent much thought 
upon. The "managers” of the revolution in Russia were nearly all Eastern Jews. 
On this occassion 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. 

Thus vital questions were answered and what was a great mystery in 1789 
became plain in 1917. The great benefit which today’s student derives from the 
French revolution is the proof, supplied by it, of the existence of a design for 
world-revolution, and of an organization which pursued that destructive 
ambition. Its existence and activity made the 19th Century the century of the 
grand conspiracy. A sense of evil things stirring in dark places, like the sounds 
which a prisoner in a dungeon awaits at night, disquietened men and nations. 
This was the feeling imparted by conspiracy to the enpested air around. From the 
moment of the French revolution men intuitively knew that they lived with 
conspiracy in their midst; in our day, which has suffered its effects, we can at least 
see with what we have to deal, if we look, and may say that it is the devil that we 


136 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


know. 

Perhaps the greatest disservice that Napoleon did was, by his campaigns and 
glittering exploits to distract meir s thoughts from the much greater danger that 
menaced them: the world-revolution and its secret “managers”. But for him they 
might have paid more attention to the conspiracy, for they had the proof of its 
existence. 



THE CONTROVERSY OE ZION 


1HE DESIGN 


This proof was given when the papers of Adam Weishaupt's secret society of 
“Illuminati 1 ' were seized by the Bavarian Government in 1786 and published in 
1787. The original blueprint of 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 lias openly pursued the aims disclosed by the 
Bavarian Government's coup of 1786, by the methods then also revealed. 

The publication of the Weishaupt documents came about by a chance as 
curious as that of the preservation of Mr. Whittaker Chambers's documents in 
1948.* They were only a residue, remaining after the bulk hud been destroyed, for 
something of the Illuminati's doings and designs had become known before 1786, 
partly through the boastings of its members, partly through the disclosures of 
some who (like Mr. Chambers 160 years later) revolted against the company in 
which they found themselves when they comprehended its true nature. Thus the 
Dowager Duchess Maria Anna of Bavaria in 1783 received information from 
former Illuminates that the order was teaching that religion should be regarded 
as nonsense (Lenin's “opiate for the people") and patriotism as puerility, that 
suicide was justifiable, that life should be ruled by passion rather than reason, 
that one might poison one’s enemies, and the like. As a result of this and other 
information the Duke of Bavaria in 1785 issued an edict against the Illuminati; 
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). 


*Mr. Whittaker Chambers, an impressionable, rather morbid young American, was “captured” by the 
Communists at Columbia University, New York, in 1925 and became an agent and courier who, working under an 
alias, conveyed stolen official documents to his Communist superiors. In 1938 he sickened of his bondage and lied 
the party. In 1939, appalled by the alliance between Communism and Hitlerism, he tried to inform President 
Roosevelt of the infestation of government departments by Communist agents, and of the espionage that went on, 
but was rudely rebuffed, being told by a presidential emissary to “go jump in the lake”. As a precaution, he had 
secreted his proofs (photographs of hundreds of secret official documents) in a disused lift-shaft and in the course of 
years forgot them, for he heard nothing more until 19481 Then his name was mentioned in the course of an enquiry 
arising out of disclosures made by another former Communist agent, and he was sub-poenaed to give evidence. He 
did this and was at once sued for libel by a high government official, Mr. Alger Hiss, whom he incriminated of 
stealing highly secret papers and conveying them, through Mr. Chambers, to the Communists. For his own 
protection he then sought out his relative in New York and asked if the package, secreted in the disused service-lift 
shaft ten years before, was still there. Covered with dust, it was, and the enormity of its contents, examined again 
after ten years, startled even Mr. Chambers. He hid the packet in a pumpkin on his farm, where at last it came to 
light of day when his defence against the libel charge had to be produced. This led to the conviction of his accuser, 
Mr. Hiss, and to the partial exposure of a condition of Communist infestation in the American Government so deep 
and widespread, that American state policy obviously must, during the entire period of the Second World War, have 
been to a great extent under the direct influence of the world-revolutionary leaders in Moscow. 


138 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


This interdict (which obviously could not be made effective; secret 
organizations cannot be suppressed by decree) put the conspirators on guard, so 
that (as the two historians of the Illuminati relate, Messrs. C.F. Forestier and 
Eeopold Engel) "a considerable amount of the most valuable papers of the order 
where either carefully concealed or burned” and "few documents survive, for 
most of them were destroyed and external relationships were broken off, in order 
to avert suspicion'’; in other words, the order went deep underground. Thus the 
documents which were found, in 1786, represent only a minimum. M. Forestier 
says that in 1784 (the last year in which it tended rather to vaunt its power than to 
conceal it) the order stretched from its Bavarian base "over all Central Europe, 
from the Rhine to the Vistula and from the Alps to the Baltic; its members 
included young people who were later to apply the principles instilled into them, 
officials of all kinds who put their influence at its service, members of the clergy 
whom it inspired to be 'tolerant' and princes whose protection it was able to 
claim and whom it hoped to control”. The reader will see that this is a picture of 
Communism today, save for the allusion to "princes”; the number of these has 
diminished almost to nothing since 1784. 

However, the papers which were found and published, if they did not show the 
full range of the Illuminati's membership and connections, especially in France, 
Britain and America, nevertheless exposed the nature of the secret society and its 
all-destructive ambition. 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”. 


None can believe today that this grandiose plan of destruction originated in 
the brain of one Bavarian professor, or resist the conclusion that (as Mrs. Nesta 
Webster suggests) Weishaupt and his allies did not create, but only loosed upon 
the world a live and terrible force that had lain dormant for many centuries. 

When he founded his Illuminati, on May 1, 1776, Weishaupt was dean of the 
faculty of law at Ingoistadt University (in our day university professors who are 
secret Communists are often to be found in the faculties of law). He had been 
brought up by the Jesuits, whom he came to hate, and he borrowed from them, 
and perverted to the opposite purpose, their secret of organization: the method 
which (as his associate Mirabeau said) "under one head, made men dispersed over 
the universe tend towards the same goal”. This idea, of leagueing men together in 
secret conspiracy and using them to achieve an aim which they do not 
comprehend, pervades the entire mass of letters and other Illuminist documents 
seized by the Bavarian Government. 

The idea is presented with ardent fondness and the many ways of realizing it 


139 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZiON 


are of high ingenuity. The accumulated experience of ages, in conspiracy, must 
have been drawn on and Mrs. Nest a Webster, in her search for the source of this 
morbid and perverse doctrine, found herself led back to the start of the Christian 
era and further. For instance, M. Silvestre de Saey says that the method used by 
the Ismailis (a subversive sect within Islam in the 8th Century) was to enlist 
“partisans in ah places and in all classes of society" in the attempt to destroy their 
professed faith and government; the Ismaili leader, Abdullah ibn Maymun, set 
out “to unite in the form of a vast secret society with many degrees of initiation 
freethinkers, who regarded religion only as a curb for the people, and bigots of all 
sects". The achievement of Abdulla ibn Maymun, according to another 
authority, M. Reinhart Dozy, was that “by means such as these the 
extraordinary result was brought about that a multitude of men of divers beliefs 
were all working together for an object known only to a few of them". These 
quotations exactly describe both the aims, methods and achievement of Adam 
Weishaupt and of Communism and they could be multiplied by extracts from the 
literature of the Cabalists, the Gnostics and the Manicheans. 

The Weishaupt documents are incontestably authentic; the Bavarian 
Government unwittingly forestalled any attempt to cry “Forgery" (in the 
manner made familiar in our century) by inviting any who were interested to 
inspect the original documents in the Archives at Munich. 

They revealed three main things: first, the aims of the society; second, the 
method of organization; and third, the membership, at least in a relatively 
restricted area (chiefly, the South German States). These three matters will be 
separately discussed here. 

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 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. 

The attack on “kings and princes'’ was merely “cover" for the true attack, on 
all nationhood (as time has shown; now that the supply of kings and princes has 
given out Communism impartially destroys proletarian prime ministers and 
politicians); and that on “priests" was a disguise for the real attack, on all 
religion. The true aim, in both cases, is revealed in Weishaupt's own 


140 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


correspondence with his intimates; the false one was professed to inferior agents 
of the society, or to the public if it ever got wind of Illuminist doings. 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. 

The best example of his success, and of his quick adaptability of method, is 
given by the case of religion. His attack on religion was a much more daring and 
startling thing in his day than in ours, when we have lived long enough with open 
Communism to become familiar with a proposition which in Weishaupi’s day 
must have seemed scarcely credible: that man, having once found his way to the 
idea of God, should of his own will retrace his footsteps! 

Weishaupfs original idea was to make Fire Worship the religion of 
Illuminism. This was unlikely ever to bring recruits from the ranks of the clergy, 
and he hit on a better idea, which brought them in numbers. He averred that 
Jesus had had "a secret doctrine 1 ', never openly revealed, which could be found 
by the diligent between the lines of the Gospels. This secret doctrine was to 
abolish religion and establish reason in its place: "when at last Reason becomes 
the religion of man so will the problem be solved 1 ’. The idea of joining a secret 
society of which Jesus had been the true founder, and of following an example set 
by Jesus in using words to disguise meaning, proved irresistible to the many 
clerics who then passed through the door thus opened to them. They were figures 
of a new kind in their day; in ours the Communist cleric has become familiar. 

The Illuminist leaders privately mocked them. "Spa rtacusy 1 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 . . . There are many passages in the Bible which can 
be made use of and explained, and so all quarrelling between the sects ceases if 
one can find a reasonable meaning in the teaching of Jesus, be it true or not . . . 
Now therefore that people see that we are the only real and true Christians, we can 
say a word more against priests and princes, but I have so managed that after 
previous tests / ean receive pontiffs and kings in this degree. In the higher 
Mysteries we must then (a) disclose the pious fraud and (b) reveal from all 
writings the origin of all religious lies and their connexion . . .” 

"Spartacus 11 happily commented, "You cannot imagine what sensation our 
Priest’s degree is arousing. The most wonderful thing is that great Protestant and 
reformed theologians who belong to Illuminism still believe that the religious 
teaching imparted in it contains the true and genuine spirit of the Christian 
religion. Oh, man, of what cannot you be persauded! I never thought that I 
should become the founder of a new religion”. 

Through this success in persuading clerics that irreligion was the true faith and 
antichrist the true Christianity Weishaupt made great strides in Bavaria. He 
recorded that all non-illuminist professors had been driven from Ingolstadt 


141 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


University, that the society had provided its clerical members with “good 
benefices, parishes, posts at court", that the schools were Illuminist-controlled, 
and that the seminary for young priests would soon be captured, whereon “we 
shall be able to provide the whole of Bavaria with proper priests". 

WeishaupEs attack on religion was the most distinctive feature of his doctrine. 
His ideas about “the god of Reason” and “the god of Nature" bring his thought 
very close to Judaic thought, in its relation to the Gentiles, and as Illuminism 
became Communism, and Communism came under Jewish leadership, this 
might be significant. The Judaic Eaw 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 ..." 

In this authoritative view, then, 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. If the Talmudic rabbis had no part in inspiring 
Illuminism (and research cannot discover any) the reason why they later took a 


*Moses Mendelssohn wrote this nearly two hundred years ago and it correctly defines the Judaist altitude towards 
Kipling's ‘lesser breeds without the Law". In our day (1955) a proposal was being bruited in Jewry to bring the 
lesser breeds nominally within the Judaist fold while perpetuating their inferiority and exclusion. As the reader of 
this book will recall, in the pre-Christian era proselytes were sought, but 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 arc annoying to 
Israel like a scab". 


In 1955 a young Reform rabbi, born in Germany but living in America, suggested that the time had come for 
Judaism to undertake missionary work among the Gentiles. The basis he laid down was identical with Moses 
Mendelssohn’s dictum; this rabbi, Mr. Jakob Petuchowski, merely succeeded in finding a solution to what had 
seemed to Mendelssohn an insoluble difficulty (“Pursuant to the principles of my religion, I am not to seek to 
convert anyone who is not born according to our laws; . . . the Jewish religion is diametrically opposed to it’’ i.e., 
conversion). 

Mr. Petuchowski proposed, in fact, that conversions made by his proposed mission should be on a basis which 
would give the convert a status, in relation to the original Jews, rather comparable with that of the American Negro, 
during the slavery era, to the white folk in the big plantation house. The converts would be required (in other words, 
permitted) only to obey the “Seven Laws of Noah", (the allusion is presumably to the ninth chapter of Genesis), and 
not the hundreds of commands and vetoes attributed to God by the “Mosiac Law”. In this way the “lesser breeds” 
would apparently receive, at the hands of Judaism, the “religion of nature and of reason” recommended for them by 
Adam Weishaupt and Moses Mendelssohn alike. If they then called themselves “Jews”, this would be rather as the 
plantation Negro look his owner's family-name. 

This ingenious proposal may have been prompted by the reflection that Jewish power in the world is now so great 
that a solution to the problem of the status of the “lesser breeds” will have to be found, if “The Law” is to be literally 
“observed”. Mr. Petuchowski's own words were, “Religious Jews do believe that the plans for God’s kingdom on 
earth have been delivered into their keeping . . . Those Gentiles, therefore, who have this larger salvation at heart, 
should be made acquainted with what Judaism has to offer, and should be invited to cast in their lot with the 
household of Israel". 

What was here “offered" was in fact “the religion of nature and reason". 


142 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


directing part in Communism seems here to become plain. 

So much for 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. 

At the centre of this web sat Weishaupt, and held all threads in his hands. “One 
must show how easy it would be for one clever head to direct hundreds and 
thousands of men”, he wrote above the diagram, and below it he added, “I have 
two immediately below me into whom 1 breathe my whole spirit, and each of 
these two has again two others, and so on. In this way I can set a thousand men in 
motion and on tire in the simplest manner, and in this way one must impart 
orders and operate on politics”. 

When the Illuminist papers .were published most of its members first learned 
that Weishaupt was its head, for he was known only to his close associates. The 
mass knew only that, somewhere above them, was a “beloved leader” or “big 
brother”, a Being all-wise, kindly but stern, who through them would reshape the 
world. 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 


143 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 w 7 as 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 Weishaupfs precedent, merely 
changing "Illuminist" to "Communist". In this approach to prospective 
members the manner of the invitation, "Will you walk into my parlour?", w/as 
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 Taw", 
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 wxis made to feel that he would never know how 7 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 ow n 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. Those who have no personal experience of it may 
gain understanding of the power it wields in our day, even many thousands of 
miles from its central headquarters, by reading Mr. Whittaker Chambers’s 
description of his Eight into concealment after he resolved to break with his 
Communist masters. 

As to the membership of the Illuminati, the papers discovered showed that, 
after ten years of existence, it had several thousand members, many of them in 


144 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


important civil positions where they could exert influence on the acts of rulers 
and governments. They even included rulers: the contemporary Marquis de 
Tuchet relates that some thirty reigning and non-reigning princes had guilesslv 
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. 

Above all others, it included the man who, twenty years later, was to write the 
world's most famous masterpiece on the theme of the youth who sold his soul to 
the devil. The inference that Faust was in truth the story of Goethe and 
Illuminism is hard to resist; its theme is essentially the same as that of Witness and 
other works which, in our day, have been written by men who escaped from 
Communism. 

These lists were obviously not even complete, for the reason previously given, 
that precautions had already been taken before the Bavarian authorities raided 
the dwellings of Weishaupt’s chief associates in 1786. For the same reason, the 
documents discovered only show a part of the area over which the Illuminati had 
spread; Weishaupfs 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. 

What is certain is that, although the Illuminist documents contained no names 
or other indications to show its power in France, the French revolution, when it 
began three years later, developed into an attack on all civil authority and all 
religion, exactly of the kind planned by Weishaupt and his associates. From that 
day to this writers in the service of the world-revolution (their name is legion, in 
all countries) have never ceased to deny all connexion whatsoever between 
Illuminism and the French Revolution: they artlessly argue that, as the secret 
society was forbidden in 1786, it cannot have had anything to do with an event in 
1789. 

The truth is that Illuminism, though forbidden, was no more extirpated than 
Communism would be by a legal ban today, and that its agents gave the French 
revolution those hrandmarks which identify it as the work of the world 
revolutionaries, not of discontented French people. The acts of the Reign of 
Terror were of a nature unimaginable before they were committed, but they had 
long been familiar, in imagination, to the Illuminati. In what other minds could 
the idea have taken shape that the vessels of the sacramental supper should be 
borne by an ass in public procession through the streets of Paris? They were 
nurtured in the ancient tradition of such mockery, and their own initiates were 
admitted in a ceremony mocking the sacrament. In what brain but Weishaupt’s 
could the notion of enthroning an actress as Goddess of Reason in Notre Dame 


145 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


have found birth? 

“For the purpose of infernal evocation ... it is requisite ... to profane the 
ceremonies of the religion to which one belongs and to trample its holiest symbols 
underfoot”; this is Mr. A.E. Waite's description of the formula of black magic, 
and black magic and satanism were two of the ingredients in the Illuminist brew. 

Weishaupt and his intimates, or perhaps his masters, proposed to enter into 
France through their agents, secret Illuminates, in high places. In this century we 
have seen what great results can be achieved by this method: the aborted result of 
the Second World War, and the condition of armed truce in which it has left the 


world, was brought about by such men as Hiss and White and the higher men 
who protected them. Weishaupt selected the perfect way of gaining such power 
over French affairs and events: through another, very powerful secret society, 
which he permeated and captured by the methods laid down in his papers. This 
was Grand Orient Freemasonry. 

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, “1 
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). 

This device of advancing “under cover" (which is still basic in Communism 
today) was the guiding principle: “If only the aim is achieved, it does not matter 
under what cover it takes place; and a cover is always necessary. For 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". 

Today’s Communist method, once again, may be clearly recognized in these 
words; they could be applied to the “capture" of parties, associations and 
societies in our day without change of a syllable. The extent of Weishaupt’s 
success is best showm by quotation from the lament uttered, live years after the 
outbreak of the French revolution, by the Duke of Brunswick, Grand Master of 
German Freemasonry, who had also been an Illuminate. In 1794 he dissolved the 
order with words of pained surprise: 

“. . . We see our edifice" (i.e.. Freemasonry) “crumbling and covering the 
ground with ruins; we see destruction that our hands no longer arrest... A great 
sect arose, which taking for its motto the good and the happiness of man, worked 
in the darkness of the conspiracy to make the happiness of humanity a prey for 


146 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


itself This sect is known to everyone; its brothers are known no less than its 
name. It is they who have undermined the foundations of the Order to the point 
of complete overthrow; it is by them that all humanity has been poisoned and led 
astray for several generations . . . They began by casting odium on religion . . . 
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 . . .” 

In this quotation the present narrative has jumped five years ahead of events, 
in order to show that one of the leading Freemasons of that generation, himself a 
penitent, identified the Illuminati as the authors of the French revolution and of 
future revolutions. Weishaupf 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, of churches and religion, of 
everything that might uplift the human soul above the level of animal needs and 
desires. 

Adam Weishaupt himself became a Freemason in 1777, the year after he 
founded the Illuminati, being received into a Munich lodge. Count Mirabeau, the 
later revolutionary leader in France, was privy both to Weishaupf s intention to 
join and to the secret reason for it, for his Memoirs included a paper, dated 1776, 
which set out a programme identical with that of the Illuminati, and in his 
History of the Prussian Monarchy he refers to Weishaupt and to the Illuminati 
by name and says: 

"The Lodge Theodore de Bon Conseil at Munich, where there were a few men 


147 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


with brains and hearts, was tired of being tossed about by the vain promises and 
quarrels of Masonry. The heads resolved t o graft on to their branch another secret 
association to which they gave the name of the Order of the Illumines. They 
modelled it on the Society of Jesus, whilst proposing to themselves views 
diametrically opposed ''. 

This is the exact intention and method described by Weishaupt in his own 
correspondence, and this is the proof that Mirabeau, the later revolutionary 
leader, knew of it at the time, that is in 1776. Moreover, his words suggest that the 
secret society of the Illuminati was founded with the express intention of gaining 
control of Freemasonry and of instigating and directing revolution through it. 
That Mirabeau was party to the whole undertaking from the start is suggested by 
the fact that the memoir of 1776 (the year in which the Illuminati were founded) 
ascribes to him the Illuminist “cover-name’" of Arcesilas, so that he must have 
been a founder member, with Adam Weishaupt, and a leading Illuminate 
thereafter. Mirabeau, as the link between Weishaupt and the French Revolution, 
cannot be ignored. The editor of his Memoirs, M. Barthou, remarks that the 
“plan of reform” of 1776, found among Mirabeau’s papers, “resembles very 
much in certain parts the work accomplished later by the Constituent Assembly” 
(the revolutionary parliament of 1789). That is another way of saying that the 
work of the Constituent Assembly very much resembled Adam WeishauptN plan 
of 1776, when he and Mirabeau together were founding the Illuminati and 
planning together to gain control of Freemasonry. 

The other stages in Weishaupt''s underground capture of Freemasonry are also 
clear in the record. At the general congress of 1782 (seven years before the 
revolution) at Wilhelmsbad the Illuminati gained so many recruits that the Order 
of the Strict Observance, previously the most powerful body in Freemasonry, 
ceased to exist. 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 FI esse. 

In 1785 Illuminst emissaries attended another general congress, in Paris, and 
from that moment the detailed planning of the revolution seems to have become 
the task of the Lodge of the Amis Reunis, which was a “cover” for the Illuminati. 
The blurring of traces at this point is the result of the notoriety which the order 
gained in Bavaria, its proscription in the following year, 1786, and the 
destruction of evidence. Nevertheless, in 1787, the same emissaries visited Paris 
at the invitation of the secret committee of the Lodge. 

Even before the revolution had really developed, the fact that it was instigated 
and directed by Uluminism was known and published. The indictment and the 
warning uttered by the Marquis de Luchet stands out today as an astonishingly 
accurate prediction, not only of the course which the revolution would take in 
France, but of the continuing course of the wvrld revolution down to our day. As 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


early as 1789 he wrote: 

“Learn that there exists a conspiracy in favour of despotism against liberty, of 
incapacity 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 precisely depicted the role which the monarch was to be forced to 
play during the Girondist phase ("see him condemned to serve the passions of all 
that surround him ... to raise degraded men to power, to prostitute his judgment 
by choices that dishonour his prudence 11 ), and the plight in which the revolution 
would leave Trance ("We do not mean to say that the country where the 
Illumines reign will cease to exist, but it will fall into such a degree of humiliation 
that it will no longer count in politics, that the population will diminish . . ."). If 
his warning went unheeded, cried de Luchet, there would be "a series of 
calamities of which the end is lost in the darkness of time . . . a subterranean fire 
smouldering eternally and breaking forth periodieally in violent and devastating 
explosions 11 . 

The events of the last 165 years have not been better described than in these 
words of de Luchet, which foretold them. He also foresaw the "liberal and 
progressive 11 patron of the revolution who was to help greatly in bringing about 
the "violent and devastating explosions 11 of these 165 years: "there are too many 
passions interested in supporting the system of the Illumines, too many deluded 
rulers, imagining themselves enlightened, ready to precipitate their people into 
the abyss 11 . Tie foresaw the continuing strength and clutch of the conspiracy: "the 
heads of the Order will never relinquish the authority they have acquired nor the 
treasure at their disposal 1 '. 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? 11 165 years later, in 
Britain and America, men were calling on their governments in just such words, 
and just as vainly, to cleanse the public offices and services of the Illumines, by 
then called Communists. 

The measure of de Luchet's foresight is given by the fact that he wrote in 1789, 
when the French revolution was hardly a revolution; it was universally held to be 
merely a mild, health-giving reform which would leave the monarch a wise meed 
of power, amend obvious evils, and establish justice and freedom for ever in a 
happy, regenerated France! That was still the general belief in 1790, when across 
the Channel another man saw the true nature of the revolution and "predicted 
with uncanny accuracy the course of events 11 , to quote his biographer of more 
than a century later, Mr. John Morley. 

Edmund Burke, an Irishman, was one of the greatest orators the British House 
of Commons ever saw. Time is the test of such a man's quality, and as the years 
pass the phrases of his attack on the French revolution ring ever more nobly; as in 


149 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


de Luchet's case, the remarkable thing is that it was published in 1790, when the 
names of Robespierre and Danton were hardly known, before the word 
“republic 1 ’ had been heard, when the king looked forward to long years of 
constitutional reign, when all France was joyfully celebrating the peaceful 
improvement that had been effected. Across this happy scene fell suddenly the 
shadow of Burke’s outstretched arm, pointing “like an inspired prophet” to the 
doom to come. His biographer says, “It is no wonder that when the cloud burst 
and the doom was fulfilled men turned to Burke as they turned of old to 
Ahitopheth, whose counsel was as if men enquired of the oracle of God”. 

Unhappily that is not a true picture of what occurred when Burke’s warning 
was fulfilled. Very many men turned against Burke, not to him, precisely because 
he had spoken the truth; indeed, the power which the conspiracy even at that time 
wielded over the press and public debate is most clearly shown by the way flattery 
of him was suddenly turned into attack and defamation after he published his 
Reflections on the revolution. The Illumines, and the “liberal and progressive” 
organs and speakers controlled by them, had greatly counted on Edmund Burke, 
because he had upheld the cause of the American colonists a decade earlier. Flow 
could he support one revolution and attack another, they asked angrily, and 
Burke came under the kind of general attack which the united press, in our 
generation, keeps in its locker for any man who publicly demands the 
investigation of Communism-in-government. 

Had Burke followed the “progressive” line, and pretended that the French 
revolution would help “the common man”, the flattery of him would have 
continued, but in that case nothing he said would have been of enduring value, or 
have been remembered today. As it is, the inspired words of his attack on the 
revolution have the imperishable gleam of gold: “It is gone, that sensibility of 
principle, that chastity of honour, which felt a stain like a wound . . . The age of 
chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists and calculators, has succeeded; 
and the glory of Europe is extinguished for ever”. 

If these words, too, were inspired prophecy (and in 1955 they look truer than 
they were even in 1790) Christendom and the West at least found an eloquent and 
noble mourner in Edmund Burke. For he knew the difference between 
“revolutions” as clearly as he saw the true shape of the event in France. He was 
not to be bamboozled by the fact that somebody had miscalled a colonial war of 
independence, led by country squires, a “revolution”. As a genuine friend of 
liberty, he had supported the colonists’ bid to govern themselves and be masters 
in their own household. There was no resemblance whatever between their 
motives and those of the secret men who, as Burke saw, were behind the 
revolution in France. Therefore he stretched out his accusing hand and was as 
heedless of the reproaches of “liberal” and “progressive” as he had been of their 
flattery on the earlier occasion (assuredly Edmund Burke knew that their praise 
then had not been prompted by any sympathy with New England merchants or 


150 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


Southern plantation-owners). 

In America, at that moment, the general feeling about the event in France was 
a deluded one, produced by the confusion of ideas which Burke rejected. There 
was, for the time being, a popular notion that another benign “revolution" had 


occurred, somewhat similar to the "American revolution". There was a transient 


"French Frenzy", when Americans wore cockades and liberty-caps, danced, 
feasted and paraded beneath intertwined French and American flags, and 
shouted "Fiberty, Equality, Fraternity". With the Reign of Terror, this phase of 
illusion was followed by one of revulsion and horror. 

The Jacobin leaders directed the Reign of Terror and, as good Illuminates, 
used classic pseudonyms in the manner initiated by "Spartacus" Weishaupt 
himself: Chaumette was Anaxagoras, Clootz (described as a Prussian baron) was 
Anarcharsis, Danton Horace, Facroix Publicola and Ronsin Scaevola. These 
terrorists, when they succeeded the Kerensky-phase, faithfully carried out the 
plan of the Illuminati, and by the killing of a king and the desecration of churches 
gave expression to its two chief ideas: the destruction of all legitimate 
government and of all religion. Yet even they were apparently only tools, for a 
contemporary, Fombard de Fangres, wrote of that "most secret convention 
which directed everything after May 31, an occult and terrible power of which the 
other Convention became the slave and which was composed of the prime 
initiates ofIlluminism. This power was above Robespierre and the committees of the 
government ... it was this occult pow 7 er which appropriated to itself the treasures 
of the nation and distributed them to the brothers and friends w ho had helped on 
the great work". 

It is this picture of men in high places doing the will of some hidden, but 
palpably directing, supreme sect that gives the revolution the aspect of a 
demoniac puppet-show, played against flickering red flames amid the odour of 
brimstone. The revolution, not the French revolution; whatever the true nature of 
the English one, since 1789 there has only been one, continuous revolution. There 
have not been episodic, disconnected outbreaks, in 1848 and 1905 and so on, but 
those recurrent eruptions of “a subterranean fire smouldering eternally" which 
de Fuchet and Burke foresaw before the event. What is historically of great value 
in the annals of the French revolution, however, is the proof, which they afford, 
of the use of men for a purpose uncomprehended by them. This gives the 
revolution, then and now, its peculiar and satanic imprint; it is, as Fombard de 
Fangres wrote, “the code of hell". 

When the revolution was ebbing, three men arose, in France, England and 
America, who saw three things plainly: that its course had followed the chart 
revealed by the Illuminati papers in 1787; that this secret society had been able, 
through Freemasonry, to instigate and direct it; and that the secret league of 
conspirators, with its continuing plan for world revolution, had survived and was 
preparing the further "violent and devastating explosions" foretold by 


151 




THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


de Luchet. These three men were the Abbe Barruel, a Jesuit and eyewitness of the 
revolution; Professor John Robison a Scottish scientist who for over twenty 
years was general secretary of the Royal Society of Edinburgh: and the Rev. 
Jedediah Morse, a New England clergyman and geographer. They were all 
distinguished men. The Abbe Barruefs and Professor Robison’s books and Mr. 
Morse’s published sermons (all 1797-8) went into many editions and are still 
indispensable to students of the time. Their w orks and words gained much public 
attention and they were supported from Philadelphia, in his Porcupine's Gazette, 
by William Cobbett, who seems to have been driven into exile by the same occult 
power which set out to destroy Messrs. Barruel, Robison and Morse. 

The Abbe Barruel’s verdict on what had occurred was identical with de 
Luchet’s earlier prophecy and Lord Acton’s much later analysis: 

A . . We shall demonstrate that, even to the most horrid deeds perpetrated 
during the French revolution, everything was foreseen and resolved on, combined 
and premeditated; that they were the offspring of deep thought villainy, since they 
had been prepared and were produced by men, who alone held the clue of these 
plots and conspiracies, lurking in the secret meetings where they had been 
conceived . : . Though the events of each day may not appear to have been 
combined, there nevertheless existed a secret agent and a secret cause, giving rise 
to each event and turning each circumstance to the long-sought-for end . . . The 
grand cause of the revolution, its leading features, its atrocious crimes, will still 
remain one continued chain of deeplaid and premeditated villainy”. 

The three men came to the same conclusion: k 'An anti-Christian conspiracy 
. . . not only against kings, but against every government, against all civil society, 
even against all property whatsoever” (the Abbe Barruel); AAn association has 
been formed for the express purpose of rooting out all the religious 
establishments, and overturning all the existing governments of Europe” (Prof. 
Robison); 4, The express aim is To root out and abolish Christianity and 
overthrow ail civil governments’.” (Mr. Morse). They agreed that what had 
happened was, not merely an episode in France, born of French circumstances, 
but the work of an organization with a continuing plan in all countries: a 
universal plan. They agreed that this organization w r a.s the secret society of the 
Illuminati, that it had inspired and controlled the terrorist phase of the 
revolution, that it had survived, and that it was established and strong in England 
and the United States. The Abbe Barruel in particular gave warning in this last 


respect. 

The w^ords and writings of these three men were supported by the leading 
public men of their day, and have been so fully borne out by events, particularly 
in our century, that historically they simply serve to show that the world- 
revolution was recognized by some, and its future course foretold, at the moment 
of its second appearance in the West. The efforts of these three men were as vain 
in averting the havoc which the conspiracy later wreaked, and for that reason the 


152 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 Illumines 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 anti-revolutionary 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 


153 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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’'). 

In short, these attacks on Messrs. Barruel, Robison and Morse made use of a 
limited political vocabulary which today is plainly recognizable as that of the 
revolution and its agents, and is now so hackneyed that it must be imparted to all 
initiates from some central place in the organization. The campaign against them 
was effective, so that their warnings, like those of Burke, were forgotten by the 
masses. However, the secret band (which must have the same horror of truth as 
the devil might have of the cross) continued to fear them, so that the defamation 
continued long after all three were dead! As recently as 1918 the Columbia 
University of New York allotted funds for a costly piece of research designed to 
show that the Illuminati truly died when they were proscribed in 1786 and thus 
could not have caused or survived the French revolution, and in this publication 
all the stock-in-trade epithets were brought out and used again, as if the three 
dead men were live “witch-hunters”! 

In 1918 the Russian revolution was but a year old and the moment was 
evidently held apt for another attempt to show that the French revolution had 
been a self-contained affair, leaving no roots which might have erupted in Russia 
in 1917. Messrs. Barruel, Robison and Morse, if from some bourne they were 
able to watch these proceedings, no doubt observed that in 1918 and the 
following years Communism found the Columbia University of New York to be 
a very good hunting-ground. (Among the unlucky young men who were there 
entrapped for the cause was the Mr. Whittaker Chambers whose repentance and 
warning in 1939, had it been heeded by President Franklin Roosevelt, might have 
changed the whole course of the Second World War and of this century for the 
better). 

The first two presidents of the American Republic, though they did not 
effectively act against the secret society, were deeply alarmed about it and well 
knew that what Barruel, Robison and Morse said was true. One of George 
Washington’s last acts was, in a letter to Mr. Morse, to express the hope that his 
work would have “a more general circulation . . . for it contains important 
information, as little known, out of a small circle, as the dissemination of it would 
be useful, if spread through the community”. (Presumably General Washington 
would not have told a Whittaker Chambers to “go jump in the lake”). A little 
earlier Washington had informed another correspondent that he was fully 
satisfied that “the doctrines of the Illuminati and the principles of Jacobinism” 
had “spread in the United States”. 

Indeed, this was beyond doubt, for secret societies had appeared in the United 
States in 1793, that is, within ten years of the Republic’s birth, under the guise of 
“Democratic Clubs”. Their true nature was made plain by the attitude of the 


154 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


French Minister, Genet, towards them; he showed the open sympathy which 
Soviet Ambassadors, in our generation, display for Communist organizations, 
or perhaps more accurately, for those which serve as “cover” for Communism 
(the relationship between the Soviet embassies and the revolutionary party in the 
country of accreditation was established by massive documentary proof in the 
Canadian and Australian investigations of 1945-46 and 1954-55 respectively). 
George Washington, as president in 1794, charged these “self-created societies” 
with instigating the insurrectionary outbreak in Pennsylvania known as the 
Whiskey Rebellion. Washington’s authority was too great for him to be attacked 
as a witch-hunter and the clubs burrowed quickly underground, but from that 
moment the presence on American soil of an organization for world-revolution 
was known to all who cared to know and were able to withstand the 
“brainwashing” of the press. 

The part admittedly played by Grand Orient Freemasonry, under Illuminist 
permeation, in the French Revolution caused American Freemasonry also to fall 
under suspicion, but frank discussion of this question was hindered by the fact 
that the great Washington was head of the Masonic fraternity. The defenders of 
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 world; 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 ail 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 


155 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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”. 

In other words, 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. The situation in England has been very similar. 

In the last few paragraphs this narrative has jumped a few years to follow the 
course of American public uneasiness about Freemasonry to its end in 1830 (the 
Anti-masonic Party actually died in 1840). Now it returns to the immediate 
aftermath of the French revolution, and its effect on the world. 

President Adams, as his Works show, was fully informed and persuaded about 
the existence of a universal and continuing conspiracy against all legitimate 
government and religion. He made the mistake, natural in his day, of thinking the 
plan a French one, just as people today, with no excuse, speak and think of 
Russian Communism, although the international nature of the revolution has 
long been made plain, beyond all doubt. 

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 (although they should be enacted, to establish the illegality of the 
undertaking) are ineffective in checking them, especially as the secret 
organization has centuries of experience in eluding such laws. The one effective 
measure against secret conspiracy is investigation, public exposure and remedy, 
and this has never been fully used. 

The American public man who most plainly perceived the entire shape of the 
future was Washington’s confidant, Alexander Hamilton. He left among his 
papers an undated memoir (probably 1797-1800) which said: 

. . the present era is among the most extraordinary which have occurred in 
the history of human affairs. Opinions, for a long time, have been gradually 
gaining ground, which threaten the foundations of religion, morality and society. 
An attack was first made upon the Christian revelation, for which natural 
religion was offered as a substitute . . . The very existence of a Deity has been 
questioned and in some instances denied. The duty of piety has been ridiculed, 
the perishable nature of man asserted, and his hopes bounded to the short span of 
his earthly state. Death has been proclaimed an eternal sleep, “the dogma of the 
immortality of the soul a cheat, invented to torment the living for the benefit of 
the dead ... A league has at length been cemented between the apostles and 
disciples of irreligion and anarchy. Religion and government have both been 


156 



THE CONTROVERSY OE ZION 


stigmatized as abuses . . . The practical development of this pernicious system 

has been seen in France. It has served as an engine to subvert all her ancient 

institutions, civil and religious, with all the checks that served to mitigate the 

rigour of authority; it has hurried her headlong through a series of dreadful 

revolutions, which have laid waste property, made havoc among the arts, 

overthrown cities, desolated provinces, unpeopled regions, crimsoned her soil 

with blood, and deluged it in crime, poverty, and wretchedness; . . . This horrid 

system seemed awhile to threaten the subversion of civilized society and the 

introduction of general disorder among mankind. And though the frightful evils 

which have been its first and only fruits have given a check to its progress, it is to 

be feared that the poison has spread too widely and penetrated too deeply to be as 

yet eradicated. Its activity has been suspended, but the elements remain, 

concocting for new eruptions as occasion shall permit. It is greatly to be 

apprehended that mankind is not near the end of the misfortunes which it is 

calculated to produce, and that it still portends a long train of convulsion, 

revolution, carnage, de vastation and misery. Symptoms of the too great prevalence 

of this system in the United States are alarmingly visible. It was by its influence that 

efforts were made to embark this country in a common cause with France in the 

early period of the present war; to induce our government to sanction and 

promote her odious principles and views with the blood and treasure of our 

citizens. It is by its influence that every succeeding revolution has been approved 

or excused; all the horrors that have been committed justified or extenuated; that 

even the last usurpation, which contradicts all the ostensible principles of the 

Revolution, has been regarded with complacency, and the despotic constitution 

* 

engendered by it slyly held up as a model not unworthy of our imitation. In the 
progress of this system, impiety and infidelity have advanced with gigantic 
strides. Prodigious crimes heretofore unknown among us are seen . . .” 

We of the 1950’s are so familiar with the results here foreseen that we can 
scarcely realize what skill was needed, in the 1790’s, so clearly to foresee them! 
From de Fuchet before the Reign of Terror ("a series of calamities of which the 
end is lost in the darkness of time . . . a subterranean fire smouldering eternally 
and breaking forth periodically in violent and devastating explosions”) to 
Alexander Hamilton after it (“the elements remain, concocting for new eruptions 
as occasion shall permit. . . mankind is not near the end of the misfortunes which 
it is calculated to produce ... a long train of convulsion, revolution, carnage, 
devastation and misery”) the shape of our century was most plainly and 
accurately foretold. 

The net result of all this prescience, in terms of precaution, was nothing. 

Needlessly but massively, all came about as these men, and the Burkes and 
Barruels, Robisons and Morses foresaw; like a man sleepwalking, the West trod 
on all the charted landmines. The anti-revolutionary prophets were cried down; 
the revolutionary orators and writers took over the debate and were applauded. 


157 



THE CONTROVERSY OE ZION 


Napoleon’s wars helped to divert public attention from the plot and the 
organization that had been discovered. Ten years after the French revolution the 
documents of the Illuminati and.the French revolution were being forgotten; the 
public masses either began to believe that the secret society truly was dead, or had 
never had part in the revolution, or did not care. Twenty years after the French 
revolution the Illuminati were as busy as ever. Nothing had changed, save that 
the sect's followers in England and America had succeeded, through their power 
over published information, in beguiling the public mind and in defaming all who 


gave warning. 


This later knowledge about the Illuminati is recent; Mrs. Nesta Webster’s 
research discovered it. It comes from the boxes of Napoleon’s police, which have 
now yielded their contents to the student and historian. These show that, two 
decades after the revolution and on the eve of Napoleon’s own downfall, the 
Illuminati were very much alive, and pursued their undeviating aim. 

Francois Charles de Berckheim was a special commissioner of police at 
Mayence under the Empire, and a Freemason. He reported in 1810 that the 
Illuminati had initiates all over Europe and were working hard to introduce their 
principles into the lodges of Freemasonry: Tlluminism is becoming a great and 
formidable power . . . kings and peoples will have much to suffer from it unless 
foresight and prudence break its frightful mechanism”. A later report, of 1814, 
fully bears out the main contention of Messrs. Barruel, Robison and Morse in 
1797-9 about the continuance of the secret society: 

'The oldest and most dangerous association is that which is generally known 
under the denomination of the Illumines and of which the foundation goes back 
towards the middle of the last century . . . the doctrine of Illuminism is subversive 
of every kind of monarchy; unlimited liberty, absolute levelling dow n, such is the 
fundamental dogma of the sect; to break the ties that bind the sovereign to the 
citizen of a state, that is the object of all its efforts”. 

Twenty years after the act of penance publicly performed by the Duke of 
Brunswick, Berckheim recorded that "among the principal chiefs . . . are 
numbered men distinguished for their fortune, their birth, and the dignities with 
which they are invested”. He believed that some of these were “not the dupes of 
these demagogic dreams” but "hope to find in the popular emotions they stir up 
the means of seizing the reins of power, or at any rate of increasing their wealth 
and credit; but the crowd of adepts believe in it religiously . . .” 

The picture given in these words (which recall de Luchet’s, of twenty-five years 
before) is, or should be, familiar today, for our generation has shown again that 
avarice for power still leads wealthy or well-known people to associate 
themselves with movements, apparently hostile to their wealth or renown, in the 
belief that through them they may become even richer or more notorious. 

Berckheim then gives a description of the organization and methods of the 
Illuminati which reproduces the picture given by Weishaupt’s correspondence of 


158 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


1786, and could equally be a photograph of Communism at work in our century. 
The following extract shows a group of recognizable 20th Century characters, to 
which any attentive student of our times could fit names, yet it was written in 
1813: 

'“As the principal force of the Illumines lies in the power of opinions, they have 
set themselves out from the beginning to make proselytes amongst the men who 
through their profession exercise a direct influence on minds, such as literateurs, 
savants and above all professors. The latter in their chairs, the former in their 
writings, propagate the principles of the sect by disguising the poison that they 
circulate under a thousand different forms. These germs, often imperceptible to 
the eyes of the vulgar, are afterwards developed by the adepts of the Societies they 
frequent, and the most obscure w ording is thus brought to the understanding of 
the least discerning. It is above all in the universities that Illuminism has always 
found and always will find numerous reeruits . Those professors who belong to the 
Association set out from the first to study the character of their pupils. If a student 
gives evidence of a vigorous mind, an ardent imagination, the sectaries at once 
get hold of him: they sound in his ears the words Despotism, Tyranny, Rights of 
the People, etc., etc. Before he can even attach any meaning to these words, as he 
advances in age. reading works chosen for him, conversations skilfully arranged, 
develop the germ deposited in his youthful brain. Soon, his imagination ferments 
... At last, when he has been completely captivated, when several years of testing 
guarantee to the society inviolable secrecy and absolute devotion, it is made 
known to him that millions of individuals distributed in all the States of Europe 
share his sentiments and his hopes, that a secret link binds firmly all the scattered 
members of this immense family, and that the reforms he desires so ardently must 
sooner or later come about. This propaganda is rendered the easier by the 
existing associations of students, who meet together for the study of literature, 
for fencing, gaming or even mere debauchery. The Illumines insinuate themselves 
into all these circles and turn them into hotbeds for the propagation of their 
principles. Such then is the Association's continual mode of progression from its 
origins until the present moment; it is by convening from childhood the germ of 
poison into the highest classes of society, in feeding the minds of students on 
ideas diametrically opposed to that order of things under which they have to live, 
in breaking the ties that bind them to sovereigns, that Illuminism has recruited 
the largest number of adepts . . ." 

Thus Illuminism survived and flourished in darkness after its “adepts" in the 
editorial offices, university chairs and pulpits had beaten down the public 
clamour for its extirpation. For some live generations since then the thing has 
continued: a proportion of notable men and a proportion of young men at the 
universities have in each succeeding generation been enticed into this net. The 
only counter-measure which would give the seniors pause and open the eyes of 
the unwary younger ones would be full public information about the world 


159 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


revolution and its methods, and that has been denied from generation to 
generation, so that the secret sect has maintained its power and hold. There can 
be only one explanation for this refusal of governments, from generation to 
generation, to investigate and expose: namely, that in this day as in Weishaupt’s 
the sect has its “adepts” in the governments themselves; of that our century has 
given sufficient evidence. 

What of Weishaupt himself, twenty years and more after his exposure and the 
proscription of his order? In 1808 he was enquiring about a point of masonic 
ritual and his enquiry reached the notice of an eminent member of the Grand 
Orient, the Marquis de Chefdebien, who then wrote in a letter to a friend that 
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. 

Whoever his prompters, whatever the original source of his great knowledge of 
human weakness, Weishaupt, as Mrs. Nesta Webster says, “gathered into his 
hands the threads of all the conspiracies, was able to weave them together into a 
gigantic scheme for the destruction of France and the world”. In his army men of 
all classes and of the most diverse views were welded together by bonds of infamy 
which seemed as strong as those of faith and honour: “Weishaupt’s admirable 
system of watertight compartments precluded them from a knowledge of these 
differences and they all marched, unconsciously or not, towards the same goal”. 

If there were manifold currents of discontent before, Weishaupt fused them 
into one. With him and Illuminism, “vague subversive theory became active 
revolution”; the general staff was formed, the battle-operation laid down, the 
objective clarified. Today, nearly two hundred years later, the consequence of 
that is also clear: the all-destructive world-revolution must either prevail over 
Christendom and the West, reducing them both to ruins, or itself be crushed and 
broken up. There is now no third solution or middle course or different end to the 
conflict which was revealed in 1786. Leading public men and the sect’s devotees 
both saw that from the start. By 1875 Mgr. Dillon tersely stated the unalterable 
fact: 

“Had Weishaupt not lived. Masonry might have ceased to be a power after the 
reaction consequent on the French revolution. He gave it a form and character 
which caused it to outlive that reaction, to energise it to the present day, and which 
will cause it to advance until its final conflict with Christianity must determine 


160 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


whether Christ or Satan shall reign on this earth in the end". 

This book is a study of“the Jewish question” as the most important question 
in world affairs at the present time; yet the present chapter (the longest yet) on the 
world-revolution has made no mention of the Jewish question or of Jews. There 
is a reason for this. Fifty years after the French revolution the world-revolution 
was under Judaist direction, but original Judaist instigation of the world- 
revolution in its French phase cannot be shown. Therefore the possibility is open 
that the world-revolution was not at the start a Judaist undertaking, but one in 
which the ruling sect of Judaism later became the majority stockholder. Nothing 
definite can be established either way; the covering-up of tracks is the first 
principle of revolutionary tactics. 

Apparently Jews played little or no part in the master-conspiracy (that of 
Weishaupt and his Illuminati) and simply a proportionate part, with all others, in 
the French revolution. As to the first, the leading authority on this subject, Mrs. 
Nesta Webster, says AJews appear to have been only in rare cases admitted to the 
Order”. Feopold Engel, a mysterious character who reorganized the order in 
1880, goes further, stating that the recruitment of the Jews was forbidden. On the 
other hand, 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. 

The best authorities at the time agreed that the Illuminati were the instigators 
of the revolution and that they were men of all countries. The Chevalier de Malet 
says, “The authors of the revolution are not more French than German, Italian, 
English, etc. They form a particular nation which took birth and has grown in 
darkness, in the midst of all civilized nations, with the object of subjecting them 
to its domination”. This is the picture which today's student also gains from 
study of the literature of the French revolution; it is entirely different from the 
picture of the Russian revolution of 1917, to which the words could not be 
applied. 

In the French revolution itself distinct from the foregoing conspiracy) the 
part played by Jews is fairly clear, but seems to have been that of “abetting 
disorder” ascribed to them by the Koran, rather than that of control or direction. 
Indeed, it is often difficult to distinguish Jews, as such, in the records of the time, 
because writers of the day did not so separate them. Moreover, the revolution in 
its French phase appeared to be against all religion and all nationhood (in the 
Russian phase, again, this was no longer the case). Thus, the mob which brought 
crosses and chalices to the revolutionary assembly, while the churches of Paris 
were being given over to “Feasts of Reason”, also included Jews who contributed 
ornaments from the synagogue to the display of profanation. Again, at “the 
Temple of Fiberty”, a citizen “brought up in the prejudices of tjie Jewish 
religion” undertook to prove “that all forms of worship are impostures equally 


161 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


degrading to man". 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. Their religion, which would allow them 
only to lend to those of their nation at 5 percent, tells them to take ail they can 
from Catholics; it is even hallowed as a custom in our morning prayers to solicit 
God’s help in catching out a Christian. There is more, citizens, and it is the climax 
of abomination; if any mistake is made in commerce between Jews, they are 
ordered to make reparation: but if on 100 louis a Christian should have paid 25 
too much, one is not bound to return them to him. What an abomination! What a 


horror! And where does that all come from hut from the Rabbis? Who have excited 
proscriptions against us? Our priests! Ah, citizens, more than anything in the 
world we must abjure a religion which ... by subjecting us to irksome and servile 
practices, makes it impossible for us to be good citizens".* 

If the Jews are anywhere identified as Jews (not simply as participants) in the 
worst deeds of the revolution, this is in Jewish vaunt, not Gentile accusation. For 
instance, such a writer as M. Leon Kahn goes far out of his way to associate Jews, 
by name, with the attack on the king and on religion, and that a hundred years 
after the events. This is an example of the laboured effort, which may be traced in 
much Judaist literature, to show' that nothing of this kind can happen in the world 
save by the hand of Jehovah, that is to say, of Jews. M. Leon Kahn apparently 
could not picture the French revolution in any other terms than those of Daniel 
and Belshazzar. But for the Russian revolution, M. Leon Kahn might be 
forgotten; once again, it is our present-day that gives these depictments of old 
events their look of truth. 

In the aftermath of the French revolution, the Jews, through their leaders, 
seem simply to have turned a situation to good account, as they were entitled to 
do. However, in the light of what followed later it is significant that the Jews who 
profited were the "Eastern Jews", and that these non-Semitic converts to 
Judaism at that point in time made their first breach in the walls of the West. 

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 long-settled Jews were ended by 
the decree of 1790, which gave them all the rights of French citizens. In Alsace a 


*The italicized line in this quotation gives a timely opportunity to remark that when Alexandre Lambert jits 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. 


162 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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. On this occasion the warnings with 
which earlier centuries had made the West familiar again were heard. The Abbe 
Maury told die citizen deputies, '"The Jew's have traversed seventeen centuries 
without mingling with other nations . . . They must not be persecuted, they must 
be protected as individuals and not as Frenchmen, since they cannot be citizens 
. . . Whatever you do, they will always remain foreigners in our midst”. The 
Bishop of Nancy concurred; “They must be accorded protection, safety, liberty; 
but should we admit into the family a tribe that is foreign to it, that turns its eyes 
unceasingly towards a common country, that aspires to abandon the land that 
bears it? The interest of the Jews themselves necessitates this protest”. 

The Sephardic Jews also protested: “We dare to believe that our condition in 
France w ould not today be open to discussion if certain demands of the Jew s of 
Alsace, Lorraine and the Three Bishoprics had not caused a confusion of ideas 
which appears to reflect on us . . . To judge by the public papers they appear to be 
rather extraordinary, since these Jews aspire to live in France under a special 
regime, to have laws peculiar to themselves, and to constitute a class of citizens 
separated from all the others”. 

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; w hilst the Jew's are particles of quicksilver, which at the least 
slant run together into a block". 

Despite all opposition the decree emancipating the Jew^s of Alsace was passed 
in 1791. By the time Napoleon succeeded to power a Jewish problem of the first 
order had thus been created for him and (after his failure to solve it) for the world. 

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 world- 
revolution 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 w orld- 
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- 


163 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 

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 tk 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. 

The authoritative witness, whose words (like the earlier ones of de Luchet, 
Alexander Hamilton and Edmund Burke) were fully borne out by events, was 
one Benjamin Disraeli, Prime Minister of England. 


164 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


THE WARNINGS OF DISRAELI 

Benjamin Disraeli, later Lord Beaconsfield, repeatedly warned Christendom 
against the world-revolution. 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 at least until the 1920’s (in the present writer's 
opinion the condition continued after that and prevails today). 

Why the Talmudic sect took over the leadership of the revolutionary 
organization established by Weishaupt, or whether it instigated the original 
revolutionary undertaking, are two questions which cannot be answered today. 

If the ambition of Judaic world domination, instilled through the centuries by 
the Talmud and even more by the Cabala*, is ever to be realized the enslavement 
of “the heathen” to the Holy Nation will have to be accomplished through some 
destructive organization like that set up by Weishaupt; the fact that Weishaupt 
founded his Illuminati at the very moment when the Jewish “centre” in Poland 
sank from sight, after an unbroken life of more than two thousand years, might 
be more than a coincidence. On the other hand, it is equally possible that the 
dominant sect for the purpose of Talmudic fulfilment, took over control of a 
destructive organization already set up by non-Jews for a different end. 

Disraeli's two most significant warnings preceded and followed the 
revolutionary outbreaks which occurred in many parts of Europe in 1848. Based 
on the experience gained in France a half-century before, these represented the 
second of the “eruptions, concocted as occasion shall permit”, and “the 
periodical explosions” which (as de Luchet and Alexander Hamilton had 
foretold) the world-revolutionary organization was to bring about. They failed 
everywhere, possibly because the memory of the French revolution was recent 
enough for governments and peoples to deal resolutely with them. Their 
suppression left Disraeli in no illusion about the future. He had described what 
would happen before it occurred; after it, he foretold the continuance of the 
conspiracy and the recurrence of the violent outbreaks. 

Disraeli wrote novels (with greater success than two later imitators, Colonel 
House of Texas and Mr. Winston Churchill when young), and depicted himself 
in them as the aloof, urbane, omniscient, slightly mocking impresario of human 
affairs. In Coningsby he is the chief character, Sidonia, a Spanish-Moslem Jew, 
the master financier, power behind all powers and passionless manipulator of 

The Jew ish 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”. 


165 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


affairs, one who is “assisted by that absolute freedom from prejudice which is the 
compensatory possession of a man without a country”. 

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'\ 

Then, 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 themselves 
with Commu nists; 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. 

The task of research, in such a work as this, is arduous and has few 
compensations, but acquaintanceship with Disraeli was a solace. The reader has 
already met some true prophets among the many false ones, during this journey 
through the centuries, but he will not meet another quite like 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 kt 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”. 

Disraeli practised the teaching of Christianity; he was not merely “a baptised 
Jew”. 


166 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


He would not have associated himself, or his country's name, with the Old 
Testamentary vengeance of Nuremberg, for this is what he said after the Indian 
Mutiny in 1857, when the spirit of revenge was ravening in the land: “I do 
without the slightest hesitation declare my humble disapprobation of persons in 
high authority announcing that upon the high standard of England "vengeance’ 
and not "justice' should be inscribed ... I protest against meeting atrocities by 
atrocities. I have heard things said and seen things written of late which would 
make me almost suppose that the religious opinions of the people of England had 
undergone some sudden change, and that, instead of bowing before the name of 
Jesus, we were preparing to revive the worship of Moioeh. I cannot believe that it is 
our duty to indulge in such a spirit". 

These words contain an allusion which reaches every Jew and Gentile. 
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 
Levitcs 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. 

In 1955 a Lord Samuel (who in the heyday of Liberalism rose from plain Mr. 
Herbert Samuel, through various political offices, to ennoblement) proudly 
stated that he was the first Jew ever to have held Cabinet rank in England. This 
was presumably a jibe at Disraeli’s conversion; nevertheless, the world in the 20th 
Century might have been the better for more Disraelis. The striking things about 
Disraeli, studied at the distance of a century, are his habit of speaking absolute 
truth, his accuracy of prediction, his vast instinctive and acquired knowledge, his 
deep though unimpassioned love for England, and his Christian charity. In 
matters of fact he was always right; in those of opinion, he was ever on the side of 
the angels. His contempt for ""Liberals" was great, though delicately phrased 


167 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


(“infanticide is practised as extensively and as legally in England as it is on the 
banks of the Ganges, a circumstance which apparently has not yet engaged the 
attention of the Society for the Propagation of the Gosper 1 ). The present writer 
thinks he erred in one matter, namely, in his opinion that the doctrines of Jesus 
were the completion, not the repudiation, of Judaism. The contrary seems to me 
to be true, namely, that Judaism was that very heresy (“the worship of Moloch”) 
which Disraeli spurned, and which Jesus came to change. 

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 stating 
that he could never take part in their public worship “because, as now conducted, 
it disturbs, instead of exciting religious emotions”. 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. 

Before concluding the tale of Disraeli’s own warnings, the course of the world- 
revolution during his time needs to be traced, that is to say, during the century 
succeeding the outbreak in France. When Weishaupt died in 1830, leaving 
behind him the plan and the organization first revealed by the discovery of the 
Illuminati’s documents in 1786, Disraeli was 26. The next fifty years were filled 
with the contest for Weishaupt's succession; during this period Disraeli uttered 
his many warnings. When it ended Jewish control of the world-revolution had 
nevertheless been firmly established and it had been given the imprint uf the 
Eastern Jews, the Mongoloid Khazars, under their Talmudic rabbis. 

The result might have been different, for men of various kinds struggled to 
succeed Weishaupt, and many of them were Gentiles. At the start there was no 
single, united revolutionary organization; there were revolutionary secret 


168 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


societies, not yet coalesced, in various countries. The chief of them, and the one in 
clearest line of descent from Weishaupt’s Illuminati, was the Alta Vendita in 
Italy, some of the papers of which, seized and published by the Pontifical 
Government, revealed an identity of aim and method with the Illuminati 
documents of a half-century earlier (as Mrs. Nesta Webster has established from 
the work of Cretineau Joly.) 

In France Freemasonry continued to serve as the cloak used by the revolution, 
and in Germany the “Teague of Virtue” (Tugendbund) was directed by 
lieutenants of Weishaupt. 

Various men worked to fuse these, apparently distinct national movements 
into one, and to assume the leadership, in succession to Adam Weishaupt. 
Among them were a Frenchman. Fouis Blanc (whose name the reader is asked to 
bear in mind, for a reason which will appear later; at one moment he seemed 
likely to play the part of Fenin, even before Fenin was born), a Russian, Michel 
Bakunin, and a Jew, born in Germany, Karl Marx. 

The struggle was fought between the last two, for Touts Blanc soon faded from 
the scene. Michel Bakunin and Karl Marx were as poles apart. Bakunin, “the 
father of Anarchy”, was “a disciple of Weishaupt”, 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 super-tyranny 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 


169 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 1 848, 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' 1 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 
worYZ-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. 

Of the three men who at that time appeared to contend for the generalship of 
the revolution, Louis Blanc quickly fell out of the running. He was a member of 
the provisional government set up in Paris after the 1848 revolt, and in the 
capacity of minister seemed to have the opportunity to put his theories into 
practice. He held that individualism and competition were cancers in the body 
social and, like Marx, wished to set up the all-despotic State (albeit of the 
"welfare 11 kind favoured by the British Socialists a century later). He was the 
herald of the "right to work 11 which, in Russia in the present century, proved to 
be the State’s right to inflict forced labour. In his shortlived office he undertook 
"to guarantee the livelihood of the workers by work” and was authorized to call 
together an assembly of workers’ delegates to prepare a plan for "full 
employment”. This body was in form an anticipation of the Soviets, and it 
represents Louis Blanc’s chief claim to be remembered. After the suppression of 
the revolt he fled to England and only returned twenty-three years later, bereft of 
importance. 

That left Marx and Bakunin. Typically, Karl Marx, expelled from Prussia and 
France after 1848, settled comfortably in London until he died, thirty-four years 


170 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 Soeiale Demoeratique). 

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 


171 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 centre 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 in 1881 he had spent between thirty and forty years 
warning his countrymen and the world against “the secret societies”: 

“It was neither parliaments, nor populations, nor the course of nature, nor the 
course of events, that overthrew the throne of Louis Philippe . . . The throne was 
surprised by the secret societies, ever prepared to ravage Europe . . . Acting in 
unison with a great popular movement they may destroy society . . .“ (1852). 
“There is in Italy a power which we seldom mention in this House ... I mean the 
secret societies. It is useless to deny, because it is impossible to conceal, that a 
great part of Europe is covered with a network of these secret societies, just as the 
superficies of the earth is now being covered with railroads . . . They do not want 
constitutional government; they do not want ameliorated institutions . . . they 
want to change the tenure of land, to drive out the present owners of the soil, and 
to put an end to ecclesiastical establishments . . .” (1856). 

Disraeli plainly saw, and perhaps was the first to recognize the name, the 
fraudulent nature of Liberalism: “it is the manoeuvres of these men who are 


striking at property and Christ, which the good people of this country, who are so 
accumulative and so religious, recognize and applaud as the progress of the 
Liberal cause”. 


If it were in the power of man, by informed warnings to avert disastrous events, 
the repeated warnings of this unique authority would have averted the 
tribulation which the revolution brought on the millions of mankind in the next 


century. But. “by a divine instinct men's minds mistrust ensuing danger”; the 
neglect of Disraeli's warnings proved what all preceding centuries had shown: 
that human beings will not be deterred from a dangerous undertaking, or 
aroused from a perilous inertia, by any spoken counsel. Experience alone can in 
time move them to act, and in that the 20th Century has made them rich. 

In the middle decades of the last century Disraeli spoke in vain. He could not 
be merely defamed as a “witch-hunter”, and therefore was derided with the mien 


172 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


of affectionate disdain: “it was generally thought” (says Mr. Hesketh Pearson) 
“that he had a bee in his bonnet on the subject of the secret societies, the existence 
of which was denied; but we can now see them as the seeds of a movement which, 
having found a formula, fused and festered into Communism ”. That verdict of 
1951 is obviously true and agrees with the contemporary one of the revolutionary 
eye-witness Benoit Malon: “Communism was handed down in the dark through 
the secret societies of the 19th Century”. 

Thus, when Disraeli died the thing he had striven to avoid had come about: the 
“secret societies” had been welded into one world-revolutionarv 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” w hich 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". 

The sequence of events is significant. 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 1 776 Adam Weishaupt founded his Illuminati. By 1846 
Disraeli was writing that “the revolution 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). 

Such was the result, foretold by Disraeli, of the removal of Jewish disabilities 
and of a few decades of Jewish emancipation. The lowering of the barriers had 
not had the effect of amalgamating the Jews in the comity of peoples; its 
consequences had been to give “the most formidable sect” (Bakunin's words) 
freedom to work for the ruination of these peoples by revolution. The responses 
given by the Sanhedrin to Napoleon's questions at the century's start, by its 
middle-age had been shown to be void of force. Jews would not thenceforward be 
allowed to involve themselves, with other men, in the nationhoods and laws of 
the lands where they dwelt; on the contrary, identification with the world- 
revolution set them more apart from others than even they had ever been before. 
The century of emancipation had been turned into a fraud even before it ended. 


173 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 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". 

What Mr. Lazare clearly meant was that nothing more than “a part" in 
revolutionary processes might be attributed to Jews, and that a man who said 
that The Jew is the preparer, the machinator, the chief engineer of revolutions" 
committed lese majesty and heresy. 

However, it is substantially what 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 


174 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


the Jems”, “the influence of the Jews may be traced in the last outbreak of the 
destructive principle'’, “men of Jewish nice ore 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 cdl 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 w 7 as blowing towards them from the Fast. 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 
Jew ry 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). 


175 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


THE MANAGERS 

( 


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 T 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 


176 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 1 However, this resistance was not simply “passive 1 ' 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 11 Jews in Russia and for the 
“return 11 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 11 . In this way 
also that state of the mass-mind 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 1 ’). 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. I recall, from my own time in Europe, how 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!). 


177 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 W est 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 bv 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 'Teased 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 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 


178 



THE CONTROVERSY OF' ZfON 


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 
perspective, the threefold purposes of the grand design become clear, and events 
have demonstrated them. First, through revolut ion 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. 

An ambition which perhaps was not hugely foolish among Near Eastern tribes 
and in the small space of the known world in 500 BC, thus became the 
megalomaniac one of our global era, which is witnessing an attempt to impose an 
ancient tribal law. born in the petty feuds of little ancient lands, upon the world. 
The Gentile is apt to imagine that The Law which governs this undertaking is 
that which he can find in the Torah, or Old Testament, which he shares with the 
Jew, but this is not true. The Old Testament contains a lofty law of righteousness 
and neighbourly behaviour and inspired glimpses of the universal “house of 
prayer of all peoples'". T his 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 w hich 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 stale. 
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 com t's findings "vv ill be accepted without question 
by the Jewish community", but if he were not "we ha\c 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, w ithout regard to lus innocence or guilt under the law' of 
the country of which he was a citizen. 

In this case the action taken cuts across Stale 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 gov ei nmenta! 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 1 was able to judge it aroused no great public interest or feeling, or if it did. this was not allow ed 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 die West by 1935. 


179 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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. 

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 WeishaupEs 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 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. 

Under The Law this destruction was not an end in itself; it was a means to the 
end laid down in The Law. The extirpation of nation-states was to be the essential 
prelude to the establishment of the triumphant nation-State, that of the chosen 
people in their promised land. Thus, in the middle of the last century, a second 
force also was brought into being in those same Eastern, Talmudic-ruled areas 
where the world-revolution received its shape and impetus. 

This was Zionism, the force that was set in movement to achieve “the return" 
and lay the foundations of the supreme Nation-State in Palestine. This, the force 
of domination, at every stage in the process of the last hundred years kept step 
with the force of revolution, and neither could have achieved what it did achieve 
without the other. 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 


180 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 politicans, 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”. 

Thus the story of the emergence of Zionism from the ghettoes of Russia and of 
the delicate interplay between the two forces, the one coiling itself round the 
rulers of the West and the other undermining the structure of the nation-states, 
forms the next chapter of the controversy of Zion. 


181 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


THE “PROPHET 




The 19th Century moved inexorably towards the repudiation of the 
Sanhedrin's avowals to Napoleon, towards the re-segregation of the Jews, 
towards the re-establishment of that theocratic state in the midst of states, the 
danger of which Tiberius had depicted before the Christian era began. The 
struggle was not between “the Jews" and “the Gentiles"; as on the ancient day 
when the Persian king's soldiers enabled Ezra and Nehemiah to enforce “the new 
Law" on the Judahites, it was once more between some Jews and some Gentiles 
and the other Jews and the other Gentiles. The mystery always was that at such 
junctures the Gentile rulers allied themselves with the ruling sect of Judaism 
against the Jewish masses and thus against their own peoples, among whom they 
fostered a disruptive force. This paradox repeated itself in the 19th century and 
produced the climacteric of our present day, in which all nations are heavily 
involved. 

The emancipated Jews of the West were undone on this occasion, with the 
mass of Gentile mankind, by the Western politicians, who enlisted, like a Swiss 
Guard, in the service of Zionism. Therefore this narrative must pause to look “at 
the Liberals" of the 19th Century, who by espousing Zionism enabled it to 
disrupt the affairs and deflect the national policies of peoples. 

They may best be studied through the founder of their line. “The Prophet" (he 
claimed the title which Amos angrily repudiated) was Henry Wentworth Monk, 
by few remembered today. He was the prototype of the 20th Century American 
president or British prime minister, the very model of a modern Western 
politician. 

To account for this man one would have to revivify all the thoughts and 
impulses of the last century. It is recent enough for a plausible attempt. One effect 
of emancipation was to make every undisciplined thinker believe himself a leader 
of causes. The spread of the printed w ; ord enabled demagogues to distribute ill- 
considered thoughts. The increasing speed and range of transport led them to 
look for causes far outside their native ken. Irresponsibility might pose as 
Christian charity when it denounced its neighbours for indifference to the plight 
of Ethiopian orphans, and who could check the facts? Dickens depicted the type 
in Stiggins, with his society for providing infant negroes with moral pocket 
handkerchiefs; Disraeli remarked that the hideous lives of coalminers in the 
North of England had “escaped the notice of the Society for the Abolition of 
Nem~o Slavery". 

The new way of acquiring a public reputation was too easy for such rebukes to 
deter those who were tempted by the beguiling term “liberal", and soon the 
passion for reform filled the liberal air, w'hich w’ould not brook a vacuum. The 
“rights of man" had to be asserted; and the surviving wrongs w ; ere most easily 
discovered among peoples far away (and, for fervour, the further the better). It 


182 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


was the heyday of the self-righteous, of those who only wanted the good of 
others, and cared not how much bad they did under that banner. The do-gooders 
founded a generation, and also an industry (for this vocation was not devoid of 
material reward, as well as plaudits). In the name of freedom, these folk were in 
our day to applaud, and help bring about, the re-enslavement of half Europe. 

Into such a time Henry Wentworth Monk was born (1827) in a farm settlement 
on the then remote Ottawa River in Canada. At seven he was wrenched from kith 


and kin and transported to the Bluecoat School in London, at that time a 
rigorous place for a lonely child. The boys wore the dress of their founder’s day 
(Edward VI), long blue coat, priestly cravat, yellow stockings and buckled 
shoon. They lived as a sect apart, ate monastic fare and little of it, the rod was not 
spared, and they were sternly drilled in the Scriptures. 

Thus young Monk had many emotional needs, crying to be appeased, and his 
child’s mind began to find modern applications in the Old Testament, to which 
his infant mind was so diligently directed. By “swift beasts”, he deduced, Isaiah 
meant railways, and by “swift messengers”, steamships. He next decided, at this 
early age, that he had found the keys to “prophecy” and could interpret the mind 
of God in terms of his day. He ignored the warnings of the Israelite prophets and 
of the New Testament against this very temptation; what he found was merely 
the teaching of the Levitical priesthood, that one day the heathen would be 
destroyed and the chosen people re-gathered in their supreme kingdom in the 
promised land. 

Men of rank and influence also were toying with this idea that the time had 
come for them to make up God's mind. When Monk was eleven a Lord 
Shaftesbury proposed that the great powers should buy Palestine from the Sultan 
of Turkey and “restore it to the Jews”. England then had a statesman, Lord 
Palmerston, who did not let such notions disturb his duty, and nothing was done. 
But in young Monk an idea was ignited, and The Prophet was born; his life 
thenceforth held no other interest until it ended sixty years later! 

At fourteen he obtained special leave to attend a sermon preached by “the first 
English Bishop in Jerusalem” (whose name, history records, was Solomon 
Alexander). The little boy returned to school with shining eyes, dedicated to his 
life’s work of procuring Palestine, without regard to the people already in it, for 
some body of other people utterly unknown to him. The idea would not let him 
settle down on his father’s Canadian farm when he returned to it; it stood 


between him and the Christian ministry, when he was made a candidate for this. 
He pored over the Old Testament and found it was but a code, that cleared before 
his eyes. 

Thus he fell into the irreverence which the study of the Levitical scriptures 
sometimes produces in men who describe themselves as Christians and yet ignore 
the New Testament. Once they accept the concept of foretellings to be literally 
fulfilled, they yield, in fact, to the Judaic Law of a political contract which leaves 


183 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


no latitude whatever to God, save in the one point of the time of completion. 
From that they proceed, in one bound, to the conclusion that they know the time 
(which God. presumably, has forgotten). At that stage such men believe that they 
are God. This is the end to which the process must lead them: the denial of 
Christianity, and of all divinity. This is the profanity to which all leading 
politicians of the West, in our century, lent themselves; Monk was the original of 
a multitude. 


Even in his remote Canadian habitat he found other prophets. An American 
Jew, a Major Mordecai Noah, was trying to build a Jewish “city of refuge 11 on an 
island in the Niagara River, preparatory to “the return 11 ; from what the Jews of 
North America needed refuge, until they “returned 11 , he alone knew. Also, a Mr. 


Warder Cresson, the first United States Consul in Jerusalem, became so ardent 


for “restoration 11 that he embraced Judaism and published a book, Jerusalem 
The Centre And Joy Of The Whole World. Returning to America, he cast off his 
Gentile wife, renamed himself Michael Boas Israel, went to Palestine and there 


contrived to marry a Jewish girl with whom he could communicate only by signs. 

All this fired Monk's ardour the more. He decided, in the Old Testamentary 
tradition, no more to cut his hair or adorn his body until “Zion is restored 11 . As 
his hair grew abundantly, he became most hirsute; as he sold his small property 
and thereafter never laboured, he was for the rest of his days dependent on 
others. At twenty-six he set out for Jerusalem and reached it after much hardship. 
Having nothing but shagginess and shabbiness to testify to the truth of his 
message, he found few hearers. 


Monk might have disappeared from the annals at that point but for a chance 
encounter which made him publicly known. In this century of world wars, trans¬ 
continental and trans-oceanic projectiles, and mass-destroying explosives, the 
19th Century counts as a stable, peaceful period of time, unshadowed by fear for 
the morrow. The student, particularly of this controversy of Zion, is astonished 
to hnd how many educated men apparently lived in fright of annihilation and 
decided that they could only be saved if a body of the planet's inhabitants were 
transported to Arabia. The Prophet’s path crossed that of another of these 
tremulous beings. 

A young English painter, Holman Hunt, appeared in Jerusalem. He also was 
ready for “a cause 11 , for he was waging the characteristic feud of the young artist 
against the Academicians, and that produces an inflammable state of mind. He 
enjoyed ill health and often thought his end near (he lived to be eighty-three). He 
had just painted The Light of the World, which depicted Jesus, lantern in hand, at 
the sinner’s door, and the sudden apparition of the bearded Monk caught his 
imagination. He grasped eagerly at the Prophet’s idea of threatening mankind 
(including the Academicians) with extermination if it did not do what Prophecy 
ordained. 


So these two. Prophet and pre-Raphaelite, concerted a plan to startle the 


184 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


indifferent world. Monk depicted “the scapegoat” to Holman Hunt as the 
symbol of Jewish persecution by mankind. They agreed that Holman Hunt 
should paint a picture of “the scapegoat’ 1 and that Monk should simultaneously 
write a book explaining that the time had come for the persecuted to be restored, 
in fulfilment of prophecy. 

(In fact the scapegoat was an ingenious Levitical device, whereby the priest was 
empowered to absolve the congregation of its sins by taking two kids of the goat, 
killing one for a sin-offering, and driving the other into the wilderness to expiate 
by its suffering “all their transgressions and all their sins . . . putting them upon 
the head of the goat”. The Prophet and Holman Hunt transformed the meaning 
into its opposite. 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!) 

Holman Hunt went to work; this was a delightful way, both to take a swing at 
the Royal Academy (“problem pictures”) and to identify himself with a cause. 
His picture would say more than any spoken word, and it would be followed by 
Monk's written word. The Picture and The Book, The Symbol and The 
Interpretation, The Herald and The Prophet: once the world beheld “The 
Scapegoat” Monk’s work of revelation would find an audience, awakened to its 
transgressions and eager to make amends. 

Hunt, wearing Arab robes and carrying easel and rifle, was then seen by the 
Bedouin driving a white goat to the Dead Sea. He painted an excellent picture of 
a goat (indeed, of two goats, as the first goat, with excessive zeal, died, and a 
substitute had to be found). For greater effect, a camel’s skeleton was brought 
from Sodom and a goat's skull borrowed, and these were arranged in the 
background. The painting certainly produces the impression that the Levites 
must have been cruel (the animal’s agony was graphically represented) and 
wicked, to pretend that by its suffering they could wash out all the iniquities of 
their people. Holman Hunt took it to England, first pledging himself, with 
Monk, “to the restoration of the Temple, the abolition of warfare among men, 
and the coming of the Kingdom of God upon the earth”; probably no painter 
ever had such large purposes in mind when he conceived a picture. 

Monk then produced his Simple Interpretation of the Revelation and the joint 
undertaking was complete; the world had but to respond. In this first book Monk 
still tried to wed Levitical politics with Christian doctrine. Historically he stayed 
on safe ground; he pointed out, correctly, that “the ten tribes” could not have 
become extinct, but lived on in the mass of mankind. This led him to his 


“interpretation”, which was to the effect that “the true Israelites”, Jewish and 
Christian, should migrate to Palestine and establish a model state there (at that 
point he was far from literal Zionism, and ran risk of being accounted an 
“antisemite”). His portrayal of the consequences was plain demagogy; if this 
were done, he said, war would come to an end. But then came the paramount idea 


185 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


(and who knows whence Monk got it?): an International Government must be set 
up in Jerusalem. Here Monk hit on the true intention of Zionism. Monk was only 
enabled to have his work published through an acquaintanceship which he owed 
to Holman Hunt: John Ruskin, the famous art critic, prevailed on the publisher 
Constable to print it. The Book (like The Picture) failed of effect, but Ruskin 
helped The Prophet with money and in other ways, and thus saved him from 
oblivion. 

Ruskin, too, was the product of early pressures and inner disappointments. 
Like Wilkie Collins (an excellent craftsman who could not rest content with 
writing good novels and vainly tried to emulate Dickens's gift for arousing moral 
indignation), he was not happy to remain in the field where he was eminent but 
was ever ready to champion (and less ready to examine) anything that looked like 
a moral cause. Like Monk, he had been drilled in the Old Testament as a child 
(though by a possessive Puritan mother), and he was recurrently unlucky in love, 
sometimes humiliatingly so. He was therefore at all times in search of an outlet 
for unspent emotional impulses. He feared life and the future, so that The 
Prophet’s incessant warnings of wrath to come unnerved him and made him put 
his hand in his pocket. He had a large audience and yielded to the same impiety as 
Monk and Holman; as his biographer says (Mr. Hesketh Pearson), “he 
succumbed to the delusion, common to all messiahs, that his word was God’s”, 
and in the end his reason waned, but by then he had enabled The Prophet to 
preach and wander on. 

After the failure of Monk’s book Holman Hunt tried again. He began a 
painting of Jesus, in the synagogue, reading the messianic prophecies and 
announcing their fulfilment in himself. To make his meaning clear, he used Monk 
as the model for the figure of Jesus, and the indignation of the elders was to 
symbolize the world’s rejection of The Prophet. Holman Hunt’s preliminary 
study for this picture is in the National Gallery at Ottawa and shows Monk 
holding in one hand the Bible (open at the Book of the Revelation) and in the 
other: a copy of the London Times. (I was working in monastic seclusion in 
Montreal, somewhat bowed down by the nature and weight of the task, when I 
discovered the picture, and my neighbours were then surprised by the loud noise 
of mirth which burst from the usually silent room where a former correspondent 
of The Times bent over his labours). 

Thereafter human nature slowly had its way. Holman Hunt sold a picture of 
the Finding of Christ in the Temple for £5,500 and his resentment against life (and 
the Academicians) mellowed. He found himself unable to ask the tattered 
Prophet to accompany him to fine houses like those of Val Prinsep and 
Tennyson. Ruskin was busy with ill-starred loves, and was becoming sceptical as 
well. Nevertheless, these two sedentary men could not quite forget The Prophet’s 
warnings that they would be destroyed unless they soon effected the restoration 
of the Jews to Palestine. He was always telling them that “the day” was at hand 


186 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


and pointing to some warlike episode, in Africa or Asia Minor or the Balkans or 
Europe, as the foretold beginning of the end; skirmishes and minor campaigns 
never lacked. At last Holman Hunt and Ruskin hit on a plan which seemed likely 
to allay their fears, appease their consciences and rid them of The Prophet; they 
urged him to go to Jerusalem and (like Sabbatai Zevi) proclaim the approach of 
The Millennium! 

He was about to go when another war broke out, completely confounding him 
because it was not in any of the places where, interpreting prophecy, he had 
foretold the beginning of the end of days. It was in the very area from which, 
according to his published interpretation, salvation was to come: America. 

After a glance at the authorities, The Prophet announced that he had located 
the error in his calculations: the Civil War was in fact the great, premonitory 
event. Now something must be done about Palestine without delay! John Ruskin 
put his foot down. If The Prophet were truly a prophet, he said, let him hasten to 
America before he went to Jerusalem, and call down some sign from heaven that 
would stop the Civil War. He, Ruskin, would finance the journey. And The 
Prophet went, to stop the Civil War. 

The tradition then prevailed in America that a republican president must be 
accessible to all, and Mr. Abraham Lincoln was so beleaguered three days a 
week. One day, when the President’s doors were open, The Prophet was swept in 
with a crowd of patronage-seekers, petitioners and sightseers. 

His appearance gained him a few words of conversation with the President. 
Mr. Lincoln’s harassed eye was arrested by the sight of something peering at him 
through the undergrowth. He asked who the visitor was, then learning that he 
was a Canadian come to end the war. Asked for his proposal, The Prophet urged 
that the South free its slaves against compensation and the North agree to 
Southern secession, a suggestion which (Monk recorded) “appeared to amuse 
the President”. Mr. Lincoln asked, “Do not you Canadians consider my 
Emancipation Proclamation as a great step forward in the social and moral 
progress of the world?” 

Monk said this was not enough: “Why not follow the emancipation of the 
Negro by a still more urgent step: the emancipation of the Jew?” Mr. Lincoln was 
baffled (the Jews had always been emancipated in America) and asked in 
astonishment, “The Jew, why the Jew? Are they not free already?” 

Monk said, “Certainly, Mr. President, the American Jew is free, and so is the 
British Jew, but not the European. In America we live so far off that we are blind 
to what goes on in Russia and Prussia and Turkey. There can be no permanent 
peace in the world until the civilized nations, led, I hope, by Great Britain and the 
United States, atone for what they have done to the Jews, for their two thousand 
years of persecution, by restoring them to their national home in Palestine, and 
making Jerusalem the capital city of a reunited Christendom”. 

Characteristically, Monk had never been to “Russia, Prussia or Turkey”; he 


187 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


was that kind of “Liberal”. In Russia the Talmudic rabbinate was opposing 
emancipation by every means, and 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. 

In Mr. Lincoln's day the notion that all wars, wherever fought and for 
whatever reason, ought to be diverted to the aim of establishing a Jewish state in 
Palestine was new (today it is generally accepted and put into practice, as the two 
world wars have shown), and the President was again amused. 

He had on hand the cruellest war in Western history, up to that time. Being a 
man of resource, and versed in dealing with importuners, he rid himself of The 
Prophet with a good-humoured jest. “My chiropodist is a Jew”, he said, “and he 
has so often put me on my feet that I would have no objection to giving his 
countrymen a leg up”. Then, reminding Monk of the war in progress, he begged 
The Prophet to await its end: “then we may begin again to see visions and dream 
dreams”. (Another topic for a debating society: was the use of this phrase chance 
or intention? Mr. Lincoln certainly knew what fate the Old Testament prescribes 
for “false prophets and dreamers of dreams”.) 

Monk returned to London and Ruskin paid his expenses to Palestine, whence, 
on arrival, he was deported as a nuisance in 1864. Destitute, he signed as seaman 
aboard a Boston-bound clipper and, being wrecked, swam the last part of the 
Atlantic. He was cast ashore bleeding and almost naked, so that, looking like a 
bear, he was shot as one, in semi-darkness, by a farmer. He lost his memory and 
mind and in this condition at last came home. He recovered after some years and 
at once returned to his obsession. The “day of trouble”, so long foretold, still had 
not come; the planet kept its accustomed place. He re-examined prophecy and 
decided that he had erred in recommending the union of Jews and Christians in 
the world-state to be set up in Jerusalem. Now he saw that 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 enforee the submission of nations to 
its law. 

After a lifetime Monk thus stumbled on the fullness of the political plan of 
world dominion which is contained in the Old Testament, and still thought that 
he was interpreting divine prophecy. No evidence offers that he ever came in 
contact with the initiates and illuminates of the grand design. The only recorded 
Jewish money he was ever offered was a charitable gift of five pounds “if you are 
personally in want”. He moved always in the company and at the cost of the 
bemused Gentile “Liberals”. 

He was forgotten in the Ottawa Valley when, in 1870, his hope (one must use 
the word) that “the day of troubles” was at last at hand was revived by a huge 


188 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


forest fire, which he took as a sign from heaven that the time had come. Somehow 
he made his way to London (1872) and to Hunt and Ruskin, who had thought 
him dead. Ruskin was wooing Rose La Touche, so that for the time he was 
unresponsive to warnings of doom and wrote to The Prophet, “I acknowledge 
the wonderfulness of much that you tell me, but I simply do not believe that you 
can understand so much about God when you understand so little about man ... 
You appear to me to be mad, but for aught I know' I may be mad myself” (these 
last words, unhappily, were prescient). 

Such admonitions were not new' to The Prophet. His relatives and friends had 
ever implored him, if he felt called to improve mankind, to look around him at 
home: the lot of the Canadian Indians, or even of the Canadians, might be 
bettered. To a man who held the key to divine revelation advice of this kind was 
sacrilegious, and Monk, by way of various pamphlets, came at length to the idea 


of a “Palestine Restoration Fund”. For this he borrowed a notion of Raskin's, 


originally devised to help Ruskin's own country; namely, that wealthy folk 
should forfeit a tithe of their incomes for the purpose of reclaiming English 
wastelands. Monk decided that the tithe should serve a better object: the 
“return”! 


By this time (1875) Ruskin was once more unnerved, first by the death of Rose 
La Touche and next by the apparent imminence of one more distant war (this 
time a British-Russian one). Clearly The Prophet was right after all; the “day of 
troubles” was come. Ruskin signed Monk's manifesto and dedicated a tenth of 
his income to The Prophet's fund for the purchase of Palestine from the Sultan 
while the English wastelands stayed unreclaimed. When this was achieved, a 
congress of all nations was to set up a federation of the world in Jerusalem. 

The Prophet, thus propped on his feet again, was further helped by Laurence 
Oliphant, a lion of the Victorian drawing rooms whom he had by chance met 
when he made his way about America, hobo-fashion. Oliphant was a man of 
different type, a bold, cynical venturer, or adventurer. 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 7 know why they are so anxious for the latter event, hut it makes the commercial 
speculation easy ”. Oliphant, as will be seen, did not trouble to hide his disdain for 
The Prophet's message.* 

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 


*Oliphant touched on an interesting point. One interpretation of the numerous prophecies is that the end of the 
world will follow the ''return” of the Jews to Palestine, so that the folk who promote this migration presume even to 
determine the moment when Jehovah shall bring the planet to an end. The mystification expressed by Oliphant was 
felt by 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”. 


189 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


hand and joined with Monk in issuing a manifesto which anticipated the Zionist- 
ruled world-government schemes of this century. It. was headed “The abolition of 
national warfare' 1 , called on all men of goodwill to subscribe a tenth of their 
income to the realization of “the Kingdom of God 11 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. 

That was the finish. Ruskin, approaching his end. rudely refused all further 
part in the fantasy. Oliphant dropped out. The “Bank of Israel 11 came to nothing. 
Samuel Butler showed The Prophet the door. Even Holman Hunt at last 
appealed to him to preach “that there is a God in heaven, who will judge every 
man on earth 11 and to desist from pretending in effect that he, Monk, was God. 
The Jews spoke similarly: one told him. “The land of our forefathers is dead, and 
Palestine is its grave ... to attempt to form a nation from the polyglot people of 
Judaism today would only end in utter failure ”. 

Monk was beyond redemption. In 1884 the Bluecoat boy returned to Ottawa 
for the last time and spent his final years canvassing, pamphleteering, and 
haranguing members of the Canadian House of Commons as they sat, between 
sessions, in their garden by the Ottawa River. They listened to him with amused 
indulgence; sixty years later Canadian Ministers, at Ottawa and New York, were 
to repeat all the things Monk said as the unassailable principles of high policy, 
and no Member would demur. 

Monk's life was wretched and was not redeemed by any true faith or genuine 
mission. This account of it is given to show how false and foolish the great project 
was seen to be, and how misguided the men who took it up, against the 
background of the last century. The fallacy of the whole notion, of Zionism 
leading to the despotic world-government, is instantly displayed when it is 
considered in that setting, with Monk and his friends declaiming from the stage. 
The whole thing then is seen as a picaresque comedy; a farce, not merely because 
it was unsuccessful, but because it was never serious. What was recommended 
could not be seriously entertained because its consequences obviously had not 
been considered and, if calculated, at once were foreseen to be disastrous. 
Against the background of a time when debate was free and opinion, being 
informed, might be brought to bear on the matter, these men strut foolishly, 
leaving only the faint echo of clownish noises in the corridors of time. 

Nevertheless, in the present century the entire vainglorious scheme, 
unchanged, was imported into the life of peoples as a serious and urgent 
undertaking, transcending the needs of nations. Indeed, it was made a sacrosanct 
one, for an unwritten law of heresy was set around it which in effect checked the 
antiseptic force of public discussion, and within this palisade the politicians of the 
West made a morality play out of The Prophet’s claptrap. John Ruskin and 
Holman Hunt, from whatever bourne the Victorian friends of the oppressed may 


190 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


now inhabit, may look down and see the graves of many dead, and the living 
graves of nearly a million fugitives, as the first results of their great plan, now in 
accomplishment. 

Monk, had he lived in this century, would have been qualified for important 
political rank, for support of this cause has become the first condition for 
admission to the high temporal places. His life was spent in pursuing the lure of 
an excessive vanity and in the very year of his death, 1896, the fantasy which led 
him became a political and practical reality, dominating our time. While he went 
his vagrant way between Ottawa, Washington, London and Jerusalem very 
different men, in Russia, built up the real force of Zionism. In 1896 it was 
launched into the lives of the peoples, and its explosive detonations have grown 
louder and more destructive until today even the newspaper scribes commonly 
allude to it as the issue which may set the spark to the third world war. 


191 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 
THE COMING OF ZIONISM 


In the second half of the last century when Communism and Zionism began 
their simultaneous assault on the West, Europe was a place of strong and 
confident states well able to withstand the effects of inner troubles and foreign 
wars. The revolutionary outbreaks of 1848 had been overcome without great 
exertion. Austria-Hungary and France were not much weakened by their 
Prussian defeats in 1866 and 1871; they resumed their national existences, as 
defeated countries for centuries had done, side by side with yesterday's victor, 
and soon were tranquil again. The Balkan peoples, emerging from five centuries 
of Turkish rule also were moving towards prosperity, in the kindlier air of 
national freedom. On the eastern borders of Europe Russia, under the flag of 
Christendom, appeared to be joining in this process of national and individual 


improvement. 

The appearance was deceptive, for the two maggots were in the apple, and 
today's scene shows the result. The eighteen Christian centuries which, despite 
ups and downs showed a total sum of human betterment greater than that of any 
earlier time known to man, were coming either to an end or an interregnum; 
which, we still do not know, though believers have no doubt about the good 
resumption, somewhen. However, one eminent man of that period, from whom 
confidence in the outcome might have been expected, foresaw what was to come 
in our century and thought it would be the end , not a transient Dark Age. 

This was Henry Edward Manning, the English clergyman who was converted 
to Rome, became Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, and, had he accepted 
nomination by his fellow cardinals, might have become Pope. Edmund Burke, 
John Adams and Alexander Hamilton had all perceived the worldwide aims of 
the revolution and foretold its spreading eruptions. Disraeli. Bakunin and 
others, a half-century later, had testified to, and warned against, the Jewish 
usurpation of the revolutionary leadership. Manning joined in these warnings 
but also foresaw the coming of Zionism and the part it would play in the dual 


process. 

Of the revolution he said, ‘The secret societies of the world, the existence of 
which men laugh at and deny in the plenitude of their self-confidence; the secret 
societies are forcing their existence and their reality upon the consciousness of 
those who, until the other day, would not believe that they existed" (1861). He 
expected the full success of Weishaupt's original plan and thought the time in 
which he lived was “the prelude of the anti-Christian period of the final 
dethronement of Christendom, and of the restoration of society without God in 
the world". Today the anti-Christian revolution holds temporal power in half of 
Europe, the Christian cross has been expunged from the flags of all great 
European nations save the British and from those of many small ones, and a 
“society without God" has been set up as a potential world-government, so that 


192 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 

these words of ninety years ago are seen as an impressive forecast part-fulfilled. 

Then (and in this he rose above the other seers) he depicted the part which 
Zionism would play in this process: "Those who have lost faith in the 
Incarnation, such as humanitarians, rationalists and pantheists, may well be 
deceived by any person of great political power and success, who should restore 
the Jews to their own land . . . and there is nothing in the political aspect of the 
world which renders such a combination impossible”. 

Finally, he said that he expected the personal coming of Antichrist in the form 
of a Jew. (In these words he moved from the ground of political calculation, 
where as events have shown he was expert, to that of interpreting prophecy; he 
related Saint Paul's message to the Thessalonians, 2.l.iii-xi, to the coming time, 
saying, "It is a law of Holy Scripture that when persons are prophesied of, 
persons appear’'.) 

Thus, while Europe outwardly appeared to be slowly moving towards an 
improving future on the path which for eighteen centuries had served it well, in 
the Talmudic areas of Russia Zionism joined Communism as the second of the 
two forces which were to intercept that process. Communism was designed to 
subvert the masses; it was the "great popular movement” foreseen by Disraeli, by 
means of which "the secret societies” were to work in unison for the disruption of 
Europe. Zionism set out to subvert rulers at the top. Neither force could have 
moved forward without the other, for rulers of unimpaired authority would have 
checked the revolution as it had been checked in 1848. 

Zionism was essentially the rejoinder of the Talmudic centre in Russia to the 
emancipation of Jews in the West. It was the intimation that they must not 
involve themselves in mankind but must remain apart. 

Never since Babylon had the ruling sect ventured to play this card. It can never 
be played again, if the present attempt ultimately ends in fiasco. For that reason 
the Talmudists ever refrained from playing it, and only did this when 
emancipation confronted them with a vital emergency, the loss of their power 
over Jewry. Indeed, they had always denounced as "false Messiahs” those who 
clamoured that the day of fulfilment was come. Had Sabbatai Zevi, or for that 
matter Cromwell or Napoleon, been able to deliver Palestine to them, they might 
have proclaimed one of these to be the Messiah. On this occasion they 
proclaimed themselves to be the Messiah, and that bold enterprise can hardly be 
repeated. Historically therefore, we are probably moving towards the end of the 
destructive plan, because it obviously cannot be fulfilled, but the present 
generation, and possibly some generations to come, by all the signs have yet a 
heavy price to pay for having encouraged the attempt. 

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, 


193 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


he became the first president of the Zionist state, and he told the entire tale with 
astonishing candour. He shows how, in those remote Talmudic communities 
nearly a hundred years ago, the strategy took shape which in its consequences 
was to catch up, as in a vortex, all peoples of the West. Americans and Britons, 
Germans and Frenchmen, Italians, Poles, Scandinavians, Balts, the Balkanic 
peoples and all others were to be implicated. The lifeblood and treasure of the 
West were to be spent on the promotion of these two complementary purposes 
like water from a running tap. 

Millions, living and dead, were during two wars involved in their furtherance. 
Men now being born inherit a share in the final upheavals to which they must 
inexorably lead. The Jews shared in all that tribulation, in their small proportion 
to the masses affected. Dr. Weizmann’s account enables today’s student to see 
the beginnings of all this; and now this narrative reaches our own time, which 
receives daily shape from what then occurred. 

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. 

Dr. Weizmann dismisses it as small, unrepresentative and "renegade”, and as 
it was swept away it must also disappear from this narrative, which belongs to the 
two other groups. 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 nation-states 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. 

Of these two groups, the Zionist one was clearly the superior in Talmudic 
orthodoxy, as destruction, under The Law, is but a means to the end of 
domination, and the dominant nation is that ordained to be set up in Jerusalem. 
In the households, dispute was fierce. The Communists maintained that Zionism 
would weaken the revolution, which professed to deny "race and creed”; the 
Zionists contended that revolution must lead to the restoration of the chosen 
people, of whom race was the creed. Individual members of these households 
probably believed that the point in dispute was valid, but in fact it was not. 


194 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


Neither of these groups could have taken shape, in those sternly ruled 
communities, against the will of the rabbinate. If the rabbis had given out the 
word that Communism was “transgression” and Zionism “observance” of “the 
statutes and judgments”, there would have been no Communists in the ghettoes, 
only Zionists. 

The ruling sect, looking into the future above the heads of the regimented 
mass, evidently saw that both groups were essential to the end in view; and 
Disraeli, in one of the passages earlier quoted, named the motive. From the 
middle of the last century the story of the revolution is that of Communism and 
Zionism, directed from one source and working to a convergent aim. 

Dr. Weizmann gives an illuminating glimpse of this apparent dissension 
among the members of a conspiratorial, but divided, Jewish household where the 
ultimate shape of the high strategy was not seen and the issue between 
“revolutionary-Comn}unism” and “revolutionary-Zionism” was fiercely 
argued. He quotes his mother, the Jewish matriarch, as saying contentedly that if 
the Communist-revolutionary son were proved right she would be happy in 
Russia, and if the Zionist-revolutionary one were correct, then she would be 
happy in Palestine. In the outcome both were by their lights proved right; after 
spending some years in Bolshevized Moscow she went to end her days in 
Zionized Palestine. That was after the two conspiracies, having grown in secrecy 
side by side, triumphed in the same week of 1917. 

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 Chihath 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 


195 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 
count rvk 11 

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 1 our own interpretation 11 . He 
said, “There is an inexorable and inescapable conflict between humans known as 
Jews and other humans 11 , and he described the master-method to be used to bring 
about this “self-emancipation 11 and to “restore the Jewish nation 11 : the struggle 
to achieve these ends, he said, “must he entered upon in such a spirit as to exert an 
irresistible pressure upon the international polities of the present". 

These words of 1882 are some of the most significant in this entire story. They 
show foreknowledge of the highest order, as the reader may discern if he try to 
picture, say, some Polish or Ukrainian patriot-in-exile talking, then or now, of 
“exerting irresistible pressure upon international politics 11 . The political emigre is 
a sad man of hope deferred, an habitue of the Cafe des Exiles who is usually 
thankful if the second secretary of an Under Secretary of State deigns to spare 
him half an hour. Pinsker was an obscure Jewish emigre 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 11 , 
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 11 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 11 , as he says. Then, at various universities in the emancipated West he 
continued his “open fight 11 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-revoluionaries 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 11 . 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 


196 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


be led back to the land of our fathers and the Jewish State be restored must be 
dropped out of them”. 

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. 

The warning to them came in 1896, the year of Prophet Monk’s death, when 
Theodor Herzl published The Jewish State. With that, the cat was in their 
dovecot, and not very long afterwards the doves were in the cat. Their ranks were 
split, for this Theodor Herzl was not one of the Eastern Jews, not a Jew from 
Russia. He was one of themselves, or at all events they held him to be one. He 
appeared to be the very model of an emancipated Western Jew, yet he was on the 
side of the Zionists. A premonitory tremor ran through Jewry. Christendom, 
which had as much cause to be perturbed, remained blissfully unaware for 
another sixty years. 


197 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 
THE WORLD ZIONIST ORGANIZATION 


If mere chance, ever and again, produces men like Karl Marx and Dr. Theodor 
Herzl at moments when their acts can lead to destructive consequences out of 
proportion to their own importance, then chance in the past century has been 
enlisted in the conspiracy against the West. The likelier explanation is that a 
higher command was already in charge of these events and that it chose, or at all 
events used Herzl for the part he played. The brevity of his course across the 
firmament (like that of a shooting star), the disdainful way in which when his task 
was done he was cast aside, and his unhappy end would all support that 
explanation. 

Those who have known Vienna and its atmosphere in our century will 
understand Herzl and his effect. A declining monarchy and a tottering nobility: a 
class of Jews rising suddenly and swiftly to the highest places; these things made 
great impression among the Jewish masses. Dr. Herzl, rather than the Neue Freie 
Presse, now told them how went the world and instructed politicians what to do. 
Obsequious Obers in the chattering cafes hastened to serve 4k Herr Doktor!” It 
was all new, exciting. Self-importance filled the Herzl’s and de Blowitz’s of that 
time and when Dr. Herzl emerged as the self-proclaimed herald of Zion the 
Western Jews were left awed and uncertain. If Dr. Herzl could talk like this to the 


Great Powers, perhaps he was right and the Napoleonic Sanhedrin had been 
wrong! 

Could it be true that policy was made in Dr. Herzl’s office, not in the 
Ballhausplatz? Had a Jew from Russia written The Jewish State, or attempted to 
set up a World Zionist Organization, the Western Jews would have ignored him, 
for they feared the conspiracy from the East and at least suspected its 
implications. But if Dr. Herzl, a fully emancipated Western Jew, thought that 
Jews must re-segregate themselves, the matter was becoming serious. 

Herzl asserted that the Dreyfus case had convinced him of the reality of 
“antisemitism”. The term was then of fairly recent coinage, though Dr. Kastein 
seeks to show that the state of mind denoted by it is immemorial by saying “it has 
existed from the time that Judaism came into contact with other peoples in 
something more than neighbourly hostility”. (By this definition resistance in war 


is “antisemitism”, and the “neighbours” in the tribal warfare of antique times, to 


which he refers, were themselves Semites. However, the words “contact 


exceeding neighbourly hostility” offer a good example of Zionist pilpulism.) 

Anyway, Dr. Herzl stated that “the Dreyfus process made me a Zionist”, and 
the words are as empty as Mr. Lloyd George’s later ones, “Acetone converted me 
to Zionism” (which were demonstrably untrue). 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 


198 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 /^justice. If the case for or against 
Zionism stood or fell by the Dreyfus case, the word should have disappeared 
from history at that point. 

Nevertheless Dr. Herzl demanded that “the sovereignty he granted us over a 
portion of the globe large enough to satisfy the rightful requirements of a nation ” 
(he specified no particular territory and did not especially lean towards 
Palestine). For the first time the idea of resurrecting a Jewish state came under 
lively discussion among Western Jews.* The London Jewish Chronicle described 
the book as "one of the most astounding pronouncements which have ever been 
put forward". Herzl, thus encouraged, went to London, then the focus of power, 
to canvass his idea. After successful meetings in London’s East End he decided to 
call a Congress of Jews in support of it. 

Consequently, 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, hut apparently it was dismissed with little or no consideration. 


199 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


life in the unemancipated nations was to remain compressed so that the self¬ 
generating processes of emancipation and integration could not come into play”. 

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. 


Thus ended the century of emancipation, which began with such bright 
prospect of common involvement, and the prescient words of Mr. Houston 
Stewart Chamberlain (written just before Dr. Herzl's congress met at Basel) at 
once became truth and living reality. Looking back on Gottfried von Herder's 
words of a hundred years before, “The ruder nations of Europe are willing slaves 
of Jewish usury”, Chamberlain wrote that during the 19th Century “a great 
change has taken place. . . today Herder could say the same of by far the greatest 


200 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


part of our civilized world . . . 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'’. 

With the formation of the World Zionist Organization, which the great 
governments of the West were to treat, in effect, as an authority superior to 
themselves, the burning subject began to mould the entire shape of events. That it 
affected “the future of the world” is plainly seen 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. 


201 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZTON 


THE HERESY OF DR. HERZL 

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 (and it was to be the death of him, as of some 
others who followed him on that path). He had launched it among the affairs of 
the West like a Chinese cracker. Yet he was an insubstantial shadow, the product 
of the cafes, of Sac her Torte and Kaffee nut Schlagsahne. 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 18X2 by “exerting irresistible pressure upon the 
international politics of the present”. 

Herzl, the Budapest-born Viennese journalist, began a triumphal tour of the 
great capitals; he was launched on a glittering flight, as from trapeze to trapeze, 
through the haut monde. Emperors, potentates and statesmen received him as the 
spokesman of all the Jews and the contrast between what they thought and what 
he must have known is impressive for, as his first lieutenant. Max Nordau, said 
after his death, “Our people had a Herzl but Herzl never had a people”; the 
Talmudic rabbinate in the East, which scorned this false Messiah, stood between 
him and any mass following. 

The world in which he moved seemed firm and well founded. The Widow at 
Windsor and the Old Gentleman at Schoenbrunn were beloved by their peoples; 
the Young Man in Berlin was growing older and mellowing; the Czar was still the 
father of his people; men's right to process of law was everywhere being asserted; 
gradually industrial serfdom was giving way to better conditions. But everywhere 
the rulers and politicians knew and feared the danger that this process, calculably 
good if given time, would be arrested and destroyed by the world-revolution, for 
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 


202 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 hound join the revolutionary parties ”. 

Then in Russia he was received by the Czar himself, to whom he spoke in 
similar terms. About this time the third World 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. 

At this point the present narrative enters the most secret and jealously guarded 
held 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. 

All experienced observers know of the existence of this force at the highest level 

203 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


of international affairs. The Zionist propagandists pretend that Jewish 
opposition to Zionism came only from “Jewish notables”, “Jewish magnates” 
and “rich Jews” (these phrases repeatedly recur, for instance in Dr. WeizmamYs 
book). In fact the division in Judaism was vertical, among rich and poor alike, 
and though 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. 


Dr. Kastein says that the “executive” set up by the 197 men at Basel “was the 
first embodiment of a real Jewish international ”. In other words, something that 
already existed received a visible expression. A “Jewish international” was 
already in being and this was powerful enough to command royal, princely and 
ministerial audiences for Dr. Herzl everywhere. 

Of this international “network” of like-thinking men at the highest level, in Dr. 
Herzfs day, the student may only make a picture by carefully piecing together 
significant glimpses and fragments (its existence and concerted actions in our 
time are plainly demonstrable, as this book in its later chapters will show, from 
the growing mass of literature). For instance. Dr. Weizmann says he told Dr. 
Herzl that Sir Francis Monteliore (a leading Jew in England) was “a fool”, 
whereon Herzl answered, “He opens kingly portals to me”. Again, one Baron de 
Hirsch was Herzl's chief financial backer and supporter. Of this Baron de Hirsch 
Count Carl Fonyay (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 HirsclTs friendship 
with the future king: “where Hirsch had been an intimate, Cassell was to become 
Edward VIPs closest personal friend”. He was indeed the last of the king's 
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 


204 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 hound 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 
inf uenee the political decisions of a score of countries". 

“Ties of race and interest . . . web . . . netw ork . . . 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 w rote 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. HerzPs 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 figyre 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 Jew ish cities wais the object 
of Messianic ovations from the unenlightened masses. On this occasion he 
sought to persaude 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 


205 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 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 direly 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. 

Dr. Weizmann describes Dr. Herzfs final humiliation. After the vote Herzl 


206 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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. The 
student comes to feel that in this matter he approaches mysterious things, closed 
to all ordinary research. 

The curious thing is that Herzfs intimate, right-hand man and leading orator 
saw the shape of things, at that time and to come, with complete clarity. He 
displayed a foreknowledge as great as that of Leon Pinsker when he depicted the 


series of events to which Pinsker’s ■’irresistible pressure on international politics” 


would lead. At the very congress where Herzl suffered his humiliation Max 


Nordau (an alias or pseudonym; his name was Suedfeld) gave this exact 


prognosis: 

’'Let me tell you the following words as if I were showing you the rungs of a 
ladder leading upward and upward: Herzl, the Zionist congress, the English 
Uganda proposition, the future world war, the peace conference where, with the 
help of England, a free and Jewish Palestine will he created ” (1903). Here spoke 
the initiate, the illuminate, the man who knew the strength and purpose of"the 
international”. (Max Nordau helped the process, the course of which he foretold, 
by writing such best-sellers of the 1890’s as Degeneration, in which he told the 
West that it was irredeemably corrupt). Even Max Nordau did not spell out his 
conclusion to its logical end. Another delegate did that. Dr. Nahum Sokoloff, 
who said: “ Jerusalem will one day become the capital of world peace”. That the 
ambition is to make it the capital of the world is clear in 1956, when the Western 
governments stand in daily fear of its annexation to the Zionist state; whether 
mankind would find it to be the capital of peace remains to be seen. 

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. 


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 


207 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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. Hcrzl 
suggest that they would 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 Jew's 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 k 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\ 


What the masses of people wanted, Jewish or Gentile, was from 1903 of no 
account. Acceptance or refusal made no difference; the offer had been made, and 
by it the West and its future were involved in an enterprise foreseeably disastrous. 
As Dr. Weizmann says, a British government by this act committed itself to 
recognize the Talmudists from Russia as the government of all Jews; thereby it 
also committed future generations of its people, and the similar commitment of 
the American people was to follow a decade later, when the path had been 
prepared. 

Out of that act of 1903 came the beginning of this century's tribulations. The 
story of Zion thereafter became that of Western politicians who, under 
“irresistible pressure", did the bidding of a powerful sect. 1903 was the 
conspiracy's triumphant year, and for the West it was to prove as ominous as 
1914 and 1939, which years both took their shape under its shadow. 


208 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


THE “PROTOCOLS” 

While Zionism thus took shape in the Eastern ghettoes during the last century 
and at the start of this one emerged as a new force in international affairs (when 
the British Government offered it Uganda), the world-revolution, in those same 
Talmudic areas, prepared its third “eruption”. The two forces moved forward 
together in synchronization (for 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). It was as if twin turbines began to revolve, generating 
what was in effect one force, from which the new century was to receive galvanic 
shocks. 

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. 

These works propagated or exposed the destructive plan in various ways, 
sometimes allegorical, but always recognizable if .compared with the original, 
Weishaupt’s documents. In 1859 Cretineau Joly assailed Jewish Leadership of 
“the secret societies”. His book reproduced documents (communicated to him 
by Pope Gregory XVI) of the Italian secret society, the Haute Vente Romaine; 
their authenticity is beyond question. The Haute Vente Romaine was headed by 
an Italian prince who had been initiated by one of Weishaupt’s own intimates 
(Knigge) and was a reincarnation of the Illuminati. The outer circle of initiates, 
the dupes, were persuaded that “the object of the association is something high 
and noble, that it is the Order of those who desire a purer morality and a stronger 
piety, the independence and unity of their country”. Those who graduated into 
the inner degrees progressively learned the real aims and swore to destroy all 
religion and legitimate government; then they received the secrets of 
assassination, poison and perjury first disclosed by Weishaupt’s documents. 

In 1862 Karl Marx (whose Communist Manifesto is recognizably Illuminist) 
founded his First International, and Bakunin formed his Alliance Sociale 
Dcmocratique (the programme of which, as Mrs. Nesta Webster has shown by 


209 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 

quoting correlative passages, was Illuminism undiluted). In the same year 
Maurice Joly published an attack on Napoleon III, to whom he attributed the 
identical methods of corrupting and ruining the social system (this book was 
written in allegorical form). In 1868 the German Goedsche reproduced the same 
ideas in the form of an attack on Jewish leadership of the revolution, and in 1869 
the French Catholic and Royalist Gougenot Des Mousseaux took up the same 
theme. In that year Bakunin also published his Polemic Against The Jews. 

In all these works, in one form or another, the continuity of the basic idea first 
revealed by Weishaupt’s documents appears: namely, that of destroying all 
legitimate government, religion and nationhood and setting up a universal 
despotism to rule the enslaved masses by terror and violence. Some of them 
assailed the Jewish usurpation of, or succession to the leadership of the 
revolution. 

After that came a pause in the published literature of the conspiracy first 
disclosed in 1787, until 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. 
Great interest would attach to anything that could be elicited about Nilus and his 
book, which has never been translated; the mystery with which he and it have 
been surrounded impedes research. One chapter was translated into English in 
1920. This calls for mention here because the original publication occurred in 
1905, although the violent uproar only began when it appeared in English in 
1920. 

This one chapter was published in England and America as “The Protocols of 
the Learned Elders of Zion 1 ’; I cannot learn whether this was the original chapter 
heading or whether it was provided during translation. No proof is given that the 
document is what it purports to be, a minute of a secret meeting of Jewish 
“Elders’”. In that respect, therefore, it is valueless. 

In every other respect it is of inestimable importance, for it is shown by the 
conclusive test (that of subsequent events) to be an authentic document of the 
world-conspiracy first disclosed by Weishaupt’s papers. Many other documents 
in the same series had followed that first revelation, as I have shown, but this one 
transcends all of them. The others were fragmentary and gave glimpses; this one 
gives the entire picture of the conspiracy, motive, method and objective. It adds 
nothing new to what had been revealed in parts (save for the unproven, 
attribution to Jewish elders themselves ), but it puts all the parts in place and 
exposes the whole. 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. 

It is informed by a mass of knowledge (particularly of human weaknesses) 
which can only have sprung from the accumulated experience and continuing 


210 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


study of centuries, or of ages. It is written in a tone of lofty superiority, as by 
beings perched on some Olympian pinnacle of sardonic and ancient wisdom, and 
of mocking scorn for the writhing masses far below (“the mob” . . . “alcoholized 
animals”. . .“cattle”. . . “bloodthirsty beasts”) who vainly struggle to elude the 
“nippers” which are closing on them; these nippers are “the power of gold” and 
the brute force of the mob, incited to destroy its only protectors and consequently 
itself. 

The destructive idea is presented in the form of a scientific theory, almost of an 
exact science,.argued with gusto and eloquence. In studying the Protocols I am 
constantly reminded of something that caught my eye in Disraeli's dictum, earlier 
quoted. Disraeli, who was careful in the choice of words, spoke of “the 
destructive principle ” (not idea, scheme, notion, plan, plot or the like), and the 
Protocols elevate the theory of destruction to this status of “a fundamental truth, 
a primary or basic law, a governing law of conduct” (to quote various dictionary 
definitions of “principle”). In many passages the Protocols appear, at first sight, 
to recommend destruction as a thing virtuous in itself, and consequently 
justifying all the methods explicitly recommended to promote it (bribery, 
blackmail, corruption, subversion, sedition, mob-incitement, terror and 
violence), which thus become virtuous too. 

But careful scrutiny shows that this is not the case. In fact the argument 
presented begins at the end, world power, and goes backward through the means, 
which are advocated simply as the best ones to that end. The end is that first 
revealed in Weishaupt’s documents, and it is apparent that both spring from a 
much earlier source, although the Protocols, in time, stand to the Weishaupt 
papers as grandson to grandsire. The final aim is the destruction of all religion 
and nationhood and the establishment of the super State, ruling the world by 
ruthless terror. 

When the Protocols appeared in English the minor point, who was the author 
of this particular document, was given a false semblance of major importance by 
the enraged Jewish attack on the document itself. The asseveration of Jewish 
leadership of the revolutionary conspiracy was not new at all; the reader has seen 
that Disraeli, Bakunin and many others earlier affirmed it. In this case the 
allegation about a specific meeting of Jewish leaders of the conspiracy was 
unsupported and could have been ignored (in 1913 a somewhat similar 
publication accused the Jesuits of instigating a world-conspiracy resembling that 
depicted alike in the Protocols and in Weishaupt's papers; the Jesuits quietly 
remarked that this was false and the matter was forgotten). 

The response of official Jewry in 1920 and afterwards was different. It was 
aimed, with fury, at the entire substance of the Protocols; it did not stop at 
denying a Jewish plot, but denied that there was any plot, which was 
demonstrably untrue. The existence of the conspiracy had been recognized and 
affirmed by a long chain of high authorities, from Edmund Burke, George 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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. 

This attack was the repetition of the one which silenced those earlier leaders of 
the public demand for investigation and remedy, Robison, Barruel and Morse, 
but on this occasion it was a Jewish attack. Those three men made no imputation 
of Jewish leadership, and they were defamed solely because they drew public 
attention to the continuing nature of the conspiracy and to the fact that the 
French revolution was clearly but its first “eruption". 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. 

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 first reaction was the natural one. The Protocols were received as 


formidable evidence of an international conspiracy against religion, nationhood, 
legitimate government and property. All agreed that the attribution to Jewish 
authorship was unsupported, but that the subject matter was so grave, and so 
strongly supported by events subsequent to the original publication, that full 
enquiry was needed. This remedy, “investigation", was the one advocated by 
many leading men 120 years earlier. In this instance the attack was in effect again 
on the demand for investigation , not simply on the allegation against “the Elders 
of Zion". 


The Times (of London) on May 8, 1920 in a long article said, “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?" The Morning Post (then the oldest and 


212 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 

soberest British newspaper) published twenty-three articles, also calling for 
investigation. 

In The Speetator on August 27, 1921, Lord Sydenham, a foremost authority of 
that day, also urged investigation: “The main point is, of course, the sou rce 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 k mystery\ if it is one, is to be 
found where this uncanny knowledge, on whieh 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 
persauded 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 


213 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 agita ting 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 . . .” 

Such is the history of the Protocols thus far. Their attribution to Jewish 
“Elders” is unsupported and should be rejected, without prejudice to any other 
evidence about Jewish leadership of the world-revolution as such. The Jewish 
attack on them was bent, not on exculpating Jewry, but on stopping the 
publication on the plea that it was “agitating the public mind without occasion or 
justification”. The arguments advanced were bogus; they were that the Protocols 
closely resembled several earlier publications and thus were “plagiaries” or 
“forgeries”, whereas what this in truth showed was the obvious thing: that they 
were part of the continuing literature of the conspiracy. They might equally well 
be the product of non-Jewish or of anti-Jewish revolutionaries, and that is of 
secondary importance. What they proved is that the organization first revealed by 
Weishaupt’s documents was in existence 120 years later, and was still using the 
methods and pursuing the aim then exposed; and when they were published in 
English the Bolshevik revolution had given the proof. 

In my opinion the Protocols provide the essential handbook for students of the 
time and subject. If Lord Sydenham, in 1921, was arrested by the “uncanny 
knowledge” they displayed, “on which prophecies now literally fulfilled are 
based”, how much more would he be impressed today, in 1956, when much more 
of them has been as literally fulfilled. Through this book any man can see how the 
upheavals of the past 150 years were, and how those of the next fifty years will be 
brought about; he will know in advance just how “the deeds” of his elected 
representatives will differ from their “word”. 

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 


214 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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. 

Comparative study of the Protocols and of the Weishaupt papers leads to the 
strong deduction that both derive from a common and much older source. They 
cannot have been the product of any one man or one group of men in the period 
when they were published; the “uncanny knowledge” displayed in them 
obviously rests on the cumulative experience of eras. In particular, this 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). 

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 


215 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


they 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' 1 . 

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' 1 and used emergency powers in the name of “the welfare of peoples . . . 
international brotherhood . . . equality of rights 11 . Moreover, these premier- 
dictators, in both wars, did tell the peoples that the ultimate end of all this would 
be “unification 11 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 11 deserves much thought. 

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 11 , therefore, again seems to have inspired the statement, made in 1905 
or earlier , “Ever since that time 11 (the French Revolution) “we have been leading 
the peoples from one disenehantment to another \ followed later by this: “By these 
acts all States are in torture; they exhort to tranquility, are ready to sacrifice 
everything for peace; but w e will not give them peaee until they openly aeknowledge 
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 11 accrued to, and 
only to, Zionism and Communism; Zionism received its resident State and 


Communism received half of Europe. The “deadly accuracy" (Ford 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 


216 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 

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 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 obedienee, 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”. 

The reader may judge for himself whether this description fits some of “the 
administrators” of the West in the last five decades; the test is their attitude 
towards Zionism, the world-revolution and world-government, and subsequent 
chapters will offer information in these three respects. But “deadly accuracy” 
appears to reside even more in the allusion to “advisers”. 

Here again is “uncanny knowledge”, displayed more than fifty years ago. In 
1905 the non-elected but powerful “adviser” was publicly unknown. True, the 
enlightened few, men like Disraeli, knew that “the world is governed by very 
different persons from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes”, 
but to the general public the passage would have been meaningless. 

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 kftow 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 


217 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


legions w ho bore our banners with enthusiasm. And all the time these w ords 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 mastercard, 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 know ledge . . . 
It is this possibility of replacing the represen taives 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 lighting 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 1 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 . . A 
A . . 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 anyw here 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 


218 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 Super- 
Government. In place of the rulers of today we shall set up a bogey which will be 
called the Super-Government 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”. 

That the Protocols reveal the common source of inspiration of Zionism and 
Communism is shown by significant parallels that can be drawn between the two 
chief methods laid down in them and the chief methods pursued by Dr. Herzl and 
Karl Marx: 

The Protocols repeatedly lay emphasis on the incitement of “the mob” against 
the ruling class as the most effective means of destroying States and nations and 
achieving world dominion. Dr. Herzl. as was shown in the preceding chapter, 
used precisely this method to gain the ear of European rulers. 

Next, Karl Marx. 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 . . .” 

Karl Marx in his Communist Manifesto exactly followed this formula. True he 
declared that Communism might be summed up in one sentence, “abolition of 
private property”, but subsequently he qualified this dictum by restricting actual 
confiscation to land and implying that other types of private property were to 
remain intact. (In the later Marxist event, of course, all private property was 
confiscated, but I speak here of the strict parallel between the strategy laid down 
before the event alike by the Protocols and Marx). 

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 anti-semitism 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 


219 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 “anti-semitic" 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 
tranquility, are ready to sacrifice everything for peace; but we will not give them 
peace until they openly acknowledge our international Super-Government, and 
\vith submissiveness ". 

The allusions to the permeation of universities in particular, and of education 
in general, also spring directly from Weishaupt, or from whatever earlier source 
he received them: “. . . We shall emasculate the universities . . . Their officials 
and professors will be prepared for their business by detailed secret programmes 
of action from which they will not with immunity diverge, not by one iota. They 
will be appointed with especial precaution, and will be so placed as to be wholly 
dependent upon the Government". This secret permeation of universities (which 
was successful in the German ones in Weishaupt's day, as his documents show) 
was very largely effective in our generation. The two British government officials 
who after their flight to Moscow were paraded before the international press in 
1956 to state that they had been captured by Communism at their universities, 
were typical products of this method, described by the Protocols early in this 
century and by Weishaupt in 1787. 

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" who, 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 

220 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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”. 

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 
responsbility 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”. 

During the First and Second World Wars the American presidents did in fact 
become “premier-dictators” 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”. 


221 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


This forecast of 1905 or earlier particularly deserves Lord Sydenharrfs tribute 
of “deadly accuracy". American presidents in the two wars of this century have 
acted as here show n. 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. 

So 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", “Witch-hunting", “McCarthyism" and the 
like). In the Super-State to come the obligation will fall on members of one family 
to denounce dissidents 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. 

Only the denouement remains, fiasco or fulfilment. It is a grandiose plan, and 


222 



THE CONTROVERSY OE ZION 


in my estimation cannot succeed. But it has existed for at least 180 years and 
probably for much longer, and the Protocols provided one more proof in a chain 
of proofs that has since been greatly lengthened. 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. Either will be destructive for a time, and hard for those of 


the time in which the denouement comes. 


223 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


THE ABERRATION OF MR. BALFOUR 


As the first decade of the 20th Century grew older the signs of the coming 
storms multiplied. In 1903 the British Government had offered Uganda to 
Zionism and Max Nordau had publicly foretold “the future world war”, in the 
sequence to which England would procure Palestine for Zionism. In 1905 the 
Protocols prophetically revealed the destructive orgy of Communism. Then in 
1906 one Mr. Arthur James Balfour, Prime Minister of England, met Dr. 
Weizmann in a hotel room and was captivated by the notion of presenting 
Palestine, which was not his to give, to “the Jews”. 

The shape which “the future world war” would take was then determined. Mr. 
Balfour stood guard over the new century and yielded the pass. A different man, 
in his place, might have saved it; or another might have done the same, for by 
1906 the hidden mechanism for exerting “irresistible pressure on the 
international affairs of the present” (Leon Pinsker, 1882) had evidently been 
perfected. Rabbi Elmer Berger says of that time, “that group of Jews which 
committed itself to Zionism . . . entered a peripatetic kind of diplomacy which 
took it into many chancelleries and parliaments, exploring the labyrinthine and 
devious ways of international politics in a part of the world where political 
intrigue and secret deals were a byword. Jews began to play the game oCpractical 
politics’.” The era of the malleable “administrators” and compliant “premier- 
dictators”, all furthering the great plan, was beginning. Therefore any other 
politician, put in Mr. Balfour’s place at that time, might have acted similarly. 
However, his name attaches to the initial misdeed. 

His actions are almost unaccountable in a man of such birth, training and type. 
Research cannot discover evidence of any other motive than an infatuation, of 
the “liberal” sort, for an enterprise which he did not even examine in the light of 
duty and wisdom. “Hard-boiled” considerations of “practical politics” (that is, a 
cold calculation that money or votes might be gained by supporting Zionism) can 
hardly be suspected in him. He and his colleagues belonged to the oldest families 
of England, which carried on a long tradition of public service. Statesmanship 
was in their blood; understanding of government and knowledge of foreign 
affairs were instinctive in them; they represented the most successful ruling class 
in recorded history; and they were wealthy. 

Why, then, did instinct, tradition and wisdom suddenly desert them in this one 
question, at the moment when their Conservative Party, in its old form, for the 
last time governed England, and their families still guided the country’s fortunes 
from great houses in Piccadilly and Mayfair and from country abbeys? Were they 
alarmed by the menace that “the mob” would be incited against them if they did 
not comply? They realized that birth and privilege alone would not continue to 
qualify for the function of governing. The world had changed much in the 
century before, and they knew that the process would go on. In the British 


224 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


tradition they worked to ersure continuity, unbroken by violence and eased by 
conciliation. They were too wise to resist change; they aimed at guiding change. 
Perhaps they were too eager on that account to shake hands with Progress, when 
it knocked, without examining the emissaries’ credentials. 

Mr. Balfour, their leader, was a tall, aloof and scholarly bachelor, impassive 
and pessimistic; he was of chilly mien but his intimates contend that his heart was 
warm. His middle-aged love affair with Zionism migh be a symptom of unwilling 
celibacy. In youth he delayed asking his ladylove until she become affianced to 
another; before they could marry her lover died; and as Mr. Balfour was about to 
make good his earlier tardiness she died. He then resolved to remain unmarried. 

Women may not be good judges of a distinguished bachelor who wears a 
broken heart on his sleeve, but many of the contemporary comments about him 
come from women, and 1 quote the opinions of two of the most beautiful women 
of that day. Consuelo Vanderbilt (ah American, later the Duchess of 
Marlborough) wrote, “The opinions he expressed and the doctrines he held 
seemed to be the products of pure logie ... he was gifted with a breadth of 
comprehension I have never seen equalled”; and Lady Cynthia Asquith said, “As 
for his being devoid of moral indignation, I often saw him white with anger; any 
personal injustice enraged him”. 

The italicised words could not more completely misportray Mr. Balfour, if the 
result of his actions is any test. The one thought-process which cannot have 
guided him, in pledging his country to ZionUm, was logic, for no logical good 
could come of this for any of the parties concerned, his own country, the native 
inhabitants of Palestine, or (in my opinion) the mass of Jews, who had no 
intention of going there. As for injustice (unless Lady Cynthia intended to 
distinguish between “personal” and mass injustice), the million innocent beings 
who today have been driven into the Arabian wilderness (in the manner of the 
Levitical “scapegoat”) offer the obvious answer. 

Anyway, there he was. Prime Minister of England, having succeeded “dear 
Uncle Robert” (Lord Salisbury, of the great house of Cecil) in 1902. Clearly he 
cannot at that instant have conceived, from nowhere, the notion of giving 
Uganda to the Zionists, so that “irresistible pressure” must have been at work 
before he took office. What went on in that earlier period is all mystery or, in 
truth, conspiracy (“labyrinthine intrigue”). When he became prime minister the 
mine was already laid, and to the end of his days Mr. Balfour apparently never 
realized that it was the mine of which all are today aware. 

Dr. Herzl, despairing of the Czar, the Kaiser and the Sultan (the three 
potentates had been amiable but prudent and non-committal; they knew, what 
Mr. Balfour never learned, that Zionism was dynamite*) had declared: 
“England, great England, free England, England commanding the seas will 
understand our aims” (the reader will perceive for what purpose, in this view, 

*See footnote on page 226 


225 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


England had become great, free, and commander of the seas). When the Uganda 
offer showed the Talmudic directorate in Russia that Dr. Hcrzl was wrong in 
thinking that England would "understand" their needs, Dr. Weizmann was sent 
to London. He was preparing to overthrow Dr. Herzl and now becomes our chief 
witness to the hidden events of that time. 

A young Englishman, with some modest petition, would have great trouble 
even today in penetrating the janitorial and secretarial defences of a Cabinet 
minister's private room. Young Dr. Weizmann from Russia, who wanted 
Palestine, was quickly ushered into that of Lord Percy ("in charge of African 
affairs"). 

Lord Percy was another scion of a great ruling family with an ancient tradition 
of public service and wise administration. According to Dr. Weizmann, he 
"expressed boundless astonishment that the Jews should ever so much as have 
considered the Uganda proposal, which he regarded as impractical on the one 
hand, and, on the other, a denial of the Jewish religion. Himself deeply religious, 
he was bewildered by the thought that Jews could even entertain the idea of anv 
other country than Palestine as the centre of their revival: and he was delighted to 
learn from rne that there were so many Jews who had emphatically refused. He 
added. *lf I were a Jew, 1 would not give a halfpenny for the proposition'." 

Presumably Dr. Weizmann did not inform Lord Percy of the unanimous 
longing ol the Jews in Palestine to remove to Uganda. What he had heard, if his 
record is correct, was virtually an invitation to get rid of Dr. Herzl and a promise 
to support the claim to Palestine. He went away to prepare Dr. HerzEs 
discomfiture. He did not go empty-handed. 

Possibly, in the fifty years that have elapsed, British ministers have learned that 
official notepaper should be kept where only those authorized may use it. On 
leaving Lord Percy's room Dr. Weizmann took some Foreign Office notepaper 
and on it wrote a report of the conversation, which he sent to Russia (where, 
under the Romanoffs and the Communist Czars alike, government stationery is 
not left lying around). In Russia, this document, written on offical Foreign Office 
paper, must have aroused feelings akin to those which a holy ikon would cause in 
a moujik. Clearly it meant that the British Government had no further use for Dr. 
Herzl and would procure Palestine for the Zionists in Russia. Lord Percy, in 
today's idiom, had started something. 

All else followed as if arranged by Greek gods: the triumph of the Zionists 
from Russia over Dr. Herzl, his collapse and death, the rejection of the Uganda 
offer. Then Dr. Weizmann moved to England, "the one country which seemed 
likely to show a genuine sympathy for a movement like ours", and where he 

*For that matter, the successors of the Oars were of just the same opinion. Lenin in 1903 wrote, “This Zionist idea 
is entirely false and reactionary in its essence. The idea of a separate Jewish nation, which is utterly untenable 
scienlilicall), is reactionary in its political implications . . . The Jewish question is: assimilation or separateness? 
And the idea of a Jew ish people is manifestly reactionary". And in 191 3 Stalin rea firmed this dictum. The destiny of 
the Jew s, he said, was assimilation (in a Communist world, of course, in this opinion). 


226 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


could “live and work without let or hindrance, at least theoretically ” (any 
compilation of classical understatements might include this passage in first 
place). 

Dr. Weizmann chose Manchester for his residence. He says “by chance' 1 , but 
credulity balks. Manchester held Mr. Balfour's constituency: Manchester was 
the Zionist headquarters in England: the chairman of Mr. Balfour’s party in 
Manchester was a Zionist (today the British Conservative Party is still enmeshed 
in these toils). 

The Greek drama continued. 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 headqua r ters 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. 


To return to Mr. Balfour: his private thoughts were much with Zionism. At no 
time, as far as the annals disclose, did he give thought to the native inhabitants of 
Palestine, whose expulsion into the wilderness he was to cause. By coincidence, 
the election was being mainly fought around the question of the allegedly cruel 
treatment of some humble beings far away (this is an ; istance of the method of 
stirring up the passions of “the mob", recommended by Dr. Herzl and the 
Protocols). The electors knew nothing of Zionism and when they later became 
acquainted with it felt no concern for the menaced Arabs, because that side of the 
matter was not put before them by a press then “submissive". However, in 1906 
their feelings were being inflamed about “Chinese slavery” and (Manchester 
being Manchester) they were highly indignant about it. At that time Chinese 
Coolies were being indentured for three years work in the South African gold 
mines. Those chosen counted themselves fortunate, but for electoral and 


“rabble-rousing" purposes in Manchester this was “slavery" and the battle was 
fought and won on that score. The victorious Liberals forgot “Chinese slavery” 
immediately after the counting of the votes, (and when their turn in office came 
outdid the Conservatives in their enthusiasm for Zionism). 

Thus, while shouts of “Chinese slavery” resounded outside his windows, Mr. 


227 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


Balfour, closeted with a Zionist emissary from Russia, prepared something 
worse than slavery for the Arabs of Palestine. His captivation was complete 
before the interview began, as his niece and lifelong confidante (Mrs. Dugdale) 
shows: “His interest in the subject was whetted ... by the refusal of the Zionist 
Jews to accept the Uganda offer . . . The opposition aroused in him a curiosity 
which he found no means to satisfy ... He had asked his chairman in 
Manchester to fathom the reasons for the Zionist attitude . . . Balfour's interest 
in the Jews and their history . . . originated in the Old Testament training of his 
mother and in his Scottish upbringing. As he grew up his intellectual admiration 
and sympathy for certain aspects of the Jews in the modern world seemed to him 
of immense importance. I remember in childhood imbibing from him the idea 
that Christian religion and civilization owed to Judaism an immeasurable debt, ill 
repaid ”. 

Such was Mr. Balfour’s frame of mind when he received Dr. Weizmann in a 


room of the old Queen’s Hotel in dank and foggy Manchester in 1906. The 
proposition before him, if accepted, meant adding Turkey, in 1906, to England’s 
enemies in any “future world war” and, if Turkey were defeated in it, engaging in 
perpetual warfare thereafter with the Arab world. 

But calculations of national interest, moral principle and statemanship, if the 
above quotations are the test, had deserted Mr. Balfour’s mind. 

He was in the grip of a “whetted” interest and an unsatisfied “curiosity”; it 
sounds like a young girl’s romantic feeling about love. He had not been elected to 
decide what “debt'’ Christianity owed to Judaism, or if he decided that one was 
owing, to effect its repayment, from a third party’s funds, to some canvasser 
professing title to collect. If there were any identifiable debt and any rational 
cause to link his country with it, and he could convince the country of this, he 
might have had a case. Instead, he decided privately that there was a debt, and 
that he was entitled to choose between claimants in favour of a caller from 


Russia, when the mass of Jews in England repudiated any notion of such a debt. 
History does not tell of a stranger thing. 

Dr. Weizmann, forty years later, recorded that the Mr. Balfour whom he met 
“had only the most naive and rudimentary notion of the movement”; he did not 
even know Dr. Herzl’s name, the nearest he could get to it being “Dr. Herz”. Mr. 
Balfour was already carried away by his enthusiasm for the unknown cause. He 
posed formal objections, but apparently only for the pleasure of hearing them 
overborne, as might a girl object to the elopement she secretly desires. He was 
much impressed (as Dr. Weizmann says) when his visitor said, “Mr. Balfour, 
supposing I were to offer you Paris instead of London, would you take it?” “But, 
Dr. Weizmann, we have London”, he answered. Dr. Weizmann retorted, “But 


we had Jerusalem when London was a marsh'’. 


Mr. Balfour apparently felt this to be a conclusive reason why the Ashkenazic 
Jews from Russia should be removed to Palestine. However, the only body of 


228 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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”. 

Mr. Balfour never again questioned the claim of the Zionists from Russia to be 
the right kind of Jew. “It was from that talk with Weizmann that I saw that the 
Jewish form of patriotism was unique. It was Weizmann's absolute refusal even 
to look at it” (the Uganda proposition) “which impressed me”; to these words 
Mrs. Dugdale adds the comment, “The more Balfour thought about Zionism, 
the more his respect for it and his belief in its importance grew. His convictions 
took shape before the defeat of Turkey in the Great War, transforming the whole 
future for the Zionists ”. He also transformed the whole future for the entire West 
and for two generations of its sons. In this hotel-room meeting of 1906 Max 
Nordaifs prophecy of 1903 about the shape of “the future world war” was given 
fulfilment. 

As that war approached, the number of leading public men who privily 
espoused Zionism grew apace. They made themselves in fact co-conspirators, for 
they did not inform the public masses of any intention about Palestine. None 
outside the inner circle of “labyrinthine intrigue” knew that one was in their 
minds and would be carried out in the confusion of a great war, when 
parliamentary and popular scrutiny of acts of State policy wa^ in suspense. The 
secrecy observed stamps the process as a conspiratorial one, originating in 
Russia, and it bore fruit in 1917. 

The next meeting between Dr. Weizmann and Mr. Balfour was on December 
14, 1914*. Then the First World War had just begun. The standing British army 
had been almost wiped out in France, and France itself faced catastrophe, while 
only the British Navy stood between England and the gravest dangers. A war, 
costing Britain and France some three million lives, lay ahead, and the youth of 
Britain was rushing to join in the battle. The great cause was supposed to be that 
of overthrowing “Prussian militarism”, liberating “small nations”, and restoring 
“freedom and democracy”. 

Mr. Balfour was soon to be restored to office. His thoughts, when he met Dr. 
Weizmann again, were apparently far from the great battle in France. His mind 
was not with his country or his people. It was with Zionism and Palestine. He 
began his talk with Dr. Weizmann by saying, “I was thinking about that 
conversation of ours” (in 1906) “and I believe that when the guns stop firing you 
may get your Jerusalem". 

*An instance of the difficulty of eliciting facts in this matter: Mrs. Dugdale quoted Dr. Weizmann as saying, “I did 
not see him again until 1916", but contradicts this statement K y another of her own, "On December 14, 1914, Dr. 
Weizmann had an appointment to see Balfour". This implicit mention of a second meeting on that date appears to 
be confirmed by Dr. Weizmann’s own statement, that after seeing Mr. Lloyd George on December 3, 1914, he 
“followed up at once Lloyd George’s suggestion about seeing Mr. Balfour”. 


229 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


People who lived at that time may recall the moment and see how far from 
anything which they supposed to be at stake were these thoughts of Mr. Balfour. 
In the person of Mr. Balfour the Prophet Monk reappeared, but this time armed 
with power to shape the destiny of nations. Obviously '"irresistible pressure" 
behind the scenes had gained great power and was already most effective in 1914. 

By that time the American people were equally enmeshed in this web of 
"labyrinthine intrigue", hidden from the general view, though they did not 
suspect it. They feared "foreign entanglements"; they washed to keep out of the 
war and had a president who promised he would keep them out of it. In fact, they 


were virtually in it, for "irresistible pressure" 


by that time was working as 


effectively in Washington as in London. 


.T 


230 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


THE AMBITION OF MR. HOUSE 


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-A men can 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. The answer to this question, again, 
was governed by the effect of an earlier war. the American Civil War of 1861- 
1865. The chief consequences of it (little comprehended by the contending 
Northerners and Southerners) was sensibly to change-the nature, first of the 
population, and next of the government of the Republic. 

Before the Civil War the American population was predominantly Irish. 
Scots-lrish, Scottish, British, German and Scandinavian, and from this amalgam 
a disEnctly “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. Thus the 20th 
Century, at its start, threw up the question, w hat part would their leaders acquire 
in the political control of the Republic and of its foreign undertakings. The later 
events showed that the Eastern conspiracy, in both its forms, entered America 
through this mass-immigration. 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. 

The man who first involved America in this process was a Mr. Edward 
Mandell House (popularly known as Colonel House, but he had no military 
service), a Southern gentleman, chiefly of Dutch and English descent, who grew 
up in Texas during the bitter Reconstruction period that followed the Civil War. 
He is a remarkable character in this tale. As other connoisseurs might exult in the 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


taste of rare brandy, he loved the secret exercise of power through others, and 
candidly confided this to his diary. He shunned publicity (says his editor, Mr. 
Charles Seymour) “from a sardonic sense of humour which was tickled by the 
thought that he, unseen and often unsuspected, without great wealth or office, 
merely through the power of personality and good sense, was actually deflecting 
the currents of history Few men have wielded so much power in complete 
irresponsibility: “it is easy enough for one without responsibility to sit down over 
a cigar and a glass of wine and decide what is best to be done”, wrote Mr. House. 

His editor’s choice of words is exact; Mr. House did not guide American State 
policy, but deflected it towards Zionism, the support of the world-revolution, and 
the promotion of the world-government ambition. The fact of his exercise of 
secret power is proven. His motives for exercizing it in those directions are hard to 
discover, for his thoughts (as revealed by his diary and his novel) appear to have 
been so confused and contradictory that no clear picture emerges from them. 

H is immense daily record of his secret reign (the Private Papers) fully exposed 
how he worked. It leaves unanswered the question of what he ultimately wanted, 
or if he even knew what he wanted; as to that, his novel shows only a mind full of 
half-baked demagogic notions, never clearly thought out. The highfalutin 
apostrophe on the flyleaf is typical: “This book is dedicated to the unhappy many 
who have lived and died lacking opportunity, because, in the starting, the 
worldwide social structure was wrongly begun”; apparently this means that Mr. 
House, who held himself to be a religious man, thought poorly of the work of an 
earlier authority, described in the words, “In the beginning God created the 
heaven and the earth”. 

In the search for the origins of Mr. House’s political ideas (which at first were 
akin to Communism; in later life, when the damage was done, he became more 
moderate) the student is cast on significant clues. His editor finds in his early 
thought a note “reminiscent of Louis Blanc and the revolutionaries of1848 With 
this in mind I earlier directed the readers attention to Louis Blanc, the French 
revolutionary who for a moment, in 1848, seemed likely to play Lenin’s part and 
summoned the assembly of workers’ delegates which was an anticipation of the 
1917 Soviets. 

Such notions, in a Texan of the late 19th Century, are as unexpected as 
Buddhism in an Eskimo. Nevertheless, Mr. House in youth acquired these ideas; 
someone had implanted them in him. His middle name, Mandell, was that of “a 
Jewish merchant in Houston, who was one of his father’s most intimate friends; 
the fact that the elder House conferred a Jewish name upon his son indicates the 
family's attitude towards the race ” (Mr. Arthur D. Howden, his biographer). In 
Mr. House’s novel the hero refuses all preferment to go and live in a humble East 
Side room with a Polish Jew, come to America after anti-Jewish disturbances in 
Warsaw caused by the murder there, by “a young Jew, baited beyond 
endurance”, of the son of a high government official. In later life Mr. House’s 


232 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


brother-in-law and counsellor was a Jew, Dr. Sidney Mezes, who was one of the 
initiators of this century’s world-government plan in its earliest form (The 
League to Enforce Peace). 

That is about all that can be elicited about the intellectual atmosphere of Mr. 
House’s mind-formative period. In one of his most revealing passages Mr. House 
himself comments on the suggestion of ideas to others and shows, apparently 
without realizing it, how powerless he ultimately was, who thought himself all- 
powerful: “With the President, as with all other men I sought to influence, it was 
invariably my intention to make him think that ideas he derived from me were his 
own . . . Usually, to tell the truth, the idea was not original with me . . . The most 
difficult thing in the world is to trace any idea to its source . . . We often think an 
idea to be original with ourselves when, in plain truth, it was subconsciously 
absorbed from someone else”. 

He began to learn about politics in Texas when he was only eighteen, then 
discerning during a presidential election (1876) that “two or three men in the 
Senate and two or three in the House and the President himself ran the 
government. The others v^ere merely figureheads . . . Therefore I had no 
ambition to hold office, nor had I any ambition to speak”. (He puts the same idea 
into the mouth of a politician in his novel of 1912; “In Washington ... I found 
that the government was run by a few men; that outside of this little circle no one 
was of much importance. It was my ambition to break into it if possible and my 
ambition now leaped so fai uS to want, not only to be of it, but later, to be IT . . . 
The President asked me to undertake the direction of his campaign ... He was 
overwhelmingly nominated and re-elected . . . and I was now well within the 
charmed circle and within easy reach of my further desire to have no rivals . . . / 
tightened a nearly invisible coil around the people, which held them fast . . .”) 

In that spirit Mr. House entered Texan politics: “I began at the top rather than 
at the bottom ... it has been my habit to put someone else nominally at the head, 
so that I could do the real work undisturbed by the demands which are made on a 
chairman . . . Each chairman of the campaigns which I directed received the 
publicity and the applause of both the press and the people during the campaign 
. . . they passed out of public notice within a few months . . . and yet when the 
next campaign came around, the public and the press as eagerly accepted another 
figurehead”. 

Mr. House used Texas somewhat as a rising actor may use the provinces. He 
was so successful as a party-organizer there that at the turn of the century he was 
the real ruler of the state and sat daily in the office of its governor (appointed by 
Mr. House and long forgotten) at the State Capitol, where he chose State 
senators and congressmen and handled the requests of the many office-holders 
who habitually besiege a State governor. The provincial tour accomplished, he 
prepared to conquer the capital. By 1900 he was “tired of the position I occupied 
in Texas” and was “ready to take part in national affairs”. After further 


233 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


preparation he began, in 1910 as the First World War approached, “ to look about 
for a proper candidate for the Democratic nomination for President ". 

Thus Mr. House, aged fifty, was a president-maker. Until 1 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 elected 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 . . . T 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 savs, 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 1910a 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 


234 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 eause the ohjeet of his very 
speeial eoneern 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. 

The secret of Mr. House's hold over the Democratic Party lay in the strategy 
which he had devised for winning elections. The Democratic party had been out 
of office for nearly fifty unbroken years and he had devised a method which made 
victory almost a mathematical certainty. The Democratic party was in fact to 
owe its victories in 1912 and 1916, as well as President Roosevelt’s and President 


Truman's victories in 1932. 1936, 1940, 1944 and 1948 to the application of Mr. 
House's plan. In this electoral plan, which in its field perhaps deserves the name 
of genius, lies Mr. House's enduring effect on the life of America; his political 
ideas were never clearly formed and were frequently changed, so that he forged 
an instrument whereby the ideas of others were put into effect; the instrument 
itself was brilliantly designed. 

In essence, it was 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. 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 Mande/I House ". 

Before that, Selwyn has devised “a nefarious plan", in concert with one John 


235 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 “Mandell 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 resemlance 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 


236 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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. 

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 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 remainder of the novel ; s unimportant but contains a few other significant 


237 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


things. Its sub-title is “A Story of Tomorrow, 1920-1935". The hero, Philip 
Dru, is a young West Pointer under the influence of Karl Marx, who is elected 
leader of a mass movement by acclamation at an indignation meeting after 
SelwyiVs and Thor’s conspiracy has become known. The manner of this exposure 
is also interesting; Thor has a microphoneconcealed in his room (somethingjittle 
known in 1912 but loday almost as familiar in politics as the Statesman's 
Yearbook) and, forgetting to disconnect it, his “exultant" talk with Selwyn after 
Rockland's election becomes known to his secretary, who gives it to the press; a 
most implausible episode is that the press published it! Then Dru assembles an 
army (armed, apparently by magic, with rifles and artillery), defeats the 
government forces at a single battle, marches on Washington, and proclaims 
himself “Administrator of the Republic". His first major action (and President 
Wilson's) is 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"). 

Dru next attacks Mexico and the Central American Republics, also defeating 
them in one battle and thereafter uniting them under the American flag, which in 
the next chapter becomes also “the undisputed emblem of authority" over 
Canada and the British, French and other possessions in the West Indies. Selwyn 
and Philip Dru are obviously both Mr. House. Selwyn is the superbly efficient 
party-organizer and secret wielder of power; Dru is the muddled “utopian 
dreamer" (the Protocols) who does not know what to do with power when he gets 
it. Inevitably, at the end, Mr. House did not know what to do with two characters 
who were in truth one man, and was compelled to merge them, as it were, by 
making Selwyn, the original villain of the piece, the confidant and bosom 
companion of Dru. After that, equally clearly, he did not know what to do with 
Dru, short of having him chased off by bears. Therefore he put him on a ship 
bound for an unknown destination with Gloria (a love-hungry girl who for fifty 
chapters has had to listen to Dru’s incoherent plans for remoulding the world), 
and concludes: “Happy Gloria! Happy Philip! . . . Where were they bound? 
Would they return? These were the questions asked by all, but to which none 
could give answer". 

In fact hardly anybody can have persisted to the end of this novel, and nobody 
would have cared where Philip and Gloria went, with one exception. There was 
one solitary being in the world for whom the story must have held a meaning as 
terrible and true as Dorian Gray’s portrait for Dorian: Mr. Woodrow Wilson. In 
that respect Philip Drew: Administrator is a unique work. Two questions haunt 
the student. Did Mr. Wilson read it? 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, and the reader becomes aware that 


238 



THE CONTROVERSY OE ZION 


the group of men around Mr. House must have been as malevolent as they are 
depicted to be in the chapter, "The Exultant Conspirators 11 . 

Is it conceivable that Mr. Wilson did not read it? Between his enemies and his 
friends, during an election campaign, someone must have put it in his hands. The 
student of history is bound to wonder whether the perusal of it, either then or 
later, may have caused the mental and physical state into which he soon fell. A 
few contemporary descriptions of him may be given as illustration (although they 
anticipate the chronology of the narrative a little). Mr. House later wrote of the 
man he had "chosen 1 * and had elected ("the only one who in every way measured 
up to the office' 1 ), "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 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 11 . Six yearn 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' 1 (1919)*. 

Apparently a sure way to unhappiness is to receive high office as the 
instrument of others who remain unseen. Mr. Wilson inevitably looks wraithlike 
when contemplated against this record, now unfurled. Mr. House, Rabbi Wise 
and others around him seem to have gazed on him as collectors might on a 
specimen transfixed by a pin. In the circumstances, he must have been guided by 
guesswork, rather than by revelation, when at the age of twenty he decided that 
he would one day be president. This was known and Rabbi Wise once asked him, 
"When did you first think or dream of the presidency? 11 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 11 , so that the rabbi asked sardonically, "Even when you were 
a teacher in a girls 1 college! 11 Mr. Wilson, apparently still oblivious, repeated, 
"There never was a time when I did not expect and prepare myself to become 
president 11 . 

Between Mr. Wilson’s secret "choice 11 by Mr. House in 1910 and his public 


^Strong resemblances occur in contemporary descriptions of Mr. Roosevelt, whom Mi. 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 w ; as "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”. 


239 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


nomination for president in 1912 he was prompted to make public obeisance to 
Zionism; at that point the American people became involved, as the British 
people had in fact been committed by the Uganda offer of 1903. 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. Wfison’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 I I 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 


240 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


this country ten years of inner tranquillity 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). Mr. House reported 
to his brother-in-law, "Never before have I found both the man and the 
opportunity ”. 

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 a ffairs 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 


241 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


breakfast a report of Dr. Herzl's speeeh at the First Zionist Congress and told his 
wife, "There is a cause to which I could give my life”. 

Thus the fuliv 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 re-established in the Fatherland & 
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 retrospeet 
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. 

But between 1911 and 1919 life was delightful for Mr. House. He loved the 
feeling of power for its own sake, and withal was too kind to want to hurt 
Rockland in the White House: 


"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 
ow n. In the nature of things I have thought more on many things than had the 
President, and I had had opportunities to discuss them more widely than he. But 
no man honestly likes to have another man steer his conclusions. We are all a 


little vain on that score. Most human beings are too much guided by personal 
vanity in what they do. It happens that I am not. It does not matter to me who 
gets the credit for an idea I have imparted. The main thing is to get the idea to 
work. Usually, to tell the truth, the idea was not original with me . . .” (and as 
previously quoted, from Mr. Howden). 

Thus someone "steered” Mr. House, who steered Mr. Wilson, to the 


242 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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' 1 ). 
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 and it will reappear in this story. 

With the accession of Mr. Wilson and the group behind his presidential chair, 
the stage was set for the war about to begin. The function of America, in 
promoting the great supernational "design" through that war, was to be 
auxiliary. In that first stage England was cast for the chief part and the major 
objective, control of the British government, had not been fully attained when the 
war began. 

Thus the story now recrosses the Atlantic to England, where Mr. Balfour was 
moving again towards office. The leading men there were still resistant to the 
hidden purpose and plan and were intent on lighting the war, and winning it as 
quickly as possible, in the place where it began. Europe. They had to be brought 
into line it the process foretold by Max Nordau in 1903 was to be accomplished. 
Therefore the resistant men had to be disciplined or removed. 

From 1914 to 1916, then, the story becomes that of the struggle to displace 
these men in England, and to supplant them by others who. like Mr. Wilson, 
would fall into line. 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


THE DECISIVE BATTLE 

The 1914-1918 war was the first war of nations, as distinct from armies; the 
hands that directed it reached into every home in most European, and many non- 
European countries. This was a new thing in the world, but it was foretold by the 
conspirators of Communism and Zionism. 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”. 

If such words were to be fulfilled, and thus to acquire the status of “uncanny 
knowledge” revealed in advance of the event, the conspiracy had to gain control 
of the governments involved so that their acts of State policy, and in consequence 
their military operations, might be diverted to serve the ends of the conspiracy, 
not national interests. 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. The struggle to do this lasted two years and ended in victory for the 
intriguers, whose activities were unknown to the public masses. This battle, 
fought in the “labyrinth” of “international politics”, was the decisive battle of 
the First World War. That is to say (as no decision is ever final, and can always be 
modified by a later decision), it produced the greatest and most enduring effects 
on the further course of the 20th Century; these effects continued to dominate 
events between the wars and during the Second World War, and in 1956 may be 
seen to form the most probable cause of any third “universal war”. No clash of 
arms during the 1914-1918 war produced an effect on the future comparable with 
that brought about by the capture of the British Government in 1916. This 
process was hidden from the embroiled masses. From start to finish Britons 
believed that they had only to do with an impetuous Teutonic warlord, and 
Americans, that the incorrigible quarrelsomeness of European peoples was the 
root cause of the upheaval. 

In England in 1914 the situation brought about in America by the secret 
captivity of President Wilson did not prevail. The leading political and military 
posts were held by men who put every proposal for the political and military 
conduct of the war to one test: would it help win the war and was it in their 
country's interest. By that test Zionism failed. The story of the first two years of 
the four-year war is that of the struggle behind the scenes to dislodge these 


244 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


obstructive men and to supplant them by other, submissive men. 

Before 1914 the conspiracy had penetrated only into antechambers (apart 
from the Balfour GovermenEs fateful step in 1903). After 1914a widening circle 
of leading men associated themselves with the diversionary enterprise, Zionism. 
Today the “practical considerations” (of public popularity or hostility, votes, 
financial backing and office) which influence politicians in this matter are well 
known, because they have been revealed by many authentic publications. At that 
time, a politician in England must have been exceptionally astute or far-sighted 
to see in the Zionists the holders of the keys to political advancement. Therefore 
the Balfourean motive of romantic infatuation may have impelled them; the 
annals are unclear at that period and do not explain the unaccountable. 
Moreover, the English have always tended to give their actions a guise of high 
moral purpose, and to persuade themselves to believe in it; this led Macaulay to 
observe that “we know no spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of its 
periodical fits of morality”. Possibly, then, some of the men who joined in this 
intrigue (which it undoubtedly was) thought they were doing right. This process 
of self-delusion is shown by the one statement, discoverable by me, which clearly 
identifies a group of pro-Zionists in high English places at that time, and offers a 
motive of the kind satirized by Lord Macaulay. 

This comes from a Mr. Oliver Locker-Lampson, early in this century a 
Conservative Member of Parliament. He played no great part and was notable, if 
at all, only for his later, fanatical support of Zionism in and outside parliament, 
but he was a personal friend of the leading men who fathered Zionism on the 
British people. In 1952, in a London weekly journal, he wrote: 

“Winston, Lloyd George, Balfour and I were brought up vigorous Protestants, 
who believe in the coming of a new Saviour when Palestine returns to Jews”. This 
is the Messianic idea of Cromwell's Millenarians, foisted on the 20th Century. 
Only the men named could say if the statement is true, and but one of them 
survives. Whether this is the true basis of Protestantism, vigorous or otherwise, 
readers may judge for themselves. None will contend that it is a sound basis for 
the conduct of State policy or military operations in war. Also, of course, it 
expresses the same impious idea that moved the Prophet Monk and all such men: 
that God has forgotten his duty and, having defaulted, must have it done for him. 
Anyway, a group had formed and we may as well use for it the name which this 
man gave it: the Vigorous Protestants. 

The First World War began, with these Vigorous Protestants ambitious to 
attain power so that they might divert military operations in Europe to the cause 
of procuring Palestine for the Zionists. Dr. Weizmann, who had not been idle 
since we last saw him closeted with Mr. Balfour at Manchester in 1906, at once 
went into action: “now is the time . . . the political considerations will be 
favourable”, he wrote in October 1914. He sought out Mr. C.P. Scott, editor of 
the Manchester Guardian , which was much addicted (then as now) to any non- 


245 



THE CONTROVERSY OE ZION 


native cause. Mr. Scott was enchanted to learn that his visitor was “a Jew who 
hated Russia” ( Russia, England's ally, at that moment was saving the British and 
French armies in the west by attacking from the east) and at once took him to 
breakfast with Mr. Lloyd George, then Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr. Lloyd 
George (whom Dr. Weizmann found “extraordinarily flippant” about the war in 
Europe) was “warm and encouraging” about Zionism and suggested another 
meeting with Mr. Balfour. This ensued on December 14, 1914. Mr. Balfour, 
recalling the 1906 conversation, “quite nonchalantly” asked if he could help Dr. 
Weizmann in any practical way, receiving the answer, “Not while the guns are 
roaring; when the military situation becomes clearer I will come again” (Mrs. 
Dugdale, with whose account Dr. Weizmann's agrees: “I did not follow up this 
opening, the time and piace were not propitious”. This was the meeting at which 
Mr. Ball bur gratuitously said that “when the guns stop firing you may get your 
Jerusalem”). 

Dr. Weizmann did not grasp eagerly at Mr. Balfour's “quite nonchalant” offer 
for a good reason. The Zionist headquarters at that moment was in Berlin and 
Dr. Weizmann's colleagues there were convinced that Germany would win the 
war. Before they put any cards on the table they wished to be sure about that. 
When, later, they resolved to stake on the Allied card, “the guns” were still 
“roaring”. Dr. Weizmann was not deterred by thought of the carnage in Europe 
from “following up the opening”. As he truly told Mr. Balfour (and Mr. Balfour 
certainly did not understand just what was in his visitor's mind), “the time . . . 
was not propitious”, and Dr. Weizmann meant to wait “until the military 
situation becomes clearer”. 

Significantly, some of the men concerned in these publicly-unknown 
interviews seem to have sought to cover up their dates; at the time the fate of 
England was supposed to be their only preoccupation. I have already given one 
apparent instance of this: the confusion about the date of Mr. Balfour's second 
meeting with Dr. Weizmann, the one just described. Mr. Lloyd George, 
similarly, wrote that his first meeting with Dr. Weizmann occurred in 1917, when 
he was Prime Minister, and called it a “chance” one. Dr. Weizmann disdainfully 
corrected this: “actually Mr. Lloyd George's advocacy of the Jewish homeland 
long predated his aceession to the premiership and we had several meetings in the 
intervening years”. 

A third meeting with Mr. Balfour followed, “a tremendous talk which lasted 
several hours” and went off “extraordinarily well”. Dr. Weizmann. once more, 
expressed his “hatred for Russia”. England's hard-pressed ally. Mr. Balfour 
mildly wondered “how a friend of England could be so anti-Russian when Russia 
was doing so much to help England win the war”. As on the earlier occasion, 
when he alluded to the anti-Zionist convictions of British Jews, he seems to have 
had no true intention to remonstrate, and concluded, “It is a great cause you are 
working for; you must come again and again”. 


246 



1 HE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


Mr. Llovd George also warned Dr. Weizmann that ‘'there would undoubtedly 
be strong opposition from certain Jewish quarters'' and Dr. Weizmann made his 
stock reply, that in fact “rich and powerful Jews were for the most part against 
us". Strangely, this insinuation seems greatly to have impressed the Vigorous 
Protestants, who were mostly rich and powerful men, and they soon became as 
hostile to their fellow-countrymen, the Jews of England, as their irnportuner. Dr. 
Weizmann from Russia. 

Opposition to Zionism developed from another source. In the highest places 
still stood men who thought only of national duty and winning the war. They 
would not condone “hatred" of a military ally or espouse a wasteful “sideshow" 
in Palestine. These men were Mr. Herbert Asquith (Prime Minister), Lord 
Kitchener (Secretary for War), Sir Douglas Haig (who became Commander-in- 
Chief in France), and Sir William Robertson (Chief-of-Staff in France, later 
Chief of the Imperial General Staff). 

Mr. Asquith was the last Liberal leader in England who sought to give 
“Liberalism" a meaning concordant with national interest and religious belief, as 
opposed to the meaning which the term has been given in the last four decades 
(the one attributed to it by the Protocols: “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 . . ."). 
With his later overthrow Liberalism, in the first sense, died in England, and in 
fact the party itself fell into decline and collapsed, leaving only a name used 
chiefly as “cover" by Communism and its legion of “utopian dreamers". 

Mr. Asquith first learned of the intrigue that was brewing w hen he received a 
proposal for a Jewish state in Palestine from a Jewish minister, Mr. Herbert 
Samuel, who had been present at the Weizmann-Lloyd George breakfast in 
December 1914; these two were informed of it beforehand. Mr. Asquith wrote, 
“. . . Samuel's proposal in favour of the British annexation of Palestine, a 
country of the size of Wales, much of it barren mountain and part of it waterless. 
He thinks we might plant in this not very promising territory about three or four 
million European Jews ... 1 am not attracted to this proposed addition to our 
responsibilities . . . The only other partisan of this proposal is Lloyd George, and 
I need not say that he does not care a damn for the Jews or their part of the 
future . ." 

Mr. Asquith (who correctly summed-up Mr. Lloyd George) remained of the 
same opinion to the end. Ten years later, when long out of office, he visited 
Palestine, and wrote, “This talk of making Palestine a Jewish National Home 
seems to me just as fantastic as it has always been". In 1915, by his adverse 
response, he made himself, and his removal from office, the object of the intrigue. 
As long as he could he kept his country out of the Palestinian adventure; he 
accepted the opinion of the military leaders, that the w ar could only be won (if at 
all) on the main battlefield, in Europe. 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 

Lord Kitchener, who held this view, was of immense authority and public 
popularity. The paramount military objective at that stage, he held, was to keep 
Russia in the war (the Zionists wanted Russia’s destruction and so informed the 
Vigorous Protestants). 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 A 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. Sir Mark’s invention of this formula was one more 
misfortune for posterity, for it implied that the Palestinian adventure was but one 
of several, all akin. Unlike the other Vigorous Protestants, he was an expert in 
Middle Eastern affairs and must have known better*. 

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. 


248 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


Lord Cecil's case is similarly unaccountable. I remember a lecture he gave in 
Berlin (in the 1930's) about the League of Nations. Tall, stooped, hawk-visaged, 
ancestrally gifted, he uttered warnings about the future as from some mountain- 
top of revelation, and sepulchrally invoked "the Hebrew prophets". As a young 
journalist I was much impressed without comprehending what he meant. Today, 
when I have learned a little, it is still mysterious to me; if Jeremiah, for instance, 
was anything he was an anti-Zionist. 

Yet 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 quotation shows that Lord Cecil should have been aware of the danger of 
"diverting energies”; it also shows that he misunderstood the nature of Zionism, 
if the opinion attributed to him by Dr. Weizmann is correct. When he wrote these 
words, a new "League to Enforce Peace" was being organized in America by Mr. 
House's own brother-in-law. Dr. Mezes; it was the precursor of the various 
world-government flotations that have followed, in which the intention of 


249 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 

powerful groups to set up “a league to uphold tyranny” in the world has been 
plainly revealed. 

Thus, as the second twelvemonth of the First World War ended, the Vigorous 
Protestants, who looked toward Palestine, not Europe, were a numerous band of 
brothers, husking the Russian-Zionist core. Messrs. Leopold Amery, Ormsby- 
Gore and Ronald Graham joined the “friends” above named. Zionism had its 
foot in every department of government save the War Office. Whatever the 
original nature of their enthusiasm for Zionism, material rewards at this stage 
undeniably beckoned; the intrigue was aimed at dislodging men from office and 
taking their places. 

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. 

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. 
Normally such a demand would have been suicidal, but this was a coalition 
government and the Liberal Mr. Lloyd George was supported in his demand by 
the Conservative leaders, Mr. Bonar Law and Sir Edward Carson, so that it was 
an ultimatum. (These two presumably had honest faith in Mr. Lloyd George’s 
superior abilities; they cannot be suspected of Tory duplicity deep enough to 
foresee that he would ultimately destroy the Liberal Party!) 

Mr. Lloyd George also required that the incompetent (and Conservative) Mr. 
Balfour be ousted from the First Lordship of the Admiralty. The Liberal prime 
minister indignantly refused either to surrender the War Council or to dismiss 
Mr. Balfour (December 4). He then received Mr. Balfour's resignation, whereon 
he at once sent Mr. Balfour a copy of his own letter refusing to dismiss Mr. 
Balfour. Thereon Mr. Balfour, though kept indoors by a bad cold, found 
strength to send another letter in which he insisted on resigning, as Mr. Lloyd 
George had demanded, and Mr. Lloyd George also resigned. 

Mr. Asquith was left alone. On December 6 Mr. Balfour (resigned at Mr. Lloyd 
George’s dictate) felt well enough to receive Mr. Lloyd George. That afternoon 
the party leaders met and announced that they would gladly serve under Mr. 
Balfour. Mr. Balfour declined but offered gladly to serve under Mr. Lloyd George. 
Mr. 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 


250 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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. I 
am credibly informed, also, that in his attorney’s practice he received much 
Zionist business, but cannot myself vouch for that. In his case the explanation of 
venal motives cannot be discounted, in my judgment; the inaccuracy of his 
statements about his relations with Zionism, which Dr. Weizmann twice 
corrects, is suggestive). 

Thus the central figures on the stage regrouped themselves. Mr. Lloyd George, 
a small, smart-lawyer in a cutaway among taller colleagues, many still in the old 
frock coat, looked like a cocksparrow among crows. Beside him stood Mr. 
Balfour, tall, limp, ever ready with a wearily cynical answer to an honest 
question, given to a little gentle tennis; I see him now, strolling dreamily across 
Saint James’s Park to the House. Around these two, the Greek chorus of cabinet 
ministers, junior ministers and high officials who had discovered their Vigorous 
Protestantism. Some of these fellow-travellers of Zion may have been honestly 
deluded, and not have realized in what chariot they rode. Mr. Lloyd George was 
the first major figure in a long line of others who knew a band-wagon when they 
saw one; through them the innocent words, “twentieth century politician”, 
gained an ominous meaning and the century owes much of its ordeal to them. 

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 
be. Robertson, the gruff old soldier, had (reluctantly) to attend some of the 
money-raising festivities with which society ladies, in wartime, keep themselves 
occupied, and at one such saw Lady Constance Stewart Richardson, who felt 
moved to perform dances in the draperies and manner of Isadora Duncan. A 
general, noticing Robertson’s impatience, said, “You must admit she has a very 
fine leg”. “Umph, just like any other damn leg”, growled Robertson. 

On this last man fell the task of thwarting the diversion of British armies to 


251 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


Palestine, if he could. He considered all proposals exclusively in their military 
bearing on the war and victory; it 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 ‘'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's 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 iMr. 
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 
Sta ff 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”. 

These passages show how the course of State policy and of military operations 
in war may be “deflected” by political pressure behind the scenes. In this case, the 
issue of the battle between the politicians and the soldier affects the lives of 


252 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


nations at the present time, the 1950"s. 

Mr. Lloyd George then reinforced himself by a move which once more shows 
the long thought that must have gone into the preparation of this enterprise, and 
the careful selection of “administrators", to support it, that must have gone 
before. He proposed that the War Cabinet “take the Dominions into counsel in a 
much larger measure than hitherto in the prosecution of the war". Put in that 
way, the idea appealed greatly to the public masses in England. Fighting-men 
from Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa were campaigning 
shoulder to shoulder with their own sons. The immediate response of the 
overseas countries to the “old country’s" danger had touched the native Briton’s 
heart, and he was very happy that their leaders should join more closely with his 
own in “prosecuting the war". 

However, “the diplomat’s word" (and his intention) differed greatly from his 
deed; Mr. Lloyd George’s proposal was merely a “cover" for bringing to London 
General Smuts from South Africa, who was regarded by the Zionists as their 
most valuable “friend" outside Europe and America, and General Smuts was 
brought across to propose the conquest of Palestine! 

The voting-population in South Africa is so equally divided between 
Afrikaners and English-speaking South Africans that the “fluctuating 20 
percent" was, if anything, more decisive there than in America. The Zionist felt 
able, and possibly General Smuts believed they were able, to “deliver" an 
election-winning vote. One of his colleagues, a 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 reasonbly 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 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 Anglo-Boer reconiliation; 


253 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 Shaken, 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 littly 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. / 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 v/ere 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”. 


254 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 w ar 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. 

This was one Sir Henry Wilson, wdio 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 gray astrakhan cap, and altogether I was 
a fine picture of a man. 1 created quite a sensation at the Foreign Office dinner 
and the reception afterwards. I w^as 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, trench- 
weary 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). 


255 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 eome 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 volte 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 


256 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


“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. 

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 o ften 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”. 

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 


257 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


observed that it was difficult to reconcile my request for assistance in defence of 
the Western Front with Mr. George's desire to aet 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”. 

After that Sir William Robertson was no longer “concerned”. His account 
differs from the memoirs of Mr. Lloyd George and other politicians in that it 
shows no rancour; his sole theme is duty. Of his treatment he merely says, “It had 
frequently been my unpleasant duty during 1917 to object to military enterprises 
which the Prime Minister wished the army to carry out and this opposition had 
doubtless determined him to try another Chief of the Imperial General Staff. . . 
On the point of supersession, therefore, there was nothing to say and I said 
nothing ”. Thus an admirable man passes from this story of many lesser men, but 
his work endured, because, up to the time of his dismissal, he may have saved just 
enough men and guns for the crumbling line to hold at the last extremity, in 
March, as a rending hawser may hold by a single thread. 

When he was gone two men outside the government and army continued the 
struggle, and their efforts deserve record because theirs were among the last 
attempts to preserve the principle of free, independent and vigilant reporting. 
Colonel Repington was a former cavalry officer, an admirer of pretty women, a 
lover of good talk, a beau sabreur. His diaries give a lasting picture of the frothy 
life of the drawing-rooms that went on while armies fought in France and in 
London intriguers conspired in the political antechambers. He enjoyed it and 
although he felt its incongruity he realized that gloom alone was no remedy. He 
was as honest and patriotic as Robertson, and incorruptible; lavish offers (which 
might have lured him into silence, and possibly were so intended) had no effect on 
him. 

He wrote, “We are feeding over a million men into the sideshow theatres of 
war and are letting down our strengths in France at a moment when all the Boche 
forces from Russia may come against us .. . lam unable to get the support from the 
editor of The Times that I must have to rouse the country and 1 do not think I will be 
able to go on with him much longer ”. (I discovered Colonel Repington’s diaries 
through my work on this book and then realized that his experience was identical 
with mine, just twenty years later, with the same editor). A month later he wrote, 
“In a stormy interview I told Mr. Geoffrey Dawson that his subservience to the 
War Cabinet during this year was largely the cause of the dangerous position of our 
army ... I would have nothing more to do with The Times '’. 

This left 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 


258 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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”* 

Thus the two wartime years of Mr. Lloyd George’s leadership in England were 
momentous in their effects on the present time, and I believe I have shown how he 
achieved office and what paramount purpose he pursued through it. After 
eighteen months he had overcome all opposition, diverted a mass of men from 
France to Palestine, and was ready at last for the great venture. 

On March 7, 1918 he gave orders for li 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". 

At this point in the tale I write with the feelings of a participant, and they 
probably influence what I have written of the long earlier story, because the 
effects, as I have seen them in my generation, appear to me to be bad. I recall the 
great German attack of March 21, 1918; I saw it from the air and on the ground 
and was in the fighting for the first month, until I was removed by stretcher. I 
remember Sir Douglas Haig’s order, that every man must fight and die where he 
stood; it was posted on the walls of my squadron’s mess. I have no complaints 

*In the sequel to all this 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 hut 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. 


259 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 

about the experience, and would not delete it from my life if I could. Now that I 
have come to see by what ulterior means and motives it was all brought about, I 
think coming generations might be a little better able to keep Sir William 
Robertson’s “straight course”, and so to ensure that good will eventually come 
of what seems to them to be evil, if they know a little more of what went on then 
and has continued since. This is my reason for writing the present book. 

As a result of the victory in Europe the coveted territory in Palestine was at 
length acquired. But it is one thing to acquire land and another to build 
something on it. On this land a Zionist “homeland” was to be erected, then a 
“state” (and last a “commonwealth”?). None of these things could be done by 
England alone. No precedent existed for the donation of Arabian territory, by a 
European conqueror, to an Asiatic beneficiary. For such a transaction other 
nations had to be co-opted, many nations, and a company promoted, so that it 
might be given the semblance of honest business. In fact, a “league of nations” 
was required, and America, above all, had to be “entangled”. This other part of 
the plan was also in preparation; while British armies seized the tract of land 
desired, the smart lawyers had been looking for ways to amend the rightful title 
deeds to it, float a company and generally promote the undertaking. 

Mr. Lloyd George had served his turn and his day was nearly done. The reader 
may now turn his eyes across the Atlantic and see what Mr. House, Mr. Brandeis 
and Rabbi Stephen Wise have been up to. A Mr. Woodrow Wilson plays a 
shadowy part in these proceedings. 


260 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 

THE WEB OF INTRIGUE 

Such words as “conspiracy” and “intrigue”, often used in this narrative, are 
not original with me; they come from authoritative sources. Mr. Arthur D. 
Howden, who wrote his biography in consultation with the man depicted, 
supplies the chapter title above; he describes the process of which Mr. House was 
(in America) the centre during the 1914-1918 war in the words, “a web of intrigue 
was spun aeross the Atlantic”. 

In England the Lloyd George government and in America the president were 
at first separately enmeshed. Between 1914 and 1917 these “webs” in London 
and Washington were joined together by the transoceanic threads which Mr. 
Howden depicts in the spinning. Thereafter the two governments were caught in 
the same web and have never since freed themselves from it. 

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”. 

The president’s assent to acts of State policy was not required. Mr. House “did 
not expect affirmative commendation ... if the President did not object, I knew 
that it was safe to go ahead”. Thus Mr. Wilson had to express dissent, to delay or 
amend any action (and immediately after election he had been made to promise 
“not to act independently in future”). 

In 1914 Mr. House, who in 1900 had resolved to extend his power from Texan 
to national politics, prepared to take over m/crnational 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 


261 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 

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 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 


262 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


“cosmopolitan”) were “professional peacemakers”. 

Such was the American picture, behind-the-scenes in 1915 and 1916. The 
purpose of the ruling group whose web now began to span the Atlantic is shown 
by the events which followed. 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. 

Mr. Wilson seems at that point to have believed the words put into his mouth. 
Immediately after the election he set up as a peacemaker and drafted a note to the 
belligerents in which he used the phrase, “the causes and objects of the war are 
obscure ” This was a culpable act of “independence” on the president’s part, and 
Mr. House was furious. The harassed president amended the phrase to “the 
objects which the statesmen and the belligerents on both sides have in mind in this 
war are virtually the same ”. This made Mr. House even angrier, and Mr. Wilson’s 
efforts to expose the nature of “the web” in which he was caught thereon expired. 
He remained in ignorance of what his next act was to be for a little, 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 


The power-group moved to dispel these illusions as soon as Mr. Wilson’s 
second inauguration was safely past (January 20, 1917). Rabbi Stephen Wise 
informed the president of a change of mind; he was now “convinced that the time 
had come for the American people to understand that it might be our destiny to have 
part in the struggle ”. Mr. House (who during the “no war” election had noted, 
“We are on the verge of war”) confided to his diary on February 12, 1917, “We 
are drifting into war as rapidly as I expected” (which gave a new meaning to the 
word “drift”). 

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* Between November 1916 
and April 1917, therefore, “the web of intrigue”, spanning the ocean, achieved 
these decisive aims: the overthrow of Mr. Asquith in favour of Mr. Lloyd 


*See footnote on page 264 


263 



THE CONTROVERSY OE ZION 


George, the commitment of British armies to the Palestinian diversion, the re- 
election of a president who would be constrained to support that enterprise, and 
the embroilment of America. 

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 w'as 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. 

From this moment the power-groups in America and England worked in 
perfect synchronization, so that the tw o stories become one story, of 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. Foreknowledge of what was to happen had earlier been displayed by Dr. 
Weizmann in London, who in Mar eh 1915 wrote to his ally, Mr. Scott of the 
Manchester Guardian, that he “understood" the British Government to be 
willing to support Zionist aspirations at the peace conference to come (the event 
also foretold by MaxNordau in 1903). This was exactly what Mr. Asquith would 
not consider, so that Dr. Weizmann, in March 1915, was already describing Mr. 
Asquith’s supplanters of December 1916 as “the British Government". 

This “British Government", said Dr. Weizmann, would leave “the 


organization of the Jewish commonwealth " in Palestine “entirely to the care of the 
Jews". However, the Zionists could not possibly, even in a Palestine conquered 


*Eord Sydenham, when he wrote of the “deadly accuracy" of the forecast in the “Protocols" of about 1900, might 
have had particularly in mind the 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 governmcnt"-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" {Lift’, Feb. 7, 1956). and the Chinese Communist commander 
confirmed this (Mur York Daily News, Feb. 13. 1956). In June 1951 two British Foreign Office officials, Burgessand 
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". 


264 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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. In a memorandum to the 
British Government he demanded that “The Jewish population of Palestine . . . 
shall be officially recognized by the Suzerain government as the Jewish Nation ”. 
The “first full-dress conference leading to the Balfour Declaration” was then 
held. This committee, met to draft a British governmental document, met in a 
private Jewish house and consisted of nine Zionist leaders and one representative 
of the government concerned, Sir Mark Sykes (who attended “in his private 
capacity”). As a result Mr. Balfour at once arranged to go to America to discuss 
the matter. 

Dr. Weizmann and his associates had to steer a very narrow course between 
two difficulties at that moment, and might have failed, had not “the web” 
enabled them to dictate what Mr. Balfour would be told by the men he crossed 
the ocean to see. The British Government, for all its zeal, took alarm at the 
prospect of acting as sole protector of the Zionists and wanted America to share 
the armed occupation of Palestine. The Zionists knew that this would violently 
upset American opinion, (had it come about America, from bitter experience 
shared, would have been much harder to win for the deed of 1948) and did not 
want the question of American co-occupation raised. Dr. Weizmann’s 
misgivings were increased when, in “a long talk” he found Mr. Balfour, before 
his departure, eager for “an Anglo -Amer ran protectorate”. 

Dr. Weizmann at once wrote to Mr. Justice Brandeis warning him to oppose 
any such plan, but to assure Mr. Balfour of American support for the proposal of 


265 





. THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


a solely British protectorate, (April 8, 1917), and this letter to Mr. Brandeis 
"must have reached him about the time of Balfour’s arrival”. Mr. Brandeis, risen 
to the United States Supreme Court, had retired from the public leadership of 
Zionism in America. In the tradition of his office, he should have remained aloof 
from all political affairs, but in fact, as Mr. Wilson’s "adviser on the Jewish 
question”, he informed the president that he was “in favour of a British 
protectorate and utterly opposed to a condominium” (that is, joint Anglo- 
American control). 

When Mr. Balfour reached America (then in a state of “existing war” for just 
eighteen days) he apparently never discussed Palestine with the American 
President at all. Mr. Wilson’s part at this stage was limited to a humble 
undertaking to Rabbi Wise, "Whenever the time comes and you and Justice 
Brandeis feel that the time is ripe for me to speak and act, I shall be ready \ By that 
time the rabbi had "briefed” Mr. House: "He is enlisted in our cause. There is no 
question about it whatever. The thing will go through Washington, I think, 
without delay” ( April 8, 1917, six days after the "existing war” proclamation). 

Mr. Balfour saw Mr. Brandeis. Clearly he might as well have stayed at home 
with Dr. Weizmann, as Mr. Brandeis merely repeated the contents of Dr. 
Weizmann’s letters; Mr. Balfour simply moved from one end of "the web of 
intrigue” to the other. 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 ”. 

A later American comment on the part played by Mr. Brandeis in this affair is 
here relevant. Professor John O. Beaty of the Southern Methodist University of 
the United States says that the day when Mr. Brandeis’s appointment to the 
Supreme Court was confirmed was "one of the most significant days in American 
history, for we had for the first time, since the first decade of the 19th Century, an 
official of the highest status whose heart’s interest was in something besides the 
United States ”. 

Mr. Brandeis "did more than press the idea of a Jewish Palestine under a 
British protectorate” (Dr. Weizmann). He and Mr. House issued (over the 
president’s signature) the famous declaration repudiating secret treaties). This 
declaration was popular with the masses, who heard in it the voice of the Brave 
New World rebuking the bad old one. The words evoked pictures of becloaked 
diplomats climbing dark backstairs to secret chancelleries; now that America was 
in the war these feudal machinations would be stopped and all done above the 
board. 

Alas for a pleasant illusion; the noble rebuke was another submission to 
Zionism. Turkey had still to be defeated so that the French and British 
governments (whose fighting men were engaged) wished to win over the Arabs 


266 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


and with them had made the "Sykes-Picot agreement”, which foresaw an 
independent confederation of Arab States and, among them, an international 
administration for Palestine. Dr. Weizmann had learned of this agreement and 
saw that there could be no Zionist state if Palestine were under international 
control; exclusive British ''protection” was essential. Pressure was applied and 
President Wilson’s ringing denunciation of "secret treaties” was in fact aimed 
solely at the Arabs of Palestine and their hopes for the future. America insisted 
that England hold the baby. 

Of this secret achievement Mr. Balfour’s biographer happily records that it 
showed ‘ ‘ a Jewish national diplomaey was now in being ”/ the words may be used as 
an alternative heading to this chapter, if any so desire. The British Foreign Office 
at last "recognized, with some slight dismay, that the British Government was 
virtually committed". America, though in the war, was not at war with Turkey, 
and yet had been secretly committed (by Mr. Brandeis) to support the transfer of 
Turkish territory to an outside party. Therefore American participation in the 
intrigue had to remain publicly unknown for the moment, though Mr. Balfour 
had been informed of it in imperative tones. 

The summer of 1917 passed while the Balfour Declaration was prepared, 
America thus having become secretly involved in the Zionist adventure. 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 fellow-citizens than were the Zionists. (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). 

In England in 1915 the Anglo-Jewish Association, through its Conjoint 
Committee, declared that "the Zionists do not consider civil and political 
emancipation as a sufficiently important factor for victory over the persecution 
and oppression of Jews and think that such a victory can only be achieved by 
establishing a legally secured home for the Jewish people. The Conjoint 
Committee considers as dangerous and provoking anti-semitism the 'national’ 
postulate of the Zionists, as well as special privileges for Jews in Palestine. The 
Committee could not discuss the question of a British Protectorate with an 
international organization which included different, even enemy elements ”. 

In any rational time the British and American governments would have 
spoken thus, and they would have been supported by Jewish citizens. In 1914, 
however, Dr. Weizmann had written that such Jews "have to be made to realize 
that we and not they are the masters of the situation ’. The Conjoint Committee 
represented the Jews long established in England, but the British Government 
accepted the claim of the revolutionaries from Russia to be "the masters” of 
Jewry. 


267 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 

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”. 

By that time such statements infuriated the embattled Goyim around Dr. 
Weizmann from Russia. Mr. Wickham Steed of The Times expressed “downright 
annoyance” after discussing “for a good hour” (with Dr. Weizmann) “the kind 
of leader which was likely to make the best appeal to the British public”, 
produced “a magnificant presentation of the Zionist case”. 

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. 

But for that Mr. Lloyd George would have set the precedent, for Dr. 
Weizmann was scarcely gone when, after hearing Mr. Montagu, Mr. Lloyd 
George and Mr. Balfour sent out to ask Dr. Weizmann to come in. Mr. Montagu 
then succeeded, in the teeth of the Gentiles arrayed against him, in obtaining 
minor modifications in the draft, and Dr. Weizmann later rebuked Mr. Kerr for 
this petty compromise: “The Cabinet and even yourself attach undue importance 
to the opinion held by so-called ‘British Jewry’. “Two days later (October 9) Dr. 
Weizmann cabled triumphantly to Mr. Justice Brandeis that the British 
Government had formally undertaken to establish a “national home for the 


268 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


Jewish race” in Palestine. 

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 habitue 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 

269 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 


270 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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. 


271 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 
THE WORLD REVOLUTION AGAIN 

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: 
‘Tull 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. 

In the forty years that have passed great efforts have been made to suppress 
public knowledge of this fact, which has been conclusively established, by non¬ 
sequential rebukes to any who claim to discuss history. For instance, in the 1950's 
an able (and deservedly respected) Jewish writer in America, Mr. George 
Sokolsky, in criticizing a book previously cited wrote, “It is impossible to read it 
without reaching the conclusion that Professor Beaty seeks to prove that 
Communism is a Jewish movement”. In respect of the leadership it was that for a 
long period before 1917 (as to later and the present situation, subsequent 
chapters will look at the evidence). 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 


272 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


mysterious race had been chosen for the supreme manifestations, both of the 
divine and the diabolical. . . From the days of 'Spartacus 1 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 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. 

The fact of Jewish leadership was a supremely important piece of knowledge 
and the later suppression of it, where public debate would have been sanative, 
produced immense effects in weakening the West. The formulation of any 
rational State policy becomes impossible when such major elements of 
knowledge are excluded from public discussion; it is like playing billiards with 
twisted cues and elliptical balls. The strength of the conspiracy is shown by its 
success in this matter (as in the earlier period, of Messrs. Robison, Barruel and 
Morse) more than by any other thing. 

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 1 ’. 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. 


273 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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). 

/ 

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 not choose the task of reporting the most momentous event that ever came in 
any journalist’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, 
(t did not at once affect the policy of the paper , partly because their writer did not 
command full confidence 

Why, if his earlier work and reputation were so good? The reason transpires. 

274 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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- 
semi te”. 


“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 anti-semite”. 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 


275 



THE CONTROVERSY OE ZION 


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 “anti-semitism”, 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 themselves 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 
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 that 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 massacres of Russian peasants which followed. 

By far the most significant act was the form given to the murder of the 


276 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 J uly 20 the U rals 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 


277 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 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. 

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’ 1 . The murderers staged a mock trial of “28 persons on 
the accusation of having murdered the Czar and his family”. Only eight names 
were published, all of them unknown in connection with the crime, and five 
persons were said to have been shot, who if they existed at all cannot have had 
any part in it. 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. 

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 


278 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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: 

Belsatazr ward in selbiger Nacht 
Von semen 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 t o 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 politieal consequences not 
foreseen when it was made. But what explanation can be found for American and 
British politicians, whose foremost military and politieal principle should have 
been to sustain Russia and yet who supported the alien revolutionaries who “laid 
Russia low”? 


I have already quoted the editorial about the revolution (“ . . . a free and 
efficient democracy . . . the vindication of the new regime . . .”) which appeared 
in The Times of London while its experienced correspondent’s despatches were 
being “ignored” and “confidence” withdrawn from him because the newspaper 


had received “an allegation” that he was 


“an anti-semite”. On the other side of 


the Atlantic the true ruler of the Republic, Mr. House was confiding to his diary 
similar sentiments. For him the alien revolutionaries smuggled into Russia 


279 




THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


during wartime from the West (“l his band of extraordinary personalities from the 
underworld of the great cities of Europe and America”, Mr. Churchill) were 
honest agrarian reformers: “the Bolshevists appeared to the peace-hungry and 
land-hungry Russians as the first leaders who made a sincere effort to satisfy their 
needs”. 


Today all know what happened to the Russians’ “land-hunger” under 
Bolshevism. 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"* 

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 themselves 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 Ne\y York, in Glasgow, 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 Czar’s abdication, occured 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. 


280 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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). 

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. The passage 
quoted from Mr. Churchill’s article earlier in this chapter shows that he was 
equally aware of the identity of this sect. 

Thus Dr. Chaim Weizmann's youthful fellow-conspirators from the Talmudic 
area of Russia triumphed in Russia at the very moment when he triumphed in 
London and Washington. The only difference between him and them, from the 
start, was that between “revolutionary-Zionism” and “revolutionary- 
Communism”, as he shows. In his student days in Berlin, Freiburg and Geneva, 
he had waged many a hot debate about this point of difference, which for those 
who reject revolution as such is a distinction without meaning. Mr. Balfour’s 
amanuensis, Mrs. Dugdale, portrays the blood-brothers of the revolution in 
argument during the years when their simultaneous triumph was in preparation: 

“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 cafes 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' 1 ), 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 

281 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


. . . 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 basic fallacy of the enterprise was exposed at the very instant when it was 
clamped like a millstone round the neck of the West. Although this irreparable 
flaw in its foundation must cause its ultimate collapse, like that of Sabbatai Zevi’s 
messiahship in 1666, the tragi-comedy thenceforth had to be played to its ruinous 
end. 

But for one later event, the undertaking would have died a natural death 
within a few years and would survive today in the annals merely as Balfour’s 
Folly. This event was 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; a collapsing scheme was made by him to look almost 
lifelike for some time. The Hitlerist episode belongs to a later chapter in this 
narrative. 


282 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


THE LEAGUE TO ENFORCE PEACE 


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. 

The masses then (as in the Second War, twenty-five years later) were being 
egged on to destroy a “madman in Berlin” on this very ground, that he sought to 
rule the world by force. In England Mr. Eden Philpotts (one of many such oracles 
then and in the next war) thundered: 

“You thought to grasp the world; but you shall keep its curses only, crowned 
upon youi’ brow ...” and that was the universal cry. Yet the secret plan 
promoted in the West was equally one to “grasp the world by force” and to put 
new “warlords” over it. 

It was merely dressed in other words. 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; but this happened when Western political leaders, by supporting 
Zionism and the world-revolution, yielded to the prompting of Asiatics; their 
acts took on an Asiatic duplicity in place of native candour. 

Strangely, 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 intolerable 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 


283 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 



who was keeping them out of the war, Mr. House instructed him: 

u 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'’. 

This was always the sales-talk: that “the plan’' would “maintain world peace". 
Mr. House had long been discussing the plan with Sir Edward Grey (Mr. 
Asquith’s Foreign Secretary; he became blind in 1914 but in a moment of 
spiritual clairvoyance used the words which have become truer ever since, “The 
lights are going out all over Europe"). Sir Edward Grey was captivated by “the 
plan”, and wrote to Mr. House, “International law has hitherto had no sanction; 
the lesson of this war is that the Powers must bind themselves to give it sanction ’. 
“Sanction” was the euphemism used by the dissimulators to avoid alarming the 
masses by the sound of “war” or “force”. The dictionary definition, in such a 
context, is “a coercive measure”, and the only means of coercion between nations 
is, ultimately, war: no “sanction" can be effective unless it is backed by that 
threat. Therefore Sir Edward Grey thought war could be ended by making war. 
He was an incorruptible but apparently deluded man; the originators of the great 
“idea” knew what they meant (and in our day this also has been revealed). 

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. Senator George Wharton Pepper recalls: “A 
heavily-financed organization aptly entitled k The League To Enforce Peace’ was 
making our task easier by emphasizing, as its title indicated, that the Covenant'’ 
(of the League of Nations) “was intended to be made effective by force . . . Our 
constant contention, in opposition to theirs, was that the appeal to force was at 
the best futile and at the worst dangerous ... I contrasted the certain futility of 
an appeal to international force with the possible hopefulness of reliance upon 
international conference, and declared myself favourable to any association of 
the latter type and unalterably opposed to a league which was based on the 
former”. 


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 


284 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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. The New Testament 
rejects it and speaks of “the deception of nations", not of their destruction. 
Revelation foretells a day when this process of deception of nations shall end. 
Those who seek to interpret prophecy might very well see in The League To 
Enforce Peace, under its successive aliases, the instrument of this “deception", 
doomed at the end to fail. 


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. Its head was his brother- 
in-law, Dr. Sidney Mezes (then president of the College of the City of New Y ork), 
and its secretary a Mr. Walter Lippmann (then writing for The New Republic). A 
Dr. Isaiah Bowman (then director of the American Geographical Society) gave 
“personal advice and assistance". 

The group of men placed in charge of The Inquiry therefore was 
predominantly Jewish (though in this case not Russian-Jewish: this might 
indicate the true nature of the superior authority indicated by Dr. Kastein’s 
allusion to “a Jewish international") and Jewish inspiration may thus reasonably 
be seen in the plan which it produced. This (says Mr. Howden) was a draft 
“Convention for a League of Nations" to which Mr. House put his signature in 
J uly 1918; “President Wilson was not, and never pretended to be, the author of the 
Covenant". Here, then, are the origins of the League of Nations. 

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. 


285 



THE CONTROVERSY OE ZION 


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 "premier-dictators” 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, Dr. 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. 

He disdained the capitulants and the scene of his triumphs alike. He wrote to 
Lady Crewe, "We hate equally anti-semites andphilo-semites” . Mr. Balfour, Mr. 
Lloyd George and the other "friends” were philo-semites of the first degree, in 
Dr. WeizmamVs meaning of the word, and excelled themselves in servience to the 
man who despised them. As to England itself, Dr. Weizmann two decades later, 
when he contemplated the wild beasts in the Kruger National Park, soliloquised, 
"It must be a wonderful thing to be an animal on the South African game reserve; 
much better than being a Jew in Warsaw or even in London \ 

In 1918 Dr. Weizmann decided to inspect his realm-elect. When he reached 
Palestine the German attack in France had begun, the depleted British armies 
were reeling back, and "most of the European troops in Palestine were being 
withdrawn to reinforce the armies in France”. At such a moment he demanded 
that the foundation stone of a Hebrew University be laid with all public 
ceremony. Lord Allenby protested that "the Germans are almost at the gates of 
Paris!” Dr. Weizmann replied that, this was "only one episode”. Lord Allenby 
obdured; Dr. Weizmann persisted; Lord Allenby under duress referred to Mr. 
Balfour and was at once ordered by cable to obey . With great panoply of staff 


286 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


officers, troops and presented arms (disturbed only by the sounds of distant 
British-Turkish fighting) Dr. Weizmann then held his ceremony on Mount 
Scopus. 

(I remember those days in France. Even half a million more British soldiers 
there would have transformed the battle; a multitude of lives would have been 
saved, and the war probably ended sooner. The French and British ordeal in 
France made a Zionist holiday in Palestine). 

When the war at last ended, on November 11, 1918, none other than Dr. 
Weizmann was at luncheon the sole guest of Mr. Floyd George, whom he found 
“reading the Psalms and near to tears’? Afterwards the Zionist chieftain watched 
from historic Ten Downing Street as the prime minister disappeared, borne 
shoulder high by a mafficking mob towards a Thanksgiving service in 
Westminster Abbey. 

Masses and “managers”; did any among the crowd notice the high, domed 
head, with bearded face and heavy-lidded eyes, watching from the window of Ten 
Downing Street? 

Then 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 
fen 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 Fevi 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. 

These three warnings have been fulfilled to the letter, and were heard with 
hostility by the Gentile politicians assembled at the Peace Conference of 1919. 
Mr. Fansing, the American Secretary of State, at once gave M. Fevi his quietus. 
He asked Dr. Weizmann, “What do you mean by a Jewish national home?” Dr. 
Weizmann said he meant that, always safeguarding the interests of non-Jews, 
Palestine would ultimately become “ as Jewish as England is English”. Mr. 
Fansing said this absolutely obscure reply was “absolutely clear”, the Council of 
Ten nodded agreement, and M. Fevi, like all Jewish remonstrants for twenty-five 
centuries, was discomfited. (He was only heard at all to maintain a pretence of 
impartial consideration; 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. Fevi and 
the Jews who thought like him. Mr. Wilson, placing his hand on the rabbi’s 


287 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


shoulder, “quietly and firmly said, ‘Have no fear, Palestine will be yours’/ 1 ) 

One other man tried to avert the deed which these men, with frivolity, were 
preparing. 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 anti-Zionist”) 
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”. 


That was Lawrence’s faith during his “Revolt in the Desert”, and what the 
men who sent him to Arabia told him. 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 


288 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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. Floyd George found himself in the political wilderness and was 
only able to complete the ruin of a once-great Fiberal 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 


289 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 

power coveted by them. In 1919 they had to content themselves with a modest 
first experiment: The League Of Nations. 

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' 1 , 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 instal 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 story of “the mandate" (and of a man who tried to avert it) therefore 
forms the next chapter in this narrative. 


290 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 

THE END OF LORD NORTHCLIFFE 


During the three years which followed the Peace Conference of 1919 the way 
had to be found to keep British armies in Palestine, make them look as if they 
performed an honourable duty there, and in fact use them as cloak for a deed 
which had the character of an assassination. This problem, of infinite complexity, 
was efficiently solved. An impressive picture of the secret manipulation of great 
governments for a nefarious purpose emerges from the records; the method of 
exerting “irresistible pressure upon international politics” constantly improved 
with practice. 

After the Peace Conference had approved the Zionist claim to Palestine (and 
thereby disowned the mass of emancipated Western Jews, personified by M. 
Sylvain Levi) the next step was taken at the San Remo Conference of 1920, where 
the victor powers met to dismember the conquered Turkish Empire. This 
conference adopted the ingenious deception invented by Dr. Weizmann in 1915 
and agreed that Britain should administer Palestine under “a mandate”. 

Protests against the undertaking then were growing loud, because its true 
nature was beginning to be realized, but Mr. Balfour assured Dr. Weizmann that 
“they were regarded as without importance and would certainly not affect policy, 
which had been definitely sef\ 

Here is the cryptic statement, often to recur later, that policy in this one 
question must not, cannot and never will alter, so that national interest, honour 
and all other considerations are irrelevant. I know of no other case where an 
unalterable tenet of high State policy has been fixed without regard to State 
interest or consultation of public opinion at any stage. At San Remo Mr. Lloyd 
George was worried lest “the frost” of peace should set in before the secret 
purpose was accomplished, and told Dr. Weizmann, “You have no time to waste. 
Today the world is like the Baltic before a frost. For the moment it is still in 
motion. But if it gets set, you will have to batter your heads against the ice blocks 
and wait for a second thaw”. Had Mr. Lloyd George said “second war” he would 
have been correct and possibly that was what he meant by “thaw”. In these 
circumstances 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, as will be seen, but during the interval protests against 
the deed came from every responsible authority or community directly involved. 
The forces engaged in promoting it were three: the directing Zionists from 


Russia, the “philo-semites” 


in high places whom Dr. Weizmann “hated” while 


he used them, and, among the masses, that body of sentimental liberals 


scathingly depicted in the Protocols. Against it was ranked authoritative and 


291 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


experienced opinion in such overwhelming measure that, had the question been 
any other than this one to which the “administrators’' were secretly committed, it 
would have collapsed. The mass of protest was so great that it is enumerated in its 
parts here for comparison with the summary which follows. It came from (1) the 
Palestinean Arabs; (2) the Palestinean Jews; (3) the chief Zionist leader in 
America, as well as the anti-Zionist Jews of America and England; (4) the British 
officials and soldiers in Palestine; (5) British and American official investigators; 
(6) a large body of the press, then still free of occult control in this matter. 

(1) 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 many nations before thee . . . 
seven nations greater and mightier than 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 anti-Zionist 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 modern Jew does not 
take his Bible 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 stength of their 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 if'. Mr. Brown of Chicago did not know the Chazars). 

The Arabs in 1920 were not deceived by Mr. Balfour’s public pledge (in the 
Declaration) that their “civil and religious rights” would be protected or by Mr. 
Wilson’s public pledge (the Fourteen Points) that they would have “undoubted 
security of life” and “absolutely independent opportunity of autonomous 
development”. If they did not know, they guessed that 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 view is to create a wholly Jewish 
Palestine. Phrases have been used such as ‘Palestine is to become as Jewish as 
England is English’ ” (a direct rebuke to Dr. Weizmann) “His Majesty’s 
government regard any such suggestion as impracticable and have no such aim in 


292 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


view. Nor have they at any time contemplated the disappearance or 
subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine" 1 (in the 
Second World War, as Prime Minister, and after it as Opposition leader Mr. 
Churchill gave his support to the process here denied). 

(2) 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 11 . 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. 

(3) Mr. Louis Brandeis in 1919 visited 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 the old cleavage between “east” and “west”; between “Ostjuden” and 
emancipated Western Jews; between “Washington” and “Pinsk” (the name of 
the author of the phrase about “international pressure” was significant, not 
coincidental). 

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 


293 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


a Jewish nation from obligatory tithe-payments by members of the Zionist 
organization) and “a national budget 1 ’. 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. 

(4) 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. 

(6) By far the greatest obstacle to the Zionist ambition came 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 


294 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 11 still was not “ratified 11 , turned on the suppression of adverse 
newspaper information and comment. At that very juncture an event occurred 
which produced that result. By reason of this great effect on the future, and by its 
own singular nature, the event (denoted in the heading to the present chapter) 
deserves relation in detail here. 

At that stage in the affair England was of paramount importance to the 
conspirators (I have shown that Dr. Weizmann and Mr. House both used this 
word) and in England 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. He somewhat resembled Mr. Randolph 
Hearst and Colonel 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. He 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 11 . 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? 11 

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 a combination of a different 
sort from that formed by the editors of The Times and Manchester Guardian, who 
wrote their leading articles about Palestine in England and in consultation with 


295 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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'\ 

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 articles 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 


296 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 instructions 
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 J 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 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. 

For the first time, I now appear in this narrative as a personal witness of events. 
In the 1914-1918 war I was one participant among uncomprehending millions, 
and only began to see its true shape long afterwards. In 1922 I was for an instant 
in, though not of the inner circle; looking back, I see myself closeted with Lord 


297 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


Northcliffe (about to die) and quite ignorant of Zionism, Palestine, Protocols or 
any other matter in which he had raised his voice. My testimony may be of some 
interest; I cannot myself judge of its value. 

I was in 1922 a young man fresh from the war who struggled to find a place in 
the world and had become a clerk in the office of The Times. I was summoned 
thence, in that first week of June when Lord Northcliffe was preparing to remove 
Mr. Wickham Steed and himself assume the editorship of The Times , to go as 
secretary to Lord Northcliffe who was at Boulogne. I was warned beforehand 
that he was an unusual man whose every bidding must be quickly done. Possibly 
for that reason, everything he did seemed to me to be simply the expression of his 
unusual nature. No suspicion of anything more ever came to me, a week before 
he was “certified"' and, in effect, put in captivity. 

I was completely ignorant of “abnormal” conditions, so that the expert might 
discount my testimony. Anyway, the behaviour I observed was just what I had 
been told to expect by those who had worked with him for many years. There was 
one exception to this. 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 I 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. 1 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 later, 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. 

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 


298 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 first 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 Declaration; 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. 

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 


299 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 parf\ 

Dr. Weizmann was caubous, 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 

*By 1950 the Zionists had opened a “Cellar of the Catastrophe" on a lower floor of the same building as a place of 
pilgrimage for Jews. A legend at the entrace said, “Entrance forbidden to those who have not strong nerves". The 
Chief Rabbi of South Africa, after inspecting this place, wrote, “Everything is being done to develop and foster this 
new cult of Mount Zion, to provide a substitute for the Wailing Wall and an emotional outlet for the religious 
feelings of the people. There seemed to me to be something un-Jewish in it, something which belonged rather to 
superstition than to true religions faith ... I tremble to think of the effect of these completely apocryphal stories" 
(of miraculous cures) “on the simple, pious and superstitious Jews of Yemen. Is there being developed a Jewish 
Lourdes? I hope not, but the signs are ominous". 


300 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 

Brazil, so that the chain of yesses was complete. Even Dr. Weizmann could not 
tell whether this happy ending to his visit was the result of his own eloquence or of 
pressure applied at a higher level (that of the Spanish delegate’s superiors in 
Madrid). 

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 into 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 

*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 the 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. 


301 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


round the neck of American State policy, and though American voter only slowly 
realized this, it became immaterial to him which party prevailed at elections. 


302 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


THE NATIONAL HOME 


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 re¬ 
enforce, 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 time-fuse 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). 

These words (like Mr. Balfour’s earlier statement that British policy in this 
question was “ definitely set”) contain the central mystery and challenge. 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 (in the 1950’s statements similar to those 
of Mr. Balfour and Mr. Amery were often made in America, as will be seen). 

During this decade, when the project of the “national home” proved a fiasco, 
the Western politicians continued to congratulate themselves on what they had 
done. Mr. Lloyd George told an applauding Zionist audience in London: “I was 
brought up in a school where 1 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. 
Ramsay 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”. 

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 


303 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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. 

Mr. J.M.N. Jeffries records what went on in Palestine during this decade. The 
Zionists began to buy up Arab land (which under the Talmudic Law might never 
under any conditions be resold to Arabs). The Arabs cheerfully sold them some 
land but too well knew the Torah to yield enough for Palestine ever to be taken 
from them by simple purchase (as the too-simple King-Crane Commission had 
foreseen). Moreover, they bred fast and soon showed that Zionist immigration, 
in any normal circumstances, could never produce a population nearly equal to 
them. From the start it was clear, as all experienced observers had stated, that 
they could only be dispossessed through a new world war. 

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”; he then complains that the Arabs, who drew the obvious conclusion 
from his denial of elections, were the victims of “the deliberate misrepresentation 
of Zionist aims”. 


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 
baek 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. 

However, what happened in Palestine during this decade was all incidental to 
the greater purpose of retaining control over the politicians of London and 
Washington, so that “policy” there should continue to be “impossible to 
change”. That, and not the success or failure of the “national home” in Palestine, 


304 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


was decisive, and Dr. Weizmann at the end triumphed again. 

At this period he had to deal with a greater difficulty than any offered by the 
Western politicians: the alarm, and hostility, of that “World Jewry 1 ' 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, and feared that the term “anti-Zionist" 
would imply antagonism to that. Through this chink in their armour Dr. 
Weizmann unerringly reached. 

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 w orld in search of a solution to this problem. The greal 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" 

i 

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 
wmild 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 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, 


305 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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. 

Thus the years that the Zionists have eaten continued. 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. 

Mr. Macdonald's submission restored the situation in London to its former 
shape, but 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. 


306 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 
THE STRANGE ROLE OF THE PRESS 

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 revolutionary-Zionism and 
revolutionary-Communism proved to be the sole beneficiaries. 

Mv 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 


307 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 1937,1 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, 1 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” (1 was forty-three in 1938, was Chief Correspondent for 
Central Europe and the Balkans, had worked for The Times for seventeen years, 
and 1 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 1 did, and 1 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”. 


308 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


When I resigned in 1938 1 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 E 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 1 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 


309 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


and filled with Jews V 

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 1 ’. 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 1 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 l 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, Disgraee 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. 


310 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 
THE MANAGERS, THE MESSIAHS AND THE MASSES 


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. Today an impartial historian could hardly compute which 
reign produced the greater sum of human suffering. At the start 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’s reign began with a significant deception. He used a wheeled 
chair but the public masses were never allowed to see him, in flesh or picture, until 
he had been helped to an upright position. His infirmity was known; nevertheless, 
some directing intelligence decreed that the false picture of a robust man must to 
his last day be presented to the multitude (and even afterwards, for the sculptor 
who later made his London monument had to depict him in this sturdy pose). 

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 A1 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). 

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. 


311 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


rejected the concept of “the melting-pot'’ and of “assimilation”. Mr. James 
Truslow Adams referred to it in his Epic of America, and Rudyard Kipling, who 
lived in New England in the 1890’s, wrote: 

“The land was denuding itself of its accustomed inhabitants and their places 
had not yet been taken by the wreckage of Eastern Europe . . . Immigrants were 
coming into the States at about a million head a year . . . Somewhere in the 
background, though he did not know it, was the 'representative' American, who 
traced his blood through three or four generations and who, controlling nothing 
and affecting less, protested that ... all foreign elements could and would soon 
be assimilated into 'good Americans’. And not a soul cared what he said . . . 
What struck me . . . was the apparent waste and ineffectiveness, in the face of the 
foreign inrush, of all the indigenous effort of the past generation. It was then that 
I first began to wonder whether Abraham Lincoln had not killed too many 
autochthonous 'Americans’ in the Civil War, for the benefit of their hastily 
imported Continental supporters. This is black heresy, but I have since met men 
and women who have breathed it. The weakest of the old-type immigrants had 
been sifted and salted by the long sailing-voyage of those days. But steam began 
in the later sixties and early seventies, when human cargoes could be delivered 
with all their imperfections in a fortnight or so. And one million more-or-less 
acclimatized Americans had been killed”. 


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 he 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 


312 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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”). 

Dr. Weizmann thus soberly presented the valid argument against unrestricted 
Jewish immigration only because he was speaking chiefly to Jews and was 
drumming into them the Talmudic argument that Jews cannot be assimilated; 
this argument is essential to Zionism, but is not inherently true. The quoted 
passages show that in 1906 a man in authority was still able to state that his 
country could not make good “wrongs” supposed to have been inflicted on Jews 
in another country, and to let “the interests of his country” govern his duty. In 
the ensuing decades all the “premier-dicators” 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. WeizmamTs 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, so that, according to his own words, they were deliberately 
leading the Jews there to disaster; the time must come, if what he said was true, 
when governments elsewhere in the world will be under pressure to admit large 
numbers of Jews from America because of “the wrongs” done them there. 

Such was the background of the dominant issue in American life when Mr. 
Roosevelt became president. 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. 

In proportion to the total American population even the highest estimate 
would not reach one-tenth. In itself this is a relatively small group; politically 
organized to tip the balance of power it is of decisive importance. 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 every-increasing 


313 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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?” 

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. 

One can only offer a reasonable surmise about the reasons. Mr. House, at 
seventy-five, regretted young Philip Dru of 1912, who had thought the American 
Constitution “outmoded and grotesque”, had seized power by force and then 
governed by emergency decree. He had a new set of more sober and responsible 
ideas ready for Mr. Roosevelt and, from relegation, then “watched with 
forboding” the concentration of irresponsible power in Mr. Roosevelt’s hands. 
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”, but in the 1930’s Mr. House was alarmed by the 
completely untramelled control of the public purse which his second “Rockland” 
obtained. 

Presumably, then, Mr. House was discarded because he had retreated from his 
earlier ideas, for those original ideas governed Mr. Roosevelt’s policy 
throughout his twelve years. He supported the world-revolution; his first major 
act of State policy was to recognize the Communist Government and in the 


314 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


ensuing war he resumed the House-Wilson policy of “all support”. He supported 
revolutionary-Zionism. 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”. 

Thus Mr. Roosevelt put “Philip Dru’s” ideas into further practice. Of Mr. 
Wilson in the earlier generation his Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Franklin K. 
Fane, had said, “All Philip Dru had said should be comes about; the President 
comes to Philip Dru in the end”. As to Mr. Roosevelt, twenty years later, Mr. 
House’s biographer (Mr. Howden) says, “It is impossible to compare Dru’s 
suggested legislation with Mr. Roosevelt's and not be impressed by their 
similarity”. 

This is an illustrative example of the transmission of ideas from generation to 
generation, among a governing group. Mr. House’s ideas were those of “the 
revolutionaries of 1848”, which in turn derived from Weishaupt and the 
revolutionaries of 1789, who had them from some earlier source. When Mr. 
House abandoned them they were transmitted without a hitch to the ruling group 
around another president, and the one man who had modified these ideas was left 
behind. 

Mr. House was the only casualty in the inner circle. 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 
Feague 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 (Hitler’s 
anti-Jewish measures in Germany at this time revived Mr. Brandeis’s desire to 
drive Arabs out of Palestine). 

Right at the start of Mr. Roosevelt’s twelve years some doubt may have arisen 
about his docility, and means have been found to ensure it (the reader will recall 
“Rockland’s” attempt to assert independence in 1912 and the “exultant 
conspirators’ ” mirth about his capitulation). That would explain the curious fact 
that 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 the light of earlier experience, the identity of the men surrounding President 
Roosevelt plainly pointed to the policies he would pursue. He made this clearer 


315 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


by widening the circle of his Jewish advisers. In 1933 this had a new significance. 
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 mass-immigration 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 Viennese-born 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). 

Fike 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 Faw 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. 

They include in particular Mr. Alger Hiss, who by trial and conviction was 
revealed as a Communist agent, though he was a high “adviser” of President 
Roosevelt, (Mr. Justice Frankfurter voluntarily appeared at the trial to testify to 
Mr. Hiss’s character), and Mr. Dean Acheson, who as American Secretary of 
State at that time declared he would not “turn his back” on Mr. Hiss, and others. 
Mr. Hiss played an important part at the Yalta Conference, where the 
abandonment of half Europe to the revolution was agreed; Mr. Acheson’s period 
of office coincided with the abandonment of China to the revolution. 


316 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 

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 adivisers 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 “advisers 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. Hitler simultaneously 
appeared as the symbol, at that moment, of the mathematically-recurrent Jewish 
persecution, and in the calculations of President Roosevelt’s advisers took the 
place occupied by “the Czar” twenty years before in those of Mr. Wilson’s. 

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 

*See footnote on page 318 


317 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


budgets of half-a-dozen thrifty States. Mr. Roosevelt gained these powers by 
invoking the need to beat “The Crisis”, and he produced T he Permanent 
Emergency in which his country still lives. 

His presidency followed a design obviously predetermined and the course of 
events in the world might have been entirely different if it had been shorter. 
However, 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. Only 
once was his tenure threatened with unexpected interruption, dangerous to these 
plans. 

In a Southern State, Louisiana, arose a politico of Mr. Roosevelt's type. 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 and wrote a book called My First Week in the White House . 
containing illustrations which showed Mr. Roosevelt, looking much like the 
Roosevelt of Yalta, listening humbly to the wisdom of a hale and ebullient Huey 
Long. 

He set out to undo Mr. Roosevelt by outdoing him in Mr. Roosevelt's especial 


*The agitation about the lot of the American Negro, of which so much is heard in me 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 comulsory 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 mixed-schooling). I was able to see the American Jewish 
Committee's budget for 1953. the estimates for w hich were 51,753,000. 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 iarge 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 w ; e 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. 


318 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


skill: lavish spending and lavish promises. He did this in an ingenious way (he was 
possibly trickier than even Mr. Roosevelt). Mr. Long, with his “Share the 
Wealth” and “Every Man a King” programme, controlled the political machine 
in Louisiana. When the Roosevelt money began to flow into the States (for 
expenditure on all manner of crisis “projects”, and incidentally on votes) Mr. 
Long calmly diverted it to his own similar ends. He forced through the Louisiana 
Legislature a law prohibiting local authorities from receiving any Washington 
money without the consent of a Louisiana State Board. As he controlled this 
board, he intercepted the cornucopian stream and the money was spent to 
enhance his, not Mr. Roosevelt’s voting strength. He did with public money what 
Mr. Roosevelt was doing, but for his own political account. 

In 1935 Mr. Roosevelt’s second election campaign loomed ahead. Suddenly 
his advisers became aware that Mr. Long was popular far beyond his native 
Louisiana; he was a national figure. The Democratic National Committee “was 
astonished when a secret poll revealed that Long on a third-party ticket could 
poll between three and four million votes and that his Share The Wealth plan had 
eaten deeply into the Democratic strength in the industrial and farm States” (Mr. 
John T. Flynn). 

Therefore Mr. Long, although he could not have become president at that 
time, certainly could have prevented Mr. Roosevelt’s re-election, and the ruling 
few suddenly beheld a disturber of their regime. However, as Mr. Flynn says, 
“Fate had gone Democratic and remained so”; on September 8, 1935 Mr. Long 
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.* 

The political effect was clear; Mr. Roosevelt’s re-election was ensured. The 
usual suggestion of “a madman” was conveyed to the public mind and various 
other motives, not entailing insanity, also were suggested. No public 
investigation was made, as in the cases of other political assassinations of the last 
hundred years, in respect of which investigation was denied or curtailed. Such 
investigations as have been made (for instance, in the cases of President Lincoln, 
the Archduke Franz Ferdinand and King Alexander of Yugoslavia) have never 
supported the theory (always put forward) of the lonely “madman”, but have 
revealed thorough organization with powerful support. The removal of Mr. 
Long determined the pattern of events for a decade, so that it was as important in 
its effects as the murders of more highly-placed men. 

Mr. Roosevelt was re-elected in 1936. His allotted task evidently was to 
reinvolve his country in the “foreign entanglements” of Mr. House and Mr. 

*Mr. Long had foretold his assassination in July, saying in the Senate that enemies had 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 . . 


319 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


Wilson, and, like Mr. Wilson, he promised from election to election to keep it out 
of these. Meanwhile, the uproar about Hitler grew and, as I have shown, his 
persecution of men was subtly transformed into a “persecution of Jews”. Mr. 
Roosevelt, just two years before the Second War, made public, through cryptic 
statement which to the initiated was an undertaking to involve his country in war 
and to wage it primarily for the cause represented by his palace guard. Mr. 
Wilson made his public statement, with its menace to Russia, in December 1911, 
about three years before the First World War; Mr. Roosevelt made his, with its 
menace to Germany, in October 1937, about two years before the Second World 
War. The two statements are implicitly identical in identifying the American 
cause with the Jewish cause as mis-represented by the Zionists. 

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 boycott-Germany movements on the basis of “cable reports” from Germany 
that “a nationwide pogrom” of Jews was 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 

*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. 

**See footnote on page 321 


320 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


shown. 

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’ 1 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”,* 

For the Zionists in America the spectral danger of a reconciliation between 


*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 
v/ere 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 
peaeetime! 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! 


**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 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


Hitler and the Jews became most acute in 1938. General Smuts then sent his 
Defence Minister, Mr. Oswald Pirow, to Germany to ease tension in the Jewish 
question, if he could. The British prime minister, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, 
welcomed the attempt; he told Mr. Pirow that the pressure of international Jewry 
was one of the principal obstacles to an Anglo-German understanding and said 
he would be helped in resisting this pressure (Leon Pinsker's “irresistible 
pressure”) if Hitler could be induced to moderate his spleen. 

Mr. Pirow then went to Germany. He says that he made a specific proposal, 
that Hitler responded favourably, and that agreement was in sight. 

At that very instant fate again intervened, 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 beyong endurance. 

Mr. Roosevelt responded immediately: “The news of the past few days from 
Germany has deeply shocked public opinion in the United States . . . I myself 
could scarcely believe that such things could occur in a twentieth century civilization 
. . . I asked our Ambassador in Berlin to return at once for report and 
consultation”. 


The words referred to the synagogue-burning (Mr. Roosevelt did not 
comment on the murder) and the central sentence is demonstrably untrue, 
because Mr. Roosevelt, and all his contemporaries, had earlier seen the wanton 
destruction of religious edifices. True, they had not been synagogues, but 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. Moreover, when he made this declaration he had just sent 
a telegram cordially approving the enforced capitulation of Czechosiavakia to 
Hitler and in that deed had found nothing incongruous with 20th Century 
civilization. This was the moment when I threw up my post, feeling unable to 
continue in journalism at a time when untruth was master of “the news”. 

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 


322 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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. 

During these six years when “the unnecessary war" was brewed 1 watched the 
turbulent, darkening scene from Berlin and Vienna and all the great cities on 
which the long night was soon to fall: Prague and Budapest, Belgrade and 
Bucharest, Sofia and Warsaw. I saw as much as any man, I suppose, of the 
stoking of the furnace from which the ingot, war, was produced; and more than 
most, because 1 was not confined to any one country or faction, but had the run 
of them all. I knew the noise of the bravoes in the Storm Troopers' 
Stammkneipen, the furtive, bitter talk of their adversaries in private dwellings, 
and the nervous murmur of men on the run, who glanced ever over their 
shoulders. I saw the face of the mob, that dinosaur without a cerebral cavity, in 
both its moods: the inflamed one of illusory hope (in Berlin) and the hollow¬ 
cheeked, sunken-eyed one of hopeless disillusionment (in Moscow). I met fear at 
every level, from the street-cleaner to the head of state or of government; I saw 
the terror in both its headquarter cities. 

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 Cafe 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 chancellor^ 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. 

It was all a whirling confusion, at the centre of which was one plain fact: that 
Hitler would make war unless he were prevented and that this war was coming, 
because he would not be prevented. There was another British prime minister, 
Mr. Stanley Baldwin (a source of grief to the newspaper correspondents in 


323 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


Germany) who withheld the truth of Hitler’s warlike intentions from his 
countrymen because, as he later said, he would have 'dost the election” if he had 
told it. If his successor, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, thought that by continuing the 
policy of encouragement to Hitler he could “steer” Hitler to direct his war 
against the Soviet (I have no proof of this, but it may have been Mr. 
Chamberlain’s calculation) that was at least a policy, where before was no policy 
at all. But it was a mistaken policy, for all qualified observers in Germany 
foresaw that when he struck Hitler would join hands with Stalin in waging war, 
not wage war against him (I wrote this in my pre-war books). 

When I experienced Hitler’s first two invasions, of Austria and 
Czechoslovakia, I realized that the last hope of averting the unnecessary war was 
gone. I felt that I lived in a mad world and this explains the title, Insanity Fair, 
which I gave to the book I wrote at that time. I could see only a lunatic lack of 
policy then. Eighteen years later, in the light of all that has come about and been 
mad known, the possibility that the unnecessary war was not in all quarters held 
to be unnecessary obviously cannot be written off. 


324 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 ever-derided) 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” exercized 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 


325 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 

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 Macdonalds left the happy dreamland of Socialist 
platform oratory for the cold, hard world of “irresistible pressure”. Mr. 
Macdonald again set oui 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. 

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 


326 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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. Feon 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 
Palestinean 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. 

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 Fondon to Jerusalem and back, telling the British government in 
Fondon what to do, their Commissioners in Palestine what to report, and the 
British government in Fondon, again, what it should do with the report when it 
arrived. (Betweenwhiles he visited New York to arrange for more “pressure" 
from that quarter). 

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. 

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 Fevites. This accepted 


327 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 twelvemonth before the Second War the secret arbiters of power 

328 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 

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”. 

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. 

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 


329 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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. 

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 dowm 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 / will be on the sidelines over here”. 

Very soon after he wrote this Mr. Churchilfs political fortunes took a sudden 
turn for the better and (as in the case of Mr. Lloyd George in 1916) his attitude 
tow ards 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 r 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 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


ten years’ 1 . 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 vears 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 VI r. 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 independence 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 


331 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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. 


332 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 


333 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


(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 ogranized 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 


334 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 
lor 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 ! 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 live- 
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 
wuts 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 1 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 

335 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 he 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 letter-paper) Rabbi Stephen Wise “the next day 
left for Washington, and after conference with high government officials felt 
more confident that the British would he 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. Weizman 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 


336 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 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 first-rank 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 


337 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 1 ’ 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 ihey 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. 


338 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 
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 


339 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 I930’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 mass-mind 
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 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 


*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. 


340 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 elassie 
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 
ogranization who should know by their own experience how the Communists 
i infltrate , . ,, (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 A.D.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, 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 your 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 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 
PLilestine 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, 


*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 land himself much better informed about what goes on in the world. The black-out is in the non-Jewish 
press. 


342 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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' 1 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 every day 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 


343 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 anti-semitism”. 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”. 


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 


344 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 Franfurter 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: 


345 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 aksed 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 


*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 
converstaions 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 retieenee 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. 


346 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 

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 nation-states 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 rnanulactured 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 anti- 
semitic 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- 


341 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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' 1 ). 

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 11 foretold in the above quotation is the Zionist-drafted 
“Genocide Convention 11 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 11 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 


348 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 

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 1 ", 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 


349 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 black-listed! 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 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. a eulogistic message commending it 
for“reminding the nation that the ideals of religion must apply in all areas of life”. 


350 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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, nationwide 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 


351 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 siient 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 an 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. 


352 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


THE REVOLUTION “EXTENDS” 


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 inevit able. 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, 
fellow-citizens, 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”. 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 ol 


353 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 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". 

The pre-history of this notation, again, is that 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 


354 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 

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. 

Political leaders who are ready to obtain their country’s entry into war by 
facilitating an enemy attack on it cannot be depended on to wage it in the 
national interest. The American people as a whole still is unaware of the truth of 
Pearl Harbour, an ominous beginning which led in unbroken line to the ominous 
end. 

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 


355 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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, w'hich 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”. 


Fleet Admiral Halsey, who at that time was one of Admiral Kimmel’s three 
senior commanders, says, “Ail our intelligence pointed to an attack by Japan 
against the Philippines or the southern areas in Malaya or the Dutch East Indies. 
While Pearl Harbour was considered and not ruled out, the mass of the evidence 
made available to us pointed in another direction. Had we known of Japan's 
minute and continued interest in the exact location and movement of our ships in 
Pearl Harbour” (indicated by the withheld message) “it is only logical that we 
would have concentrated our thought on meeting the practical certainty of an 
attack on Pearl Harbour”. 

Rear Admiral Theobald, commanding destroyers of the Battle Force at Pearl 
Harbour, writing in 1954 says, “Dictates of patriotism requiring secrecy 
regarding a line of national conduct in order to preserve it for possible future 
repetition do not apply in this case because, in this atomic age, facilitating an 
enemy's surprise attack, as a method of initiating a war, is unthinkable”. (The 
admiral presumably means that he hopes a repetition is “unthinkable”). He adds. 
“The recurrent fact of the true Peari 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 w ; as Chief of Naval Operations in Washington and who refused 
to inform Admiral Kimmel of the Japanese declaration of war message) that all 
he did w^as done on the order of higher authority, “w'hich can only mean 
President Roosevelt. The most arresting thing he did, during that time, was to 


356 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


withhold information from Admiral Kimmel". 

Fleet Admiral Halsey, writing in 1953, described Admiral Kimmel and 
General Short as “our outstanding military martyrs’". They were retired to 
conceal from the public, amid the confusion and secrecy of war, the true source of 
responsibility for the disaster at Pearl Harbour, but they were rather “the first" 
than the “outstanding" military martyrs, in the sense used by Admiral Halsey. 
They originated a line, now long, of American naval and military commanders 
who experienced something new in the history of their calling and country. T hey 
found that they courted dismissal or relegation if they strove for military victory 
by the best military means or objected to some strategy dictated from above 
which was obviously prejudicial to military victory. Their operations had to 
conform to some higher plan, the nature of which they could not plainly perceive, 
but which was patently not that, of military victory in the national interest, 
taught to them from their earliest days as the sole ultimate reason for a soldier's 
being. 

What, then, was 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 three-and-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’’. 

The word “appeasement" was incorrectly used by General Deane, for the 
policy went far beyond simple “appeasement'’, and was obviously aimed at 


*See footnote on page 358 


357 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


increasing the military and industrial strength of the revolutionary state after the 
war. 

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 war as well; the prospect of this third 
war, arising immediately the second one ended, was then depicted to the Western 
masses as the consequences of Soviet perfidy. 

The values transferred to the revolutionary state from America are almost 
beyond human comprehension. Elected in 1932 to abolish “deficits”, President 
Roosevelt in twelve years spent more than all former American presidents 

*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 Brockdor’ff-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 banknotes for the 
promotion of the revolutionary movement in Russia; signed. Dr. A. Helphand” (Royal Institute of International 
Affairs journal, London, April 1956). 


358 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 

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 1 '. 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” 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 so- 
called 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 acti vities 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 


359 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 “Lend-Lease 
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 dispatehed 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 wTich respectable precincts Mr. Hopkins, according to his owm 
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”. 


360 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


As to that, today's student cannot discover who "chose 11 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 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 11 ) and from a Jewish teacher of Bohemian and 
Russian origins who had been a pupil of Tolstoy, the Bolshevists 1 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 11 . The 
University of Oxford conferred on him one of the most ill-fitting doctorates in its 
history and Mr. Churchilfs 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 1 (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 M inisters 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 anv 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 


361 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 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 


362 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 

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 American-piloted 
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 


363 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 dying 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”. 

(For some years after the Second War the public masses in America and 
England were told by their leaders that their best protection against a new war, 
and the most effective deterrent to “Soviet aggression”, was Western possession 
of the atom bomb. On September 23, 1949 the Soviet Union exploded an atom 
bomb, to the surprise of none who carefully followed affairs. Major Jordan then 
could contain himself no longer and approached a Senator, who was stirred 
enough to induce a leading broadcaster, Mr. Fulton Lewis, to make the.story 
known. In that form, and in his later book, it thus became public, and it was the 
subject of two Congressional hearings, in December 1949 and March 1950. The 
press unitedly misrepresented the gravamen of the matter and, as in all these 
cases, no true remedial effect was produced; nothing effective has been done to 
prevent the recurrence of a similar state of affairs in another war). 

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 


364 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


(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. 

Among the major donations obviously intended to strengthen the Soviet 
Union industrially after the war, Major Jordan's records include one repair plant 
for precision instruments ($550,000), two factories for food products 
($6,924,000), three gas generating units ($21,390,000). one petroleum refinery 
with machinery and equipment ($29,050,000), 17 stationary steam and three 
hydro-electric plants ($273,289,000). The Soviet lists reproduced by Major 
Jordan suggest that a spirit approaching hysteria in giving moved Mr. Hopkins 
and his associates, for they include items for which no rational explanation can 
be found, for instance: eyeglasses ($169,806), teeth ($956), 9,126 watches with 
jewels ($143,922), 6,222 lbs of toilet soap $400 worth of lipsticks, 373 gallons of 
liquor, $57,444 worth of fishing tackle, $161,046 worth of magic lanterns, $4,352 
worth of “fun fair' 1 devices, 13,256 lbs of carbon paper, two “new pianos", 
$60,000 worth of musical instruments and (an item which conjures up visions of 
the “Beloved Leader", Mr. Roosevelt’s and Mr. Churchill’s “Uncle Joe”), “one 
pipe”, valued at ten dollars! 

Mr. Hopkins’s past as a professional fund-raiser and welfare-worker seems to 
show in the donation of $88,701,103. over four years, for “relief or charity”; 
those who have visited Soviet Russia may try to imagine this money being doled 
out by the Commissars to the poor! This was not the end of cash-giving under 
“Lend-Lease”. 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, 


365 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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. 

There were two other ways in which the revolutionary state could be 
“supported" and helped to “extend": (1) the conduct of military operations; (2) 
the direction of State policy at high-level conferences issuing from these military 
operations. As the policy of delivering arms and wealth was so firmly, even 
fanatically pursued in favour of the revolutionary state, it was logical to expect 
that the same policy would be pursued through military operations and the 
conferences resulting from them. In fact, this happened, as good observers 
foresaw at the time and as the receding picture of the war now plainly shows. It 
also was the inevitable result of the capture of a great measure of power behind 
the scenes, in the American Republic, by means of the invasion described in the 
last chapter. 

The effort to turn all military operations to the advantage of the revolutionary 
state, which in complicity with Hitler had started the war by the joint attack on 
Poland, began soon after Pearl Harbour. It failed then but was entirely successful 
in the last stages of the war, as the outcome showed. The leading part in this 
process was taken by the most enigmatic figure of the Second War, General 
George C. Marshall, Chief of Staff of the United States Army. To him 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". 

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 


366 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


authorizing the Chief of Staff to override seniority rules in favour of younger 
officers held by him to be “of unusual ability’ 1 . 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. 

Immediately after Pearl Harbour and the American entry into the war in 
December 1941 the Soviet propagandists in Moscow and in the West began loud 
clamour for the Western allies to invade Europe forthwith. Mr. Churchill, when 
he saw President Roosevelt soon after Pearl Harbour, had obtained general 
agreement that an invasion before 1943, at the earliest, was a military 
impossibility. By April 1942 General Eisenhower, at General Marshall’s 
instruction, had prepared a plan for an invasion in 1942, and Mr. Roosevelt had 
been persuaded to cable Mr. Churchill in this sense ( The Hinge of Fate) . General 
Marshall, with Mr. Hopkins, then went to London and was told by Mr. 
Churchill that a disaster on the French coast due to a hasty and reckless invasion 
was probably “the only way in which we could possibly lose the war” (Mr. 
Sherwood). 

General Marshall, in view of his appointment, was presumably entitled to be 
regarded as the best military brain in the United States. What he proposed was in 
fact that the only great fighting ally, at that time, should commit suicide and that 
the war should be lost, at all events for England. Mr. Churchill said that if such an 
attempt were made the Channel would be turned into “a river of Allied blood”, 
but in truth it would have been three-fourths British blood; the American 
Commander in the British Isles, later asked what forces he could contribute, 
“pointed out that all we could count on using would be the 34th division then in 
Ireland”. General Clark added that even this one division lacked anti-aircraft 
support, tanks and training (the first American troops to engage in combat, in 
North Africa late in 1942, proved to be quite unready for battle). The leading 
American military critic, Mr. Hanson W. Baldwin, later wrote, “In retrospect it 
is now obvious that our concept of invading Western Europe in 1942 was 
fantastic”. 

In spite of all this General Marshall, on return to Washington, proposed to 
President Roosevelt that the United States withdraw from the war in Europe 
unless the British acceded to his plan, (Secretary Stimson). General Marshall was 
sent again to England to see Mr. Churchill (he brusquely refused to stay at 
Chequers). His plan then collapsed under the weight of General Mark Clark’s 
report from Ireland, that he could put only one untrained and under-equipped 
division into the venture. But the proposal, and the threat, had been made, and 


367 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


all that followed later in the war must be considered in the light of this action of 
the highest military officer in the United States. 

In the spring of 1942 the Germans still had 1,300,000 troops in France and the 
Low Countries, and the Western allies had no comparable force to throw against 
them, even if they had possessed air superiority, landing craft, amphibious 
vehicles, and invasion-training. Mr. Roosevelt had to withdraw from General 
Marshall’s menacing plan, and England, for the third time in that war, survived a 
mortal danger. The war went on through 1942 and 1943, while British, and later 
American armies crushed the Germans in North Africa, and then the decisive 
turn in the war came. The Western Allies were ready to strike; how and where 
were they to strike? At that juncture General Marshall’s second great 
intervention determined the outcome of the war. 


Mr. Churchill’s own account, and the narratives of all other authorities, agree 
that he was from first to last consistent, at all events in this major issue. He was 
the only man among the W stern leaders with great military and political 
experience, and he clearly saw that the war would bring neither true victory nor 
peace if the revolutionary state, the aggressor at the war’s start, were enabled to 
spread deep into Europe. He desired that military operations should be so 
conducted that it should not extend beyond, or far beyond its natural frontiers. 

In this controversy his great antagonist proved to be General Marshall more 
than President Roosevelt, whose state of health in the last year of the war may 
have incapacitated him from clear thought, unless he was simply the helpless 
captive of the pressures around him. 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 struggle continued for eighteen months, but the die was east, as events 
proved, at the first Quebec Conference of August 1943, when the Anglo- 
American armies, having completed the conquest of North Africa, had returned 
to Europe and were driving the German armies out of Italy. At Quebec, under 
General Marshall’s insistence, the decision was taken to withdraw troops from 
Italy for a secondary invasion of France, auxiliary to the main invasion of 
Normandy. This meant the disruption of Field Marshal Alexander’s Allied force 
in Italy (which after the capture of Rome had become “a tremendous fighting- 
machine . . . with horizons unlimited”: General Clark), halting the advance 


368 



THE CONTROVERSY OE ZION 


there, and, above all, abandoning all idea of a thrust from Italy aeross the 
Adriatie which would have carried the Allied armies to Vienna, Budapest and 
Prague. This would have altered the entire post-war picture to the advantage of 
the West and of peace; a glance at the map will make the matter plain to any 
reader. At that moment true "victory 1 ' was within reach, and it was thrown away 
in favour of the invasion of Southern France, a dispersion of military strength 
even graver in its consequences than that of British armies to Palestine in the First 
War. 

The secondary, southern invasion offered no military advantage to justify this 
decision which was obviously political; the document on which General Marshall 
based his arguments in favour of it at the Quebec Conference reveals this. It was 
called "Russia's Position" and was ascribed to "a very high-level United States 
military estimate" (Mr. Sherwood), which indicates General Marshall himself. It 
said, "Russia's post-war position in Europe will be a dominant one . . . Since 
Russia is the decisive factor in the war, she must be given every assistance and 
every effort must be made to obtain her friendship. Likewise, since without 
question she will dominate Europe on the defeat of the Axis, it is even more 
essential to develop and maintain the most friendly relations with Russia". 

Here the overriding "policy" laid down in respect of Lend-Lease deliveries 
reappears in respect of military operations; it is that of unconditional surrender to 
the paramountcy of Soviet aims and interests. Stalin had opposed the thrust 
through the Balkans and averred that "the only direct way of striking at the heart 
of Germany was through the heart of France"; the "high level military estimate" 
produced at Quebec in fact propounded Stalin's plan. The document, as the 
reader will see, twice states an assumption as a fact, namely, that after the war 
"Russia’s position in Europe will be dominant . . . without question she will 
dominate Europe". That was precisely the question which, in 1943, had yet to be 
decided by nearly two more years of military operations, and Mr. Churchill's 
policy was designed to prevent the very thing that was stated as an accomplished 
fact. He wished to see the Soviet victorious, but not "dominating" Europe. He 
was overborne, and at that moment in 1943 the Second World War, by means of 
political decisions taken in secrecy, was politically lost to the West. 

This was General Marshall’s most momentous intervention. Air. Churchill 


though he never criticized General Marshall, refers cryptically to him in his war 
memoirs, and in Triumph and Tragedy mourned the lost opportunity. General 
Mark Clark, in 1943 the American Commander in Italy, in 1950 wrote, "If we 
switched our strength from Italy to France, it was obvious to Stalin . . . that we 
would turn away from Central Europe. Anvil" (the invasion of Southern France) 
"led into a dead-end street. It was easy to see why Stalin favoured Anvil. . . After 
the fall of Rome, Kesselring's army could have been destroyed if we had been 
able to shoot the works in a final offensive. Across the Adriatic was Yugoslavia 
. . . and beyond Yugoslavia were Vienna, Budapest and Prague . . . After the fall 


369 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


of Rome we Tan for the wrong goal’, both from a political and a strategical 
standpoint. . . Save for a high level blunder that turned us away from the Balkan 
States and permitted them to fall under Red Army control, the Mediterranean 
campaign might have been the most decisive of all in post-war history ... A 
campaign that might have changed the whole history of the relationships 
between the Western World and Soviet Russia was permitted to fade away . . . 
The weakening of the campaign in Italy . . . was one of the outstanding political 
mistakes of the war”. 

General Mark Clark (a brilliant American soldier who was subsequently 
relegated to secondary commands and resigned from the Army) says “blunder” 
and “mistake”, but the document above quoted and many other sources now 
available show that the decision was neither blunder nor mistake in the ordinary 
sense of those words: that is, an error made in miscalculation of the 
consequences. 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”. 

Under the shadow of this plan (as will be seen) the Western armies gradually 
broke their way through to the edge of Germany. To the last moment Mr. 
Churchill (who had been defeated by General Marshall in his earlier plea to have 
the right arm of the Allied armies strike through the Balkans at “the soft 
underbelly” of the enemy) strove to make good something of what had been lost 
by a massive, last-minute thrust of the left arm to Berlin and beyond. The story is 
told both in his and in General Eisenhower’s memoirs. 

General Eisenhower describes his refusal of Field Marshal Montgomery’s 
proposal, late in 1944, to strike hard with all available forces for Berlin. He 
considers that the idea was too risky, or reckless; earlier in his book he gently 


370 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 

criticizes Montgomery for being too cautious. He continued through the 
following months with a sprawling general advance which left the Red Armies 
time to press into Europe, and in March 1945 (when the Yalta Conference was 
over and the Soviet intention to annex, rather than liberate, Rumania and Poland 
had already been shown, and President Roosevelt was cabling formal protests to 
Stalin) General Eisenhower informed the Soviet dictator by direct cable of his 
plan, marking it ‘"Personal to Marshal Stalin”. Its communication to Stalin 
before it had even been endorsed by the Allied Chiefs of Staff brought angry 
protest from Mr. Churchill, who to the last strove to save what could yet be saved 
from the fiasco which was being prepared by urging that at least Vienna, Prague 
and Berlin be taken. 

This was all in vain. General Marshall, in Washington, notified London that 
he fully approved both General Eisenhower's “strategic concept” and his 
“procedure in communicating with the Russians”. Thereafter the Allied advance 
in the West was, in fact, arranged to receive Soviet approval, and British counsel 
was disregarded. General Eisenhower had informed Stalin directly on March 28 
that he would stop short of Vienna. On April 14 he informed the Chiefs of Staff 
that he would stop seventy miles short of Berlin, on the Elbe line, adding "If you 
agree, I propose to inform Marshal Stalin”; as British objections had already 
been overriden, the first three words were but a matter of form. There still 
remained Prague, capital of captive Czechoslovakia. General Eisenhower 
advised Stalin that he would advance to Prague “if the situation required”; he 
had substantial forces standing idle on the Czech border. Stalin replied (May 9, 
1945) requesting General Eisenhower “to refrain from advancing the Allied 
forces in Czechoslovakia beyond the . . . Karlsbad, Pilsen and Budweis line”. 
General Eisenhower at once ordered his General Patton to halt on that line. 

Thus “the hideous bisection” of Europe was brought about; to this description 
of it Mr. Churchill added the platitudinous comment, “it cannot last”. General 
Eisenhower five years later claimed that he alone was responsible for these three 
fatal decisions: “I must make one think clear. Your question seems to imply that 
the decision not to march into Berlin was a political decision. On the contrary, 
there is only one person in the world responsible for that decision. That was I. 
There was no one to interfere with it in the slightest way”. 

This statement was made in reply to a question at a dinner of the Association 
of the Bar of the City of New York on March 3, 1949. The questioner said “the 
general feeling is that if our Army had marched into Berlin and . . . Prague the 
picture in the post-war period might have been different . . . Had our political 
leaders . . . refrained from interfering with you in going through your regular 
military procedure of taking as much as our armies might take . . . don't you 
think the postwar picture might have been different?” 

General Eisenhower's statement cannot have been true, even if he thought it 
was. The order to hold back the Allied advance until the Red armies had taken 


371 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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. For that matter, General Eisenhower’s 
own naval aide and biographer. Captain Harry C. Butcher, specifically states 
that when General Eisenhower (against Mr. Churchill’s protest) opened direct 
communication with Moscow about the halting-line for the Allied advance, the 
question of “boundaries and areas to be occupied had gone beyond the sphere of 
military headquarters ”. General Eisenhower’s actions clearly followed a 
predetermined political plan agreed at the highest level; by the time he became 
president its consequences were plain io see and he might have felt “haunted” by 
President Roosevelt's example (as Mr. Roosevelt was always “haunted” by that 
of President Wilson). 


Mr. Churchill supplied (on May 11, 1953) the conclusive comment on this 
military outcome of the Second War, which was the second great 
“disenchantment” for troops who thought themselves victorious: “If our advice 
had been taken by the United States after the armistice in Germany, the Western 
Allies would not have withdrawn from the front line which their armies had 


reached to the agreed occupation lines, unless and until agreement had been 
readied with Soviet Russia on the many points of difference about the occupation 
of enemy territories, of which the German zone is only, of course, a part. Our 
view was not accepted and a wide area of Germany was handed over to Soviet 
occupation without any general agreement between the three vic torious powers ”. 

Thus the policy followed in the transfer of arms, wealth and goods and in the 
conduct of military operations during the Second War served to “extend” the 
revolution. One other way remained in which this process of extension could be 
advanced through the war: by the capitulation of Western state policy, at the 
highest political level, in the pourparlers and conferences of leaders which were 
held as the military picture unfolded. 

The feelings of readers might be needlessly harrowed if the story of all these 
meetings (Atlantic, Cairo, Casablanca, Teheran, Yalta) were told. 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 


372 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


“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 
aggrandizement, 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 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 themselves deep in the heart 
of Europe. The far fall of Western diplomacy (if the word is not too genteel) from 
its earlier high estate was made brutally clear by the Yalta meeting, and perusal of 
the records might make today's Westerner long for old days when 
plenipotentiaries and ambassadors, in formal dress and conscious of their 
responsibilities, gathered in dignity to arrange the affairs of nations after a war: 
in comparison with the Congress of Vienna and Berlin, the Yalta conference 
looks somewhat like a smoking-concert in a pothouse. 

The Western leaders, on the refusal of the Soviet dictator to leave his domains, 
foregathered with him in the Crimea; in dealings with Asiatics, this is from the 
start a surrender. The American president and his intimate, Mr. Hopkins, were 
dying men, and in Mr. Roosevelt’s case this was apparent from the news-reel 
pictures which the masses saw; 1 recall the exclamation of shock that sprang from 
an audience among which I sat. Some of the leading dignitaries were 
accompanied by relatives, so that the affair took on the look of a family 
excursion, a rather pleasant escape from the burdensome trammels of war. But 
much the worst feature of all was that the visitors were subjected to (and many of 
them fell victim to) one of the oldest tricks in negotiation known to wily Asiatic 
mankind: plying with liquor. A high delegate. Major General Laurence S. Kuter, 
who represented the United States Army Air Force, says: 

“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 


373 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 the 
agony of Warsaw, which seem, from the papers, to have been practially 
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 receiced, if any. 

The “agony” to which Mr. Churchill refers is the heroic rising of General 

374 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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’ 1 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” 
(words which recall the Czech broadcast “bequeathing our sorrows to the West” 
after the abandonment of Czechoslovakia to Hitler in 1939). 

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. 

Mr. Roosevelt wished by this prompting of Stalin to annoy Mr. Churchill 
(whom by 1945 he apparently regarded as an adversary); he had told his son 
Elliott at Teheran, “Trouble is, the P.M. is thinking too much of the postwar, and 
where England will be; he’s scared of letting the Russians get too strong”), and 
made this plain to Stalin by saying he would “now tell him something indiscreet, 
since he would not wish to say it in front of Prime Minister Churchill”. Among 
the things which were not told in front of Mr. Churchill was this: “The President 
said he felt that the armies were getting close enough to have contact between, 
and he hoped General Eisenhower could communicate directly with the Soviet staff 
rather than through the Chiefs of Staff in London and Washington as in the past ” 


375 


THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


(.February 4, 1945). 

Here is 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. 

Stalin did not again propose the shooting of 50,000 Germans. The Yalta 
records suggest that he showed some reserve towards Mr. Roosevelt's private 
proposals to him (which included one that the British should give up Hongkong), 
and the picture of him which emerges from these papers is, that of a more 
dignified, and in spoken words at least more scrupulous man, than the president! 
The reasons may be, on the one hand, that Mr. Roosevelt's talk was so callous 
and cynical that it produces a feeling of repugnance in the reader; on the other, 
even Stalin may have hesitated to believe that the American president would go 
as far as he said in supporting Soviet aggrandizement and have suspected some 
trap, so that he showed more than his usual reserve. In any case, the murderer of 
millions appears, in these particular pages, rather less repellent than his visitor. 

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 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. 

Though Mr. Churchill had not given up the last hope of averting it, the 
imminence of this annexation was apparent at Yalta, and the final degradation of 
the West lay in the acceptance of it, at the end even by Mr. Churchill. For 
acceptance it was: the pretence that merely half of Poland’s territory would be 
abandoned to the Soviet, that Poland would be “compensated” by amputations 
from Germany, and that “free elections” would be held in the state thus 
produced, was abhorrent when everyone knew that all of Poland, and the half of 
Germany from which Poland was to be “compensated”, were to pass alike from 
Nazi enslavement into Communist enslavement, and that the Allied armies were 
to be held back to ensure this. 

Thus when Mr. Roosevelt asked leave to “bring up Poland” he had abandoned 
the high “principles” of the Atlantic Charter. He began by saying “there are six 
or seven million Poles in the United States”, thus intimating that for him the only 
problem was that of votes in American elections, not of Poland, and then he 


376 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


proposed the amputation of Poland along the Curzon line, adding the strange 
remark that “Most Poles, like the Chinese, want to save face” (many observers of 
this period noted that he was sometimes incoherent, and he did not explain how 
the loss of Polish territory would save the Polish face). Mr. Roosevelt had been 
well briefed for this proposal. 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 light Hitler, 
remained mourning in their quarters while the great “Victory Parade” was held 
in London). 

Thus the deed was done, and instead of freedom of speech and worship, 
freedom from want and fear, the peoples of Eastern Europe were abandoned to 
the secret police and concentration regime which Hitler had first introduced there 
on the night of the Reichstag fire. It would seem that nothing worse than this 
could be done, and yet one even worse thing was done. 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 


377 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 ”. 

This was 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”. Then President Roosevelt, in the manner of a 
man who is a member of an exclusive club and is sure his host must also belong, 
"said he was a Zionist and asked if Marshal Stalin was one”. 


This exchange produces on the reader the effect of two men getting down to the 
real business at last. Stalin replied that "he was one in principle but he recognized 
the difficulty ”, In this passage, again, the Georgian bank-robber sounds more 
like a statesman and speaks mo/*eprudently than any Western Fader of the last 
forty years, none of whom have admitted any "difficulty” (Mr. Churchill was 
wont to denounce any talk of “difficulty” as anti-Jewish and anti-semitic). This 
was not the whole conversation on the subject, although it is all that the official 
record discloses. 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). 

All the statements cited above, with the one exception, are taken from the 
official publication, "The Conferences at Malta and Yalta, 1945”, issued by the 
American State Department on March 16, 1955. 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. 


Historically regarded, the revelations of these Yalta documents are 
incriminating enough, but they are not complete. Much was expunged (I have 
given one example) and presumably it was the worst. In May 1953, under 
pressure from the United States Senate, the American State Department 


378 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


undertook to publish in unexpurgated form, by June 1956, the documents of all 
twelve wartime conferences. Only the Yalta papers had been published by May 
1956, and these in expurgated form. 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”. 

This undermining of the West was not confined to the United States; it was 
general throughout the Western world and this chapter dwells on the American 
case only because, in the conditions of today, the strength and wealth of America 
are so great that their use or misuse probably will decide the issue. A similar 
condition was shown to exist in the country, 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 governmental- 
infestation and espionage of which the Soviet Embassy at Ottawa was the centre 
(despite the leading part taken by Russians in this process of warning Western 


379 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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. 

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 


380 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 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 


381 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 into being at San Francisco in April 1945 under the directorship 
of an agent of the revolution. 

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 he 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 1956 publicly stated that, if he were allowed, he could 
“relate incidents to demonstrate the power Alger Hiss exercised . . . and how he 


382 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 

operated at high levels”, adding that the official publication ‘Tailed 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 hearing 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 Hitler-Stalm alliance) was ready to 
produce the papers proving Mr. White's (and Mr. Hiss’s) activities; these papers 
then had to be left in safe hiding by him for another nine years, when he brought 
them out to demolish Mr. Hiss’s libel action against himself. From first to last, no 
governmental body would look at them. In 1941 the F.B.I. interviewed Mr. 
Chambers and was given Mr. White’s name by him, but no action followed; the 
F.B.I. was equally unable to move any governmental authority to action in this 
matter, and the eventual exposure, through private agency, came only in 1948. 

Mr. White’s first decisive intervention in American State policy came in 1941. 
According to two unimpeachable authorities (the Harvard Professors William 
Langer and S. Everett Gleason in The Undeclared War) he drafted the American 
ultimatum of November 26, by means of which Japan was “manoeuvred into 
firing the first shot” at Pearl Harbour (Secretary Stimson’s phrase). Thus his 
hand may be plainly traced in the initial act of America’s involvement in the 
Second War, as may Soviet prompting of it. 

Having shaped the beginning, he also shaped the end of the Second War, in the 
interest of the same party, his masters. He is generally credited with the drafting 
of the “Morgenthau Plan”. In both cases, therefore, American State policy was 
fashioned by the United States Treasury, not by the State Department or the War 
Department, which, under the President, are the departments constitutionally 
responsible for the conduct of foreign policy in time of war; and at the Treasury, 


383 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


as has been shown, Mr. White was ‘Tally responsible” for all matters bearing on 
foreign relations. 

The general tendency in America since the Second War has been to point to 
Mr. White as the original author of these fateful actions. This may betoken 
reluctance to point a finger at the responsible Cabinet officer himself, Mr. Henry 
Morgenthau junior. Mr. Morgenthau originally appointed Mr. White, signed 
both the draft ultimatum to Japan of November 1941 and the draft plan for 
dismembering Germany of September 1944, and in both cases President 
Roosevelt acted on the plan submitted. It is therefore difficult to see how Mr. 
Morgenthaifs and Mr. White’s responsibility can be separated, and the most 
that might be assumed is that the directing brain was the pseudonymous Mr. 
Harry Dexter White’s. 

The genesis of the “Morgenthau Plan” for the dismemberment of Germany 
into petty provinces, the destruction of its industry and flooding of its mines and 
its reduction to the status of “a goat pasture” was described by another Assistant 
Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. Fred Smith, in 1947. He said it was first discussed 
at a meeting (at which he was present) between General Eisenhower, Mr. 
Morgenthau and Mr. White in the general’s mess tent in the south of England on 
August 7, 1944. Mr. White (says Mr. Smith) raised the subject of Germany; 
General Eisenhower said he would like to “see things made good and hard for 
them for a while . . . the whole German population is a synthetic paranoid”; and 
Mr. White remarked, “We may want to quote you on the problem of handling 
the German people”, whereon General Eisenhower said he could do this. Mr. 
Morgenthau, on this basis, devised the “plan” and went to London to canvass it 
with Mr. Churchill and Mr. Eden, then returning by air to America to put it 
before President Roosevelt. 

Up to that point, says Mr. Smith, the State Department had not been informed 
of Mr. Morgenthau’s activities in the matter. Mr. Roosevelt apparently had 
misgivings and formed a committee to develop the plan, in which committee the 
Secretaries of State and War at last joined Mr. Morgenthau of the Treasury. The 
disclosure of the Morgenthau Plan before this committee “resulted in as violent 
an explosion as has ever occurred in the hallowed chambers of the White House”; 
Mr. Hull and Mr. Stimson both violently attacked it. Nevertheless, when 
President Roosevelt then went to Quebec to meet Mr. Churchill Mr. Morgenthau 
“happened” to be with him, and Mr. Hull and Mr. Stimson were left behind. Mr. 
Churchill records his surprise at that, but both he and Mr. Roosevelt then signed 
“the Morgenthau Plan”, which possibly might more accurately be called the 
White-Morgenthau plan. 

Thus President Roosevelt (against the strong protests of his responsible 
Cabinet officers, the Secretaries of State and of War) and Mr. Churchill (in 
contradiction of many declarations) approved a peace of vengeance. Both men 
later spoke as if they had not understood what they did. Mr. Churchill said he 


384 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 

“regretted" his signature, but never explained how he came to give it (Mr. James 
F. Byrnes mildly comments that this is “difficult to understand"). Mr. Roosevelt 
spoke as if he had inadvertently initialled an inter-office memorandum without 
looking at it. He said he had yielded to the importunities of “an old and valued 
friend" (Mr. Sherwood), and this indicates Mr. Morgenthau; he also said that he 
was “frankly staggered" and “had no idea how he could have initialled this; he 
had evidently done it without much thought" (Mr. Stimson). 

The public masses were left to infer that error had been realized in time and 
that “the Morgenthau Plan" was abandoned; the factories were not blown up 
and the mines were not flooded. This was soothing-syrup, not truth. The spirit of 
the peace of vengeance, proposed in the White-Morgenthau plan, did prevail. 
Mr. Morgenthau did not succeed with his proposal (the one jocularly made by 
Mr. Roosevelt to Stalin at Yalta) that “archcriminals" should be put to death by 
the military without provision for any trial, but the trials which were held remain 
a blot on Western justice. The bisection of Germany (which in fact was the 
bisection of Europe, friend or foe) was more perilous to the future than any 
dismemberment of Germany into provinces. Above all, the West, by approving 
slave labour, put the civilizing process of nineteen centuries into reverse. 
(Significantly, eleven years after the war's end the United States Government 
withheld its adherence to an international convention, proposed by the 
International Labour Organization, outlawing forced labour; it was obviously 
debarred from adhering by its signature to the Yalta agreements). 

Thus the ghost of “Harry Dexter White" still haunts the scene, for the shape 
which this Soviet agent and his associates gave to American government policy 
left the future of the West more troubled than it had ever been. When the war 
ended he was still rising in the esteem of American presidents, for he was 
appointed to preside over the second of the two great international planning 
conferences at which the future of the nation-states was to be submerged in that 
of an international directorate. The first was the organizing conference of the 
United Nations, where Mr. Alger Hiss occupied the directorial chair. The second 
was the monetary conference at Bretton Woods, which set up the World Bank 
and the International Monetary Fund. Mr. White was the organizer of that pilot- 
conference and then was appointed American executive director of the 
International Monetary Fund. Thus the chief representative of the United States 
Government, at each of these preparatory meetings of the new international 
directorate, was a Soviet agent. 

Before Mr. White received this last appointment (publicly announced by Mr. 
Roosevelt’s successor, Mr. Harry Truman, on January 23, 1946), the F.B.I. had 
several times given warning at the White House about Mr. White’s secret 
activities, the last time in a special message to the President’s personal military 
aide on November 8, 1945, in which Mr. White was specifically named as a Soviet 
agent and spy. After the President’s public announcement of Mr. White’s new 


385 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


appointment, the head of the F.B.I., Mr. J. Edgar Hoover, sent a further strong 
warning (February 1, 1946), saying that White, if his appointment were 
confirmed, “would have the power to influence in a great degree deliberations on 
all international financial arrangements”. Despite this, Mr. White’s appointment 
was confirmed on May I. 1946, (this history was made public by the Attorney 
General of the United States, Mr. Herbert Brownell junior, on November 17, 
1953); Mr. Truman’s reply made no reference to the warning of November 1945 
and stated that he allowed White’s appointment to stand after consideration of 
the warning of February 1946). 

In April 1947 (by which time the exposure of Mr. Hiss was drawing near) Mr. 

% 

White resigned “for reasons of health”. In August of 1948. when the proof of his 
guilt was conclusive and was about to be made public, he was called before the 
Un-American Activities Committee of Congress and denied ever having been a 
member of the conspiracy. He was then privately confronted with some of the 
most damning evidence (now all on record) and three days later was found dead, 
receiving Jewish burial. No autopsy report is on record and the circumstances of 
his death remain as mysterious as his identity. 

Nearly seven years later (January 3, 1955) the Internal Security Committee of 
the United States Congress reported: 

“ 1. Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, and their confederates in the Communist 
underground in Government, hacl power to exercise profound influence on 
American policy and the policies of international organizations during World War 
IIand the years immediately thereafter; (this is the vital, and supremely dangerous 
“confusion-period” to which 1 earlier alluded; the later years of a war and the 
early years of its aftermath); 

“2. They had power to exercise profound influence on the creation and 
operation of the United Nations and its specialized agencies; 

“3. This power was not limited to their officially designated authority. It was 
inherent in their access to and influence over higher officials , and the opportunities 
they had to present or withhold information on which the policies of their superiors 
might he based; 

“4. Hiss, White and a considerable number of their colleagues who helped 
make American foreign policy and the policies of international organizations 
during crucial years, have been exposed as secret Communist agents”. 

This might appear to record the good ending to a bad story, for at earlier times 
the discovery and publication of such a state of affairs by a parliamentary 
authority would have meant, first, impeachment proceedings and the like, and 
second, remedial action. In fact, as I can testify (for I was in America during 
many of these years) the remedial effect was very small, if any. The chief reason 
for this was that the entire process of investigation and disclosure was 
accompanied by a most violent press campaign against the investigators and 
disclosers, not against the culprits and the conspiracy. 


386 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


Here the history of the period after the French revolution, and of the ordeal- 
by-smearing suffered by Messrs. Morse, Barruel and Robison, repeated itself. If 
any future historian should examine the yellowing newspaper pages of these 
years he will find ten thousand abusive words directed against those who called 
for investigation and remedy for every one aimed at an exposed or convicted 
member of the conspiracy; he will find columns of praise for Mr. Hiss, for 
example, alongside columns of vituperation directed against the penitent agent, 
Mr. Whittaker Chambers, whose self-defence brought about Mr. Hiss’s 
conviction. In time this storm centred around the head of one Senator Joseph 
McCarthy (as in the earlier decade it raged over that of Mr. Martin Dies, until he 
was driven out of political life), and a new epithet was coined for the delusion of 
the masses: “McC-arthyism” (the demand for investigation and remedy) was by 
endless iteration made to sound to them more repugnant than “sedition”. 

Because of this the most significant moment in American history after the a 
Second War was one in 1954, when the Senate censured Senator McCarthy. In 
1952, for the first time in twenty years, the candidate nominated by the 
Republican party was elected. General Eisenhower. The return to office, after 
two decades, elated the Republicans and General Eisenhower’s victory was very 
largely due to his undertaking to stamp out the Communist infiltration of 
government, which had been revealed to have occurred during the long 
Roosevelt administration and had been inherited by his successor. In 1954 the 
new President allowed it to be known that he looked with disfavour on Senator 
McCarthy’s “methods” and thus implicitly gave his nod to the censure motion 
(the American Jewish Committee also imperiously demanded that the Senate 
approve it), which then carried. Senator, McCarthy, like many before him, then 
began to fade from the political scene and the principle that “investigation” was 
pernicious was re-established. 

Thus the American voter found that the apparent choice between candidates, 
at a presidential election, gave him no true choice at all in the matter of 
combating sedition. With this censure motion, approved by the President of the 
day, all the investigations and exposures ended in sand. From that moment the 
agents of the conspiracy were implicitly left free to resume the burrowing process 
which resulted in the state of affairs represented, during the Second War, chiefly 
by Messrs. Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White. It is this which makes the policy 
of America an incalculable and dangerous explosive force in any future war. 

In the matter of sedition the “premier-dictators” of our time perform a 
function allotted to them by the Protocols of 1905, that major document of a 
conspiracy of which such men as Harry Dexter White were demonstrably part. 
Protocol No. 19 says that when the super-government has been established 
sedition will be placed in the category of “thieving, murder and every kind of 
abominable and filthy crime” and adds that “we have done our best to obtain 
that the nation-states should not arrive at this means of contending with sedition. It 

387 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


was for this reason that through the Press and in speeches and indirectly . . . we 
have advertised the martyrdom alleged to have been aecepted by sedition-mongers 
for the idea of the eommomveaV\ 

Mr. Hiss was presented as a martyr, over a long period, in the press of the 
world, of no matter what party; Senator McCarthy, who "‘arrived at this means 
of contending with sedition'', was presented as a brute. This control of the press, 
established in the last two decades, enables the conspiracy to stand between the 
nation-states and their wish to root out sedition. The Protocols of 1905 foretold: 
“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". 

In America, which today is the key to the future of the West, the matter is 
further complicated by the existence of a body which is able to make drastic 
interventions in this field. The Supreme Court of the United States, by sitting in 
judgment on constitutional issues between the Federal Government and the 
forty-eight separate State Governments, frequently decides matters which in 
other parliamentary countries would be ones for the legislature, not the judiciary. 
Moreover, the members of this court are political (which is to say, party) 
appointees, not necessarily professional jurists or men of any judicial training. 
The danger of political control of such a body is obvious, and it was made plain 
by a majority judgment handed down on April 2, 1956, when the Supreme Court 
set aside the conviction of a Communist under the Pennsylvania State law against 
sedition. In this judgment the Supreme Court stated the “the field of sedition" 
was that of Congress alone and that “no room has been left" for State legislation 
or action against sedition. Forty-two of the forty-eight States at that time had 
sedition laws and this judgment, if it is not overridden by special act of Congress, 
will at a blow reduce the obstacles to sedition in America by the separate powers 
of those forty-two States, leaving, as the sole defence, the national 
administration, which had been repeatedly shown by the events of the preceding 
ten years to have been infested with seditionists. This judgment, too, may be 
compared with the passage previously quoted from the Protocols. 

Fastly, the Second War led to the revival of the Feague of Nations, which had 
sprung from the “Feague to Enforce Peaee". This body was obviously never an 
alliance of nations, but an instrument for the control of nations, to be wielded by 
whomever gained command of it. The conclusions of the Senate Committee 
quoted above testify to the part which Messrs. Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White 
and their associates played in organizing and fashioning it. Clearly, in their 
minds it was intended to “extend the revolution" universally, following Fenin’s 
dictum, and to become the “Super-Government" foreseen by the Protocols. The 
shadow of the universal concentration-camp regime looms already in its 
“Genocide Convention", where the causing of “mental harm" is defined as a 
crime against unspecified “groups". 


388 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


What it will become depends on the future success or failure of the nation¬ 
states in “contending with sedition' 1 . In the Second War, as in the first, all the 
“top-line leaders 11 and “premier-dictators 11 appear from the start to have been 
secretly agreed in the resolve to set up a “world-organization 11 and to 
subordinate their nation-states to it. This was their own project, not that of their 
peoples, who were never consulted. No nation has ever evinced a desire to sink its 
identity in some world-state, ruled by who knows whom. On the contrary, the 
continuing love of nationhood, despite all ordeals and defeats, is the clearest 
human feeling evinced by the 20th Century, and this clearly will increase until 
“the deception of nations 11 ends and the idea of obliterating nations collapses. 

Nevertheless, the wartime leaders, free from all public supervision in their 
meetings, their cabled exchanges and their telephone talks, all through the war 
pressed on with the project for a new world order, which at the war's end was to 
be found in the secretarial hands of Messrs. Hiss and White. Mr. Baruch’s 
biographer records that Mr. Roosevelt was busy with the idea long before he 
became president, and selected the name, “United Nations 11 . Mr. Baruch 
himself, the permanent adviser of presidents, was of cosmic ambition; the same 
biographer quotes him as saying on many occasions, “Of course we can fix the 
world 11 . 

The absence of humility is the most striking thing about all these mortals. Mr. 
Churchill is as disappointing to the student, in this matter, as he is reassuring in 
that of the sorry end of the war in Europe, which he unquestionably tried to 
avert. In the matter of re-moulding the world he was as incorrigible as all the 
others, and the brave phrases he sometimes used (“I have not become His 
Majesty's first minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British 
Empire") are not easy to reconcile with his enthusiasm for a concept based on the 
eventual “liquidation" of all nation-states. 

Thus, at a time when a disastrous end to the war then in progress was being 
prepared, these wartime leaders were busy with world-government notions. They 
could not or would not conduct the war to true victory, but they were ready to 
reorganize the world! “The questions of World Organization" (says Mr. 
Churchill in October 1944) “were now thrusting themselves upon all our minds". 
From faraway South Africa, once more. General Smuts raised his voice, saying 
that Soviet Russia must be included, and from Washington President Roosevelt 
agreed that the revolutionary state which had helped Hitler start the war must be 
“a fully accepted and equal member of any association of the Great Powers 
formed for the purpose of preventing international war'. Mr. Roosevelt foresaw a 
period of “differences" and “compromises" during which “the child" would 
learn how to toddle. Mr. Churchill comments that the child was “the World 
Instrument" and thenceforth this term seems to have been the favourite one 
among the wartime leaders. 

In this way, through one more world war, the “league to enforce peace" again 

389 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 

came into existence, and the agents of the conspiracy were numerously 
entrenched in the commanding posts of the central body and of its auxiliary 
agencies, as was to be expected in the circumstances now known; Messrs. Hiss 
and White were the chiefs of a great clan. The first major act of the new “World 
Instrument” was in effect to give sanction to the revolution's annexation of half 
Europe by electing the puppet-governments of the communized captive 
countries there to membership. 

Thus in all fields Lenin’s dictum about the “extension” of the revolution 
through a second world war was fulfilled. This was not the result of the 
persuasion of peoples (in the two cases so far, those of Hungary in 1919 and of 
Spain, where nation-states have been allowed to fight Communism it was thrown 
out). It was the result of the infestation of the West by members of the conspiracy, 
of the virtual suspension of sedition laws which they were able to effect, and of 
the command of policy, supplies and military operations which they gained. 


390 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


THE TALMUDIC VENGEANCE 

Despite the protests of the responsible American Cabinet officers, Messrs. 
Hull and Stimson, and the professionals in the British Foreign Office, the Second 
War ended in '‘a peace of vengeance' 1 ; or rather (as vengeance is the denial of, 
and can never beget peace) in a vengeance which planted the seeds of new war. 

The two “premier-dictators” of the West, Messrs. Roosevelt and Churchill, 
took responsibility for the vengeance, for, despite their later disavowals of it, they 
both signed the document which was its charter: the Protocol of the Yalta 
Conference. Under this the Christian West joined with the barbaric East to 
wreak a barbaric vengeance on Europe. The aim of this chapter is to discover 
where the original responsibility lay (for the avowal that they acted at the 
promptings or under the pressure of shadowy others, or in ignorance of what 
they signed, occurs in the statements of both men; here the ultimate 
powerlessness of these seemingly all-powerful wartime potentates is shown). 

In January 1943 Mr. Roosevelt, at Casablanca, first struck the note of “blind 
vengeance”, when he “suddenly stated the principle of unconditional surrender” 
(Mr. Hull). The words, with their Old Testamentary ring, meant that the enemy 
would not be granted peace at any price whatever, and this was the absolute 
reversal of all “principles” previously proclaimed by the Western leaders. The 
responsible American Cabinet member, Mr. Hull, states that he and his 
department had not been informed of this somersault in policy and that “Mr. 
Churchill was dumbounded”; also that the British Foreign Office appealed for 
the term to be avoided. Mr. Churchill (as he stated after the war in the House of 
Commons) nevertheless supported the use of the term “but only after it was used 
by the President without consultation with me”. Mr. Churchill added that “if the 
British Cabinet had considered these words they would have advised against it” 
(but for many years he continued to urge the desirability of “summit” 
conferences between the Moscovite dictator and the two Western leaders, despite 
this experience). 

Thus at Casablanca in 1943 the decision to wreak vengeance was first taken. 
This was the background to the “Morgenthau Plan” of September 1944 
(obviously first devised in Moscow, then drafted by Mr. Harry Dexter White for 
his superior, then forwarded by Mr. Morgenthau to Mr. Roosevelt, who with 
Mr. Churchill initialled it), the spirit of which pervaded the Y alta Conference and 
its Protocol. Mr. Roosevelt's later expression of astonishment (“he had no idea 
how he could have initialled this”) and Mr. Churchill's words of regret (“I had 
not time to examine the Morgenthau Plan in detail... I am sorry I put my initials 
to it”) are both voided by the fact that both then signed the Yalta document, its 
child, and the charter of vengeance. 

By giving their names to it the two Western leaders did greater harm to the 
West than any it could have suffered by war; what is destroyed by explosive can 


391 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


be rebuilt, but spiritual values achieved by the efforts of nations during nineteen 
centuries, once ruined are harder to restore. The East lost nothing because 
vengeance was its barbaric tradition, partly discarded during the last century of 
the Czars" rule but re-established in 1917. In the West, the area of Christendom, 
the case was different. 

During the centuries the West had gradually improved the conduct of warfare 
from the savagery of primitive times to the civilized code which it reached by the 
end of the reign of Louis XIV. The nations came ever more to accept this 
overriding code, which outlawed the insensate killing or maltreatment of non- 
combatants and the plunder of their property, which provided for the immunity 
of a hag of mercy, and laid down that enemy dead, wounded and prisoners must 
be cared for as the combatant’s own. Out of all this, in time, came an 
international organization, under the sign of the cross, which took thought and 
care for every soldier alike, without regard to nationality or rank. Probably this 
code of civilizing warfare formed the best possible first step towards the abolition 
of war for which men ultimately hope. The records of war waged under this code 
are uplifting to study; those of wars which denied it repel. 

The wars of the 19th Century in Europe were fought, in increasing measure, 
under this code, so that their stories show man’* effort to dignify himself even in 
war. This holds good of the Crimean war, and of the three Prussian wars, against 
Denmark, Austria and Prussia. They were honourably waged and concluded. 
(The only great Western war of that century in which the picture darkened was 
the civil one in America, where vengeance was wreaked, after victory, on the 
defeated party. This would not have happened but for the assassination of 
President Lincoln, the pacifier and unifier, within a few days of the victory; in the 
unlit shadows of that crime the same revolutionary conspirators may lurk, who 
demonstrably have shaped the events of our country). 

With that exception, war continued to be waged under this civilizing code 
throughout the West and wherever the West set its foot. At this century’s 
beginning came the Anglo-Boer War in South Africa. A few extracts from the 
journal of the Boer Colonel Deneys Reitz, written immediately after the lighting, 
show how men at war behaved towards each other, under this code, only fifty 
years ago: 

In a British prisoner-of-war camp: "One prisoner asked for an interview with 
my father. His name was Winston Churchill... he said he was not a combatant 
but a war-correspondent and asked to be released on that account. My father 
replied that he was carrying a Mauser pistol when taken and so must remain 
where he was. Winston Churchill said that all war-correspondents in the Soudan 
carried weapons for self-protection, and the comparison annoyed my father, who 
told him the Boers were not in the habit of killing non-combatants ...” 

After the Boer victory at Spion Kop: u We spent the next hour or two helping 
the English Red Cross doctors and bearer parties bury their dead and carry away 


392 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


their wounded . . ." 

After the Boer capture of Dundee: “I saw General Penn Symons, the 
Commander of the English troops. He was mortally wounded and the nurses told 
me he could not last out the night. Next morning ... I met a bearer-party 
carrying his body, wrapped in a blanket, and I accompanied them to where they 
buried him behind the little English chapel . . ." 

At the Boer siege of Ladysmith: “One of our men was shot through both legs 
and another pluckily carried him back to the spruit on his shoulders, the English 
bring all around him, until they realized that he was helping a wounded comrade, 
after which they let him go in peace and were even sporting enough to allow him 
to return to us without a shot fired"; . . A huge soldier loomed up in the dark 
. . . he lunged at me with his bayonet, but his insecure footing deflected the thrust 
and brought him stumbling against me. The man was at my mercy now, for I had 
my carbine against his side, but there came over me an aversion to shooting him 
down like a dog, so I ordered him to put up his hands instead . . ." 

“I found the soldier whom I had killed and was horrified to see that my bullet 
had blown half his head away, the explanation being that during one of our 
patrols I had found a few explosive Mauser cartridges at a deserted trading 
station and had taken them for shooting game. I kept them in a separate pocket 
of my bandolier but in my excitement had rammed one of them into the magazine 
of my rifle without noticing it. I was distressed at my mistake ... I would not 
knowingly have used this type of ammunition. I flung the remainder into the 
brook . . 

After a battle: “The serious casualties were left for the British ambulances to 
pick up . . . the English soldiers, officers and men, were unfailingly humane. This 
was so well known that there was never any hesitation in abandoning a wounded 
man to the mercy of the troops, in the sure knowledge that he would be taken 
away and carefully nursed. 

“We saw the lights of a train, but General Smuts would not allow us to pile 
boulders on the metals nor to fire as the engine thundered by, for fear of killing 
civilians, so we stood aside, catching a glimpse of officers and others seated in the 
dining-car . . . all unaware of the men looking at them from the darkness". 

On the way to the Boer surrender: “On board the British battleship Monarch 
we spent a week in comfort, for officers and men vied with each other in their 
efforts to welcome us. The British, with all their faults, are a generous nation . . . 
throughout the time that we were amongst them there was no word said that 
could hurt our feelings or offend our pride, although they knew that we were on 
an errand of defeat". 

This is a picture of civilized men at war. Today's parrot-phrase about “the next 
war destroying civilization" is empty, because civilization is a state of mind and 
spirit and cannot be destroyed by explosives, though it can be destroyed by such 
deeds as the vengeance of 1945. The war depicted by Colonel Reitz was fought 


393 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


when I was a boy and the code observed by such men as he, on all sides and in war 
or peace, was the one which Englishmen of my generation were taught to honour. 

It was honoured in the First World War. I remember the British treatment of 
prisoners-of-war and I remember the liberation of British prisoners from 
German ones in the final advance; the treatment was similar in both. A wounded 
man had no nationality; he received as good care, if he were a captive, as if he 
were hit on his own side of the line. Non-combatants and civilian populations 
were respected; plunder and rape were outlawed. 

What, then, caused the sudden abandonment of this civilized code of warfare 
by the West after the Second World War? The peoples had not changed in the 
twenty-seven years that had passed, from the Armistice of 1918. They were not 
more cruel or less kindly than before. They were blinded by a propaganda which 
hid from them the real nature of their leaders’ deeds; and these leaders, by their 
own words, were prompted by others or did not know what they signed. In that 
way the vengeance of 1945 was wreaked and civilized men were left to say, with 
Edmund Burke, “It is gone, that sensibility of principle, that chastity of honour, 
which felt a stain like a wound”. 

The significant prelude came, even before the lighting ceased, with the 
indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations in a country already defeated but 
denied the refuge of surrender. The killing of non-combatants was the reproach 
most loudly raised against Germany, in both wars, by the British and American 
politicians. On February 10, 1944 the Yalta Conference ended, where Mr. 
Roosevelt, in private parley with Stalin, had said he was feeling “more 
bloodthirsty” than before about the Germans. On February 13 and 14 British 
and American bombers for hours on end rained explosive on Dresden, a city 
crowded with fugitives, mostly women and children, from the advancing Red 
armies. The number of people killed, burned and buried that day and night will 
never be known; estimates vary between 50,000 and 250,000.* The war 
documents so far issued do not disclose who ordered this act, and strict measures 
were apparently taken to prevent the affair from ever being brought under public 
discussion. 

After that came General Eisenhower’s order to halt the Anglo-American 
advance on the Elbe line, and therewith to abandon Berlin, Vienna and Prague, 
and all East Europe to the Soviet armies. This was vengeance against friend and 
foe alike, for it meant the abandonment of half a continent to Asiatic 
enslavement. It was made more barbaric by the order (the effect of which was 
earlier shown in an eye-witness’s words) to the Allied armies to prevent fugitives 
from the abandoned area, by force, from escaping to the West; at that point 
British and American gun-muzzles were turned against many of Hitler’s victims, 

*The number therefore may have been greater than at Hiroshima or Nagasaki, where the new atom-bombs were 
used, for the first time, on an utterly defeneeless civilian population; and this against the protests of both the 
American and the British military commanders, General MacArthur and Lord Louis Mountbatten, who advised 
that the defeat of Japan was already effectively imminent. 


394 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


as well as German women and children. The culminating deed came later when, 
from the camps where hundreds of thousands of these refugees were gathered, 
having reached the West earlier or despite the cordon, many were picked out to 
be driven back to their pursuers. 

England had abolished slavery, in its overseas colonies, more than a century 
before this; in America, President Lincoln had abolished it during the Civil War 
of 1861-1865. By these acts the wartime leaders of England and America re¬ 
introduced slavery in Europe in 1945! 

The trials of “war criminals” formed the peaks of the vengeance and the 
Everest of them all was reached in the Nuremberg trial of the chief Nazi leaders. 

The "wicked man” whom the masses had for six years been incited to destroy 
was not named in the indictment at all, even in absentia, although his deputy 
Martin Bormann (whose death was no more or less proven than Hitler's) was 
included. This significant gap at the end of Hitler's career may be as significant as 
many earlier gaps in what is generally known about him. In these days, when the 
infiltration of all parties, classes and governments by the agents of the revolution 
is a known and proven thing, it is of interest that the mass of literature about him 
ignores his early associations and the strong evidence of his Communist 
background. The Viennese police dossier of his early days has apparently 
disappeared. His later Brown Army commander. Captain Roehm, told a Storm 
Troop leader (who told me) that when the Bavarian troops drove the Bolshevist 
Government out of Munich in 1919 the unknown Adolf Hitler was taken 


prisoner with the bodyguard of the Moscow emissary Levine, and saved his skin 
by turning informer (this might explain why Roehm, the possessor of 
incriminating knowledge, was killed by Hitler after he came to power). Hitler’s 
own original proposal for the name of the National Socialist party was “the 
Social Revolutionary Party”; he described himself as “the executor of Marxism” 
(not its executioner); and he told Hermann Rauschning that he had built his 
organization on the model of Communism. I met Hitler once or twice and studied 
him at close quarters for many years, before and after his rise to power; I believe 
that no genuinely informative work about him and the part he played has yet 
appeared. 

This period was marked by a series of acts which evidently were deliberately 
devised to give it a nature of mockery especially humiliating to the Christian 
West; it was as if captives were made to perform clownish tricks for the 
amusement of their captors. This was shown at Nuremberg when the Soviet judge 
was selected to read the part of the judgment which condemned the Germans for 
taking men and women away from their homes and sending them to distant camps 
where they worked at slave labour. The British, American and French members of 
the court listened while Western justice, their inheritance and trust, was mocked. 
At that time, under the Yalta agreement, Germans, Poles and many more were 
being taken from their homes and sent to slave-camps; behind the Soviet judge 


395 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


loomed the shadow of the Moscow cellars where men were shot without trial and 
of the vast Siberian prisonland where, for thirty years then, millions of uncharged 
and untried human beings wasted in slavery. 

So much for the peaks of the vengeance. In the foothills unnumbered smaller 
deeds were committed which make up the darkest pages in the recent story of the 
West. It was a reversal to barbarism; where lay the inspiration of it? What 
directing hand made the Western leaders abet the revolution from the East in a 
vengeance of the kind practised by savage, primitive tribes? This vengeance was 
not “the Lord's” in the Christian interpretation. Whose vengeance was it? 

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 MordecaVs vengeance on 
Haman and his sons. Then in the Bavarian village of Oberammergau, where the 
world-famous Passion Play had been performed for fhree 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. 

These things do not happen by accident, and the vengeance on Germany, like 
the earlier one on Russia, was in this way given the imprint of a Talmudic 
vengeance (that is. a vengeance on Christendom, the Talmud being the 
specifically anti-Christian continuation of the pre-Christian Torah). The 
vengeful writ ran on both sides of the line which by that time w as supposed to be 
an “Iron Curtain" dividing “the free world" from the enslaved Asiatic one; in 
this matter of vengeance there was no iron curtain. Nuremberg was in the 
Western zone; Oberammergau in the Soviet one. 

By the choice of the Jewish Day of Judgment for the hanging of the Nazi 
leaders and German commanders the Western leaders gave the conclusion of the 
Second War this aspect of a vengeance exacted specifically in the name of “the 
Jews". The shape which the trial took showed the purpose of the immense 
propaganda of falsification conducted during the war, wiiich I have earlier 
described. “Crimes against Jews" were singled out as a separate count, as if Jews 
were different from other human beings (and when the judgment was delivered a 
hundred million human beings in Eastern Europe had been handed over to the 
general persecution of all men, from which Jews in their proportion suffered in 
Germany). This particular indictment was made “the crux of the case" against 
the defendants (Captain Liddell Hart's words) and was based on the assertion 
that “six million Jews" had been killed (as time went by the word “perished" was 
substituted for “killed"). An impartial court would at the outset have thrown out 


396 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


any suit based on this completely unveriliable assertion. At Nuremberg lawyers, 
who in a private case would have demanded acquittal on the strength of an 
unproven statement in respect of a decimal point or digit, used this fantastic 
figure as the basis of their demand for conviction. 

I earlier described, with illustrations from Jewish sources, the process by 
means of which, over the years, the Jews were “singled out” from the mass of 
Hitler's victims and their number inflated at will from day to day (Hitler's book- 
bonfire became “the burning of Jewish books”; his concentration camps where 
ninety percent of the inmates were Germans became concentration camps for 
Jews; a wartime report about the killing of “ 150,000 White Russians, Ukrainians 
and Jews at Kieff” was changed to “150,000 Jews’ 1 ' 1 ; and so on interminably). 

The statement about the “six million Jews”, allowed to pass without question 
by the men on the bench, was the end-product of this process. In six years of war 
the Germans, Japanese and Italians, using every lethal means, killed 824,928 
British, British Commonwealth and American fighting-men, merchant sailors 
and civilians. Assuming that the Germans killed, say, half of these in Europe, 
they killed (according to this assertion) fifteen times as many Jews there. To do 
that, they would have needed such quantities of men, weapons, transports, 
guards and materials as would have enabled them to win the war many times 


over. 

The figure would not even deserve scrutiny if it had not been used to give the 
Second War the brand of “a Jewish war” and if that, again, did not foreshadow 
the shape of any third war. Because of that, it may be examined here. 

At no time in history, from antiquity to this day, can the number of Judahites, 
Judeans or Jews, living at any given time, be determined; for that reason the 
number afflicted in any calamity also cannot be determined, and there are many 
more *easons why the number of Jewish victims in the Second World War cannot 
be fixed. The process of mystification begins in Genesis and continues through the 
Torah (the seventy people taken by Jacob to Egypt, for instance, apparently 
increased to two or three million within 150 years). At all periods large, and 
sometimes huge variations occur in the “estimates”, and only estimates are 
possible, as the present term, “Jew”, is legally indefinable and statistically 
elusive. 

An eminent Jewish authority, Dr. Hans Kohn, in his article on “the 
distribution of Jews” in the Encyelopaedia Britannica Book of the Year for 1942, 
writes: 

“In view of the fact that in several of the countries where the largest number of 
Jews were living in 1941 the census did not contain any questions regarding religion 
. . . the exact number of Jews in the world in 1941 could not he ascertained. The 
definition of persons falling under the classification of'Jewish race' is in no way 
agreed upon ... In countries where the census included questions of religious 
origins, even this religious criterion of Jewish faith is difficult to define exactly. 


397 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


Thus the assumption which generally varied around the figure of 16 million” (for 
the entire world) “cannot claim any foundation on exact figures. To this 
uncertainty about the number of Jews in the world was added in recent years a 
growing uncertainty about their numerical distribution in the different countries and 
continents. Probably more than 6,000,000 Jews lived in Poland and the U.S.S.R.” 

A weaker basis than that even for “estimates” (not to speak of “statistics”) can 
hardly be imagined, yet in the ensuing period, when all the additional confusions 
of war and occupation were piled on this infirm foundation, precise numbers of 
Jewish casualties were produced day by day, circulated by thousands of 
assiduous propagandists, and at the end declared to amount to six millions! 

Dr. Kohn says that “probably” more than 6,000,000 Jews lived in Poland and 
U.S.S.R. in 1941. In respect of the U.S.S.R. this might corroborate another 
Jewish authority (Prof. H.M.T. Loewe), who said in the Encyclopaedia 
Britannica of 1937 that 2,700.000 Jews then lived there. Similarly, four years 
earlier (1933) the Jewash journal Opinion had stated that the Jewish population of 
the U.S.S.R. was under 3,000,000; and the Soviet official Encyclopaedia in 1953 
stated that “the Jewish population of the Soviet Union in 1939 was 3,020,000". 

This near agreement among four authorities in respect of the period 1933-1941 
might lead the reader to think that the number of Jews in one country at least (the 
U.S.S.R.) was established with reasonable accuracy at a given time. On the 
contrary, this is a statistical jungle where nothing is ever established. In 1943 the 
Jewish Commissar Mikhoels said in London (according to the Johannesburg 
Jewish Times of 1952), “Today we have in the Soviet Union 5,000,000 Jews". 
That is two million more than two years before, and if it was true presumably 
meant that most of the Jews in Poland, after Hitler and Stalin fell out, moved into 


Soviet territory. However, in the same issue of the Jewish Times a leading Jewish 
writer, Mr. Joseph Leftwich, stated that the Jewish population of the U.S.S.R. in 
1952 was 2,500,000, “a loss since 1943 of 2,500,000". He asked, “where and how 
did they disappear?”; the answer, in my judgment, is that most of them 
disappeared into the statistics. 

That is not the end of the confusion in this one section of the question. The 
Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1937 (in giving the above-cited figure of 2,700,000 
Jews in Russia on Jewish authority) said they formed about six percent of the 
total population. The total population was elsewhere given in the same 
encyclopaedia as 145,000,000 and six percent of that would be 8,700,000! 

The encyclopaedias, statistical yearbooks and almanacs are in this one 
question all at odds with each other and untrustworthy. I could multiply 
examples (for instance, the Jewish World Congress in 1953 announced that the 
Jewish population of the U.S.S.R. was 1,500,000) but wandering in a maze 
without an outlet is profitless. All published figures are “estimates" made at the 
estimators' pleasure, and are without value. A professional accountant might 
write a book on the efforts of the encyclopaedists to make the post-war figure of 


398 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


Jewish population in the world conform with the pre-war “estimates”, minus six 
million. Figures are tricky things: a few examples: 

The leading American reference yearbook, the World Almanac, in 1947 gave 
the 1939 Jewish world-population as 15,688,259. In later editions up to 1952 it 
increased this prewar estimate (without explanation) by a million, to 16.643,120. 
It gave the 1950 population as 11,940,000, which, if subtracted from the first 
figure given for 1939, gives a reduction of nearly four millions (though not of six). 
However, it based even this “estimate” on another estimate, namely, that in 1950 
the Jewish population of the U.S.S.R. was 2,000,000. This still left unanswered 
Mr. Leftwich’s question in respect of Commissar Mikhoels’s statement, that in 
1943 the Jewish population of the U.S.S.R. was 5,000,000. 

In England Whittaker \s Almanac, of similar eminence, struggled with the same 
problem. In its 1949 and 1950 issues it gave the 1939 “estimated” Jewish world- 
population as 16,838,000 and that of 1949 as 11,385,200, a reduction of nearly 
5,500,000. However, the figures given for Jewish population in separate countries 
added up W 13,120,000 (not 11,385,200). Incidentally, Whitaker’s in 1950 gave 
the Jewish population of the U.S.S.R. as 5,300,000, against the World Almanac’s 
figure for the same year of 2,000,000. 

Both these publications are of the highest repute for painstaking accuracy and 


the fault is not theirs; in this one matter alone only Jewish “estimates” are 


available, and for obvious reasons no dependence can be placed on these. I 
pointed out the discrepancies in a book of 1951 and observed that Whitaker’s in 
1952 no longer contained these “estimates of Jewish populations”; apparently it 
had abandoned the statistical quest as hopeless, and was right to do so. Another 
encyclopaedia in its 1950 edition also dropped the subject. 

Finally, the New York Times, which may be described as the world’s leading 
Jewish newspaper (it is Jewish-owned and New York is today primarily a Jewish 
city) in 1948 published what claimed to be an authoritative statistical article, 
computing the Jewish population of the world (three years after the war’s end) 
between 15,700,000 and 18,600,000. If either figure was near truth this meant that 
the Jewish world-population had remained stationary or increased during the 


war years. 

Newspaper articles are soon forgotten (unless some diligent student preserves 
them) but the great propagandist fabrications are handed on. Thus the 
historians, those men of precision in other questions, passed on the legend of 
“mass-extermination” to posterity. At the war’s end Professor Arnold J. 
Toynbee was producing his monumental Study of History and in its eighth 
volume (1954) said that “the Nazis . . . reduced the Jewish population of 
Continental Europe, west of the Soviet Union, from about 63 million to about 1 \ 
million by a process of mass-extermination”. He called this “a bare statistical 
statement” and then added a footnote showing that it was not a statistical 
statement: “it is not possible to give exact figures based on accurate statistics and it 



399 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


seemed improbable in 1952 that the necessary information would ever be 
obtainable". Professor Toynbee explains that his figure was based on Jewish 
“calculations, in which there were several possible sources of error”. He 
concludes that “it might be estimated” that five million Continental Jews had 
been done to death by the Nazis. 

The estimate is historically valueless. The starting-point for consideration of 
this question is the fact that six million Jews, or anything approaching that 
number, cannot possibly have been “done to death” or caused to “perish”, for 
the reasons given at the start of this discussion; the very assertion, made before 
the Nuremberg court, was an affront to their 825,000 fighting-men, sailors and 
civilians, killed in all theatres of war, of which only the Western politicians of this 
century would have been capable. 

The number of Jews who were killed or perished will never be known, for the 
reasons already stated and partly discovered by Professor Toynbee in his 
footnote to history. The very term “Jew” is indefinable; Jews are often not 
isolated in statistics; and at no time can the number of living Jews in the world be 
ascertained with any approach to accuracy. Indeed, any attempt to reach 
statistical clarity through census or immigration data is attacked as 
“discrimination” and “anti-semitism”. For instance: 

“Immigrants seeking to settle in Australia will from now on not be asked on 
application forms if they are Jewish, it was made known in Sydney by the 
executive committee of Australian Jewry, which protested against this practice to 
the immigration authorities” (the Jewish Times, Johannesburg). In England, “it 
is impossible, in the absence of official statistics, to do more than make an 
intelligent guess . . . the exact number of Jews in Britain remains a mystery ” (the 
Zionist Record, Johannesburg). In America, President Roosevelt was brought 
under unremitting pressure to abolish the requirement to state “Jewish” on 
immigration forms, and in 1952 a major campaign was waged by the Anti- 
Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee against the McCarran- 
Walter Act because it sought to restore this requirement. This act was in the event 
passed over President Truman's veto, but even a rigorous application of the 
reinstated requirement would not lead to clarification, as applicants, if they wish, 
may insert “British” or any similar description, instead of “Jewish”. 

This state of statistical affairs is now wellnigh universal, so that the whole 
question is a mystery and has deliberately been made one. None can even guess 
the number of Jews whose deaths, during the war, were not natural or the result 
of bombing and the like, but who were done to death by the Nazis. My opinion is 
that, whatever was the number of Jews in the countries overrun by Hitler, the 
number of their victims was in roughly that proportion to the total population 
stricken, Polish, Czech and other. I have found this to be the opinion of all 
persons known to me who survived the concentration camps and occupations. 
Having suffered themselves, their feeling for Jewish victims was as strong as for 


400 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


all others, but they could not understand why the one case of the Jews was singled 
out and the number of Jewish victims monstrously exaggerated. 

The reason, hidden from them, became clear with the hangings on the Jewish 
Day of Judgment, for this symbolic act set the pattern for the entire conduct of 
the occupation, on both sides of the line, in its early years, and even for the future 
conduct of Western foreign policy far outside the bounds of Europe. The 
Talmudic vengeance was the start of a new era in the history of the West, during 
which all national considerations were to be subordinated to the cause of Jewish 
nationhood, as represented by the Talmudists from Russia. 

I have a description, from a person who was present, of the manner in which 
the Nuremberg judgment came to be delivered on September 30 and October 1, 
1946 (between the Jewish New Year, September 26, and the Jewish Day of 
Atonement, October 5), and was executed immediately after midnight in the 
morning of October 16, Hoshana Rabba, the day when the Jewish god, after an 
interval during which he considers his verdict on every single human being, and 
may still pardon sinners, delivers his fined judgment. This description says, ". . . all 
thought the judgment would be delivered sooner than it was, and a number of 
trifling circumstances delayed it, till the date was fixed somewhere round September 
15 . . . Then X, one of the member judges, objected to the literary form of part of 
the judgment. . . it was roughly calculated how long it would take to recast it and 
to recopy the recasting; and the date was fixed by this' 1 . 

I have deleted the name of the member judge. As a result of this delay for 
literary improvement the judgment fell midway through the holiest ten days of 
the Jewish Year and was executed on the day of Jehovah’s vengeance. I had 
foretold some such denouement, in a book published during the war, after Mr. 
Anthony Eden, on 17 December 1942 in the House of Commons, had made a 
"Declaration” about the Jews, in which he implicitly limited to the Jews the 
threat that "Those responsible for these crimes shall not escape retribution”. Mr. 
Roosevelt, in America, had made a declaration of similar implication. 

The Nuremberg trial formed the model for many lesser "war crimes” trials; 
these have been discussed, from the legal and moral point of view, in the books of 
Mr. Montgomery Belgion, Mr. F.J.P. Veale and the late Captain Russell 
Grenfell. A little of the truth about them filtered out in the course of years. In 
1949 an American Administration of Justice Review Board, appointed after 
numerous protests, reported on some of the American military court trials at 
Dachau, where 297 death sentences had been approved. The report spoke of 
"mock trials” to which the defendants had been brought hooded, with ropes 
round their necks, and "tried” before mock-altars with crucifixes and candles; 
they were subjected to brutal treatment in the effort to extort confessions which 
then could be produced before the real trial (the prisoners were led to believe that 
the mock-trial was the genuine one). 

The biggest of these trials was the "Malmedy trial” of 1945-1946, at which 

401 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


forty-three prisoners were sentenced to death. This trial related to the killing of 
American prisoners by SS. troops near Malmedy in 1944, and bitter feeling 
against any proved guilty was to be expected from American prosecutors. 
However, the tormentors of these prisoners were not Americans, as those who 
remember the admirable bearing of American troops in Germany after the First 
World War might expect They were Jews from Austria who had entered the 
United States just before the Second War and, under Mr. Roosevelt’s regime, 
had quickly been taken into the American army and American uniform. A 
genuine American who was present at these mock-trials (a veteran court 
reporter) stated that he left the service of the War Crimes Branch in disgust after 
witnessing the ‘"brutal sadism 7 ' practised by one of the inquisitors. Then the chief 
American prosecutor in this trial, a colonel, admitted to a Senate subcommittee 
that he had known about the mock-trials; he thought they were proper if the trial 
court itself was informed of the method used to obtain the defendants’ 


confessions, and said the prisoners should have known that the black-mass trial 
was a false one because they were not assigned defence counsel. 

A Judicial Commission was sent to investigate and reported in 1949 that the 
confessions “"admittedly” had been obtained by ""the use of mock trials in which 
one or more persons attired as American officers pretended to preside as judges 
and others attired in American uniforms pretended to be the prosecutor and 
defender of the accused”. In consequence some of the death sentences were 
commuted. The chairman of this commission, Justice Gordon Simpson of Texas, 
told the Senate Subcommittee that the trial procedures followed were ""not 
American” (they certainly were not British) and had been agreed ""at the London 
Four-Power Conference that fixed the terms of the war crimes trials”, so that 
responsibility, once more, goes back to the politicians of London and 
Washington and the groups which exercised pressure on them. Justice Simpson 
also testified that the American Army ""could not find enough qualified 
Americans” for these war crimes trials, in which the good name of the West was 
involved, ""and therefore had to draw on some of the German refugees”. 

This aspect of the trials was further illuminated by an event of January 1953, 
when two men were arrested by the American military authorities in occupied 
Vienna on charges of conspiring with a secretary of the Soviet Embassy in 
Washington to transmit secret American military documents to the Soviet state. 
They were both Viennese-born Jews who had reached America in 1938 and 1940, 
at the ages of 16 and 26. In any previous war they would have been kept under 
observation as ""enemy aliens”; under Mr. Roosevelt they had received American 
army commissions as ""friendly aliens”. In 1945 they were made ""members of the 
American prosecution team at the war crimes trials”. When they were arrested as 
Communist agents and spies a high official of the American Military 
Government in Vienna said, ""This ties in with information showing that too 
many of the Americans employed at N uremberg were either Communists or were 


402 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


being used by Communists”. He added that “the American prosecution staff at 
Nuremberg went off in hundreds of directions when the trials were over, many 
into the American State Department or the United Nations'’. 

At this time the further disclosure was made that in 1949 Mr. John J. McCloy 
(an American High Commissioner particularly feared by the Germans during the 
war-crimes trials period) had been given legal briefs “showing that serious errors 
in translation from German and other languages into English were introduced 
into evidence; these errors, in some cases, were made by persons whose 
Communist ties have since been proved by loyalty checks”. This material has 
never been made public, but if it should ever be used in an impartial investigation 
of the trials grave embarrassment for the Western leaders would be caused. At 
the war’s end Communists were everywhere in control of the Nazi concentration 
camps (as will be shown later in this chapter); in the manner above described they 
became prosecutors and judges of the very crimes which they had committed! 

On both sides of the line vengeance was wreaked in the same spirit. 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 w omen; 
what else could the rabid injunction mean, not to spare “even unborn Fascists”. 
An American woman living in Berlin, Mrs. Frances Eavielh described her horror 
when she read the diary kept by her housekeeper, Lotte, and its description of 
“the raping of Lotte and thousands of women, even old women of 65, by the 
filthy Mongol troops, not once but time after time, women with their children 
clinging to their skirts . . .” The diary recorded “every date and detail, written by 
the light of Lotte’s torch, the murders of those who had tried to protect the old 
women, the apology of the Russian officer who had found the bodies . . . his 
explanation to Lotte that the troops had been given forty-eight hours 
Plunderfreiheit ... It was one of the most horrible documents I had ever read and 
I felt icy cold as I put it down”. Plunderfreiheit; loot-liberty! This was the human 
result of the political arrangement made, to the drinking of forty-five toasts, at 
Yalta. 

On the Western side of the line the same vengeance continued. In August 1947 
a British M.P., Mr. Nigel Birch, found nearly four thousand Germans still in one 
concentration camp, held indefinitely without charge or trial. He reported that 
the first question put to them, if they ultimately came to trial, was always the 
same; “Did you know the Jews w ere being persecuted?” The story continued in 
that vein: no other persecution mattered (and at that time legions of human 
beings had been driven back to the Soviet terror which they tried to escape). 

The British and American Governments left the Germans in no doubt as to the 
nature of the vengeance they were exacting. One of the first acts of the Allied 
High Commissioners was to enact a law' “against anti-semitism”. Thus they 
extended into the West the law which identified the nature of the first Bolshevist 
administration in Russia, the “law against anti-semitism” introduced on July 27, 

403 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


1918. Under this British-American edict Germans were being imprisoned and 
their property confiscated ten years later, in 1955; and in 1956 a Jew from 
Austria, by that time domiciled in England and a naturalized British subject, 
brought action against a German under a Western German law (inherited from 
the Allied High Commissioners) which made it an offence ‘To utter anti-semitic 
remarks or be unduly prejudiced against Jews". 

These laws prevent public discussion, but cannot suppress thought. Their 
object, plainly, was to suppress all public enquiry about the nature of the regime, 
west of the “Iron Curtain" as east of it. The effect was to give carte blanche to 
Plunderfreiheit in the Anglo-American zone, too. For instance, the Anglo- 
American law against anti-semitism explicitly made a criminal offence of public 
discussion of the following affair, which I quote in the words of the Jewish Herald 
of Johannesburg: 

“Philip Auerbach was a man of extraordinarily strong character, courageous 
in the extreme, burning with Jewish pride and lit up with a sense of hate of 
German Nazism . . . He was ruthless and merciless in the days when the American 
forces were still haters of Germany and were still ready to do his bidding, to co¬ 
operate with him in relieving the Germans of their loot, giving him a virtual carte- 
blanche for signing documents, for searching, causing arrests and striking terror 
... In those days when Philip Auerbach appeared at the head of immense Jewish 
demonstrations in Germany after the war, the high-ranking American officers 
usually accompanied him, thereby indicating his authority. With the Jewish flag at 
the head of these demonstrations, Auerbach would take the salute, the band playing 
Hatikvah and the tens of thousands of D.F.’s joining in what was a constant 
political offensive for opening the gates of Palestine before the restoration of the 
state . . . No one will ever be able to estimate the value in money of assets of all 
kinds, equipment, clothing, f urniture, motor-cars and every variety of commodity 
which Auerbach helped out of Germany . . . He wielded a power in Germany only 
second to that of the military authorities ". 

The man described was a private person, and was able to use the armed forces 
of America for his looting. His crimes were so flagrant that in time Jewish 
organizations dissociated themselves from him (he robbed Jews and Gentiles 
impartially), though on grounds of expediency more than morals. Seven years 
later (1952), when West German political support for “the free world" was 
becoming important again, he was arrested on charges “embracing interminable 
lists of goods which had been carried out of Germany by forged documents, 
possibly involving also Jewish officers in the American Army and Jewish welfare 


organizations 


In 1952 the West German government was being forced to pay “reparations" 
to the new Zionist state and a full public disclosure of Auerbach’s looting 
activities, conducted with American Army support, would have been 
embarrassing. Therefore the above-quoted charge was dropped, “no doubt 


404 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


because of repercussions of a political character’ 1 , as the Jewish Herald remarked. 
Had it been maintained even a bogus case for the payment of German tribute to 
Zionists from Russia in Palestine would have been hard to make plausible. 
Consequently Auerbach was tried (with a rabbi) merely on minor counts of 
embezzling some $700,000 of funds, blackmail, accepting bribes and forging 
returns. He received thirty months imprisonment and later committed suicide. 

The American and British press published brief, unintelligible reports of this 
affair, with the insinuation that it denoted the revival of "anti-semitism” in 
Germany. This was the echo of the tone taken in the Jewish press, which after 
Auerbach’s suicide asked "On whose head this blood?”, and the like; the 
suggestion that any conviction of any Jewish defendant on any charge, whether 
guilty or innocent, was a sign of "anti-semitism” was by then general. The Jewish 
Herald , for instance, considered the charges morally iniquitous because they 
related to a period when "normal regulations were disregarded by everyone, 
above ad by Jews, who justifiably ignored German considerations of right and 
wrong”. The principles ignored were not German but universal in Christian 
communities, or had been theretofore. The only protest against these 
falsifications, seen by me, came from a Jewish correspondent of the New York 
Daily News, who by chance had suffered from Auerbach’s crimes; had it come 
from a German victim, or an American or British eyewitness, I believe no 
Western newspaper would have printed it. 

The Western masses knew nothing of these happenings in British-American- 
occupied Germany at the time, and might not have objected violently if they had 
known, for at that period they were still under the influence of wartime 
propaganda, particularly in the matter of the Nazi concentration camps. They 
seemed to me completely to have forgotten that the concentration camp was 
originally a Communist idea, copied by Hitler, and that the further the Red 
armies were allowed into Europe the more certain its perpetuation became. Their 
feelings were inflamed by the horrifying news-reel pictures, shown to them on a 
million screens as the Allied armies entered Germany, of piles of emaciated 
corpses stacked like firewood in these camps. 

I was a member of those audiences and heard the comments around me with 
misgiving. Wartime propagands is the most insidious poison known to man, and 
I believe these picturegoers of 1945, deprived of truthful information for years, 
had lost all ability, perhaps all desire to judge what they saw. I think most of them 
thought the human remains they saw were those of Jews, for this was the 
suggestion hammered into their minds by the press day by day. They constantly 
read of “Nazi gas chambers for Jews . . . Nazi crematoria for Jews'' \ and few of 
them in later years troubled to read the stories of inmates and find out who these 
victims truly were. One instance: a German woman who spent five years in 
Ravensbruck camp (Frau Margaret Bubers Newmann) says the first victims were 
the siek or afflicted, or those incapable of work, and the next ones were “ the 


405 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


inferior races”, among whom the Poles were placed first, and the Czechs, Balts, 
Hungarians and others next. 

Thus the piles of dead received as little true compassion as the living who were 
driven back by the Western Allies into the concentration-camp area, and today it 
may be only a matter of historical interest, pertaining to such a book as this, to 
show that the “Nazi” concentration camps, at the time when the Anglo- 
American armies entered Germany, were predominantly under Communist 
control, that Jews were among the tormentors, and that anti-Communism was a 
surer qualification for the death-chamber than anti-Hitlerism! 

Ten years ago this statement (which I substantiate below) would have been 
sunk by mere weight of derision, if it could have been published at all. Today 
enough has been revealed about the Illuminist Communist method of infiltrating 
every class, party, church, organization and institution for some people at least to 
await the proof with open mind: or so I suppose. Lenin's dictum was that all wars 
must in their course be turned into revolutionary wars, which means that the 
members of the conspiracy must fight for the success of the revolution, not for 
their country's victory. The capture of the concentration camps was more helpful 
to this strategy than anything else could have been, because the camps were full of 
people who, if they survived, would have fought Communism, as they fought 
Hitlerism, to the death. The world has never understood this aspect of the 
resistance to Hitler, because it never understood Hitler himself. Those who have 
persisted with this book may see the deep significance of his words to Hermann 
Rauschning: “I got illumination and ideas from the Freemasons that I could never 
have obtained from other sources” (almost exactly Adam Weishaupt’s words) 
A . . I have learnt a great deal from Marxism . . . The whole of National 
Socialism is based on it”. 


The Communists, in their capture of the concentration camps, were aided by 
the policy of unconditional support of the revolution which the Western leaders 
pursued; it gave them power and prestige among the captives which they used for 
their own ends. I was appalled when a young British officer, parachuted into 
Yugoslavia, described to me the drops of containers filled with golden sovereigns 
(which a British subject may not legally possess) to Tito.* The same thing 
happened in Greece. Major W. Stanley Moss, dropped into Greek Macedonia as 
a British commando-leader and liaison officer, found the Communists usurping 
control of the guerillas by means of the golden rain that dropped on them and 
says, “When the Great Day came” (victory in Europe) “the world was amazed at 
the wealth of gold which the Communists found at their disposal. None of the 
money came from Russia; it was presented to the Communists by the Allies. For 
years money had been poured into the country for the maintenance of guerilla 
forces and the general pursuance of the war, but the Communists had used only a 
small proportion of it in the fight against the Germans. We knew long before the 


*See footnote on page 407 


406 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


event of the turn the future would take . . . and yet we were unable to do anything 
to prevent it'\ (Major Moss makes one factual mis-statement; “the world' 1 was 
never “amazed at the wealth of gold 11 which the Allies had dropped on the 
Communists, because the world was never informed of it). 

The picture was the same in every occupied country. Wing-Commander Yeo- 
Thomas, sent secretly into France to study the methods and organization of the 
French resistance movement, vainly warned London: “The avowed aim of the 
Communist Party was the mass uprising of Frenchmen on D-Day . . . to dominate 
all others after liberation. Meanwhile B.B.C. broadcasters jeered at Frenchmen 
who feared the ‘Communist bogey 1 . 11 The consequences of this were described by 
Mr. Sisley Huddleston in 1952; during the “liberation 11 of France the 
Communists killed in cold blood more than a hundred thousand anti¬ 
communists. 

In these circumstances it was inevitable that the Communists should come to 
power in the “Nazi 11 concentration camps too, so that the Western masses, when 
they saw the pictures of these camps being “liberated 11 in fact beheld something 
which their armies were to make permanent in Europe east of the Elbe line. The 
truth came out in 1948 but if one in a million of the people who saw those pictures 
knows of it I shall be surprised. 

In that year the revolutionary chieftain in Yugoslavia, the pseudonymous 
“Marshal Tito 11 , was at odds with the rulers in the Kremlin. This was dangerous 
for a Communist and he may have thought to protect himself, better than by 
armed bodyguards, by making public something of what he knew, calculating 
that Moscow might then leave him alone rather than provoke further revelations. 
The trial he staged was reported in Yugoslavia and ignored in the West. He had 
thirteen of his Communist intimates shot (senior governmental and party 
officials) for taking part in the mass-murder of captives at the most infamous camp 
of all, Dachau. 

Truth outs in the strangest ways, though in our age of press-control it does not 
out very far. In this case the releasing instrument was an elderly Austrian general, 
Wilhelm Spielfried, who emerged alive from Dachau. He wanted the world to 
know what had transpired there, and in the confusion attending the breakup of 
the camp (on the arrival of Western troops) he extracted from the commandant’s 
office a Gestapo card-index recording the people done to death, and the manner, 
signed by the Gestapo agent responsible in each case. Among these agents were 

*Mr. Winston Churchill's efforts to reduce the area of Soviet incursion into Europe, after Lhe fighting, by an 
invasion from the South which would have given the Western Allies command at least of Austria and 
Czechoslovakia and very probably of Hungary and the whole of Germany, were weakened by his insistence on 
setting up Communism in Yugoslavia. That action, for which his Memoirs give no sufficient explanation, also 
weakens his post-war argument, recalling his vain attempts to gain American support for the blow from the South 
and maintaining that the outcome of the war would have been different and better had he been heard. His emissary 
to the Communist leader, Tito, has recorded his own misgiving in this matter and Mr. Churchill's instruction to him: 
“The less you and 1 worry about the form of government they set up the better”. The effect of Mr. Churchill's 
actions was to “set up” the Communist form of government and to abandon the anti-Communist leader and British 
ally. General Mihailovitch, who was later executed by Tito. 


407 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


several of “Marshal Tito’s” leading collaborators. In time General Spielfried 
gained publication for this small section of his material; the remainder still awaits 
a publisher bold enough to print it. 

“Tito” (one Joseph Brosz) had himself been a Kremlin agent from 1934 on. By 
putting his nearest collaborators on public trial (at Ljubljana on April 20, 1948) 
he poised the sword of further disclosures over the Kremlin domes. The accused 
men included Oskar Juranitsch (Secretary General in Tito's Foreign Ministry); 
Branko Oil (Inspector General of Yugoslav Economy); Stane Oswald (a senior 
official, with ministerial rank, in the Ministry of Industry); Janko Pufler (head of 
Tito's State Chemical Trust); Milan Stepischnik (head of Tito's State 
Metallurgical Institute); Karl Barle (an official with ministerial rank); Professors 
Boris Kreintz and Miro Koschir of the University of Ljubljana; and other 
Communist notables. All were former members of the International Brigade in 
Spain, and agents of the MVD (Soviet secret police). 

All made the customary confessions; the defence they advanced is of prior 
interest. They justified themselves simply by claiming that they had never killed or 
injured a Communist: “I never endangered one of ours; I never did anything to a 
party-comrade”. They said they invariably chose for death anyone who could be 
classified as a Conservative, Liberal, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Jew or 
Gipsy, provided that the victim was not a Communist. 

This collaboration in the concentration camps between Hitler’s Gestapo and 
its prototype. Stalin’s MVD,* came about in the following way. “Anti-Fascist 
Committees” were formed in the camps. If Hitler and his Gestapo had been 
genuine in their professions, these committees would obviously have furnished 
the first victims of the gas-chambers. Instead, they were accepted as representing 
the camp inmates and were given privileged status, then agreeing to take part in 
the killings. This was the perfect way of ensuring that anti-Communists should be 
few in post-war Germany. 

In this manner the piles of corpses grew, which the outer world later beheld on 
screens in darkened rooms. This pictorial journalism fulfilled to the letter Mr. 
G.K. Chesterton’s dictum of many years earlier: “Journalism is a false picture of 
the world, thrown upon a lighted screen in a darkened room so that the real world 
is not seen”. 


*In this matter, too, the Western masses were hopelessly misled by years of propaganda, presenting “the Nazis” and 
“our Soviet allies” as opposites, whereas a elose affinity always existed. Mr. Karl Stern, a Jew from Germany who 
migrated to North America and became a convert to Roman Catholicism, records his own misunderstanding of 
this, during German days when he was on the staff of a psychiatric institute: “A couple of Nazi doctors held forth on 
the so-called "Theory of Permanent Revolution' of Trotzky. This theory was new to me . . . but that it should be 
propounded by these people was something entirely new and quite astonishing ... I said, "Gentlemen, I understand 
that you draw a good deal of your theory on political strategy from Trotzky. Does it not strike you as extraordinary 
that you, Nazis, quote Trotzky, a Bolshevist and a Jew, as if he were your evangelist?’ They laughed and looked at 
me as one would look at a political yokel, which 1 was . . . They belonged to a then quite powerful wing in the Nazi 
party which was in favour of an alliance of Communist Russia and Nazi Germany against what they called Western 
Capitalism . . . When one was not listening very carefully, one was never quite sure whether they were talking 
Nazism or Bolshevism, and in the end it did not matter much.” 


408 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


The Communist Juranitsch, the chief accused, said. "Yes, I killed hundreds 
and thousands of people, and took part in the ‘scientific experiments'; that was 
my task in Dachau”. Dil explained that his work had been to experiment with 
blood-stilling preparations; he had shot the subjects pointblank in the chest for 
the purpose. Puller described the injection of selected inmates with malaria bacilli 
for the purposes of observation, stating that "they died like tlies, and we reported 
to the doctor or SS. officer the results”. These confessions were not false. They 
were corroborated and could not be denied, for the reports made were the ones 
abstracted by General Spielfried from the commandant’s office. Pufler explained 
how these Communist trusties of the Gestapo hid their collaboration from other 
inmates; when they themselves reappeared from the laboratories and crematoria 
they told some invented story of a trick or miracle to explain their escape; as none 
of the victims ever returned, they could not be challenged. 

These men ended against a wall, but not for their crimes. They were discarded 
like pawns by their master in his game against the Kremlin. They had strictly 
obeyed the master-tenet of the revolution ("all wars are revolutionary wars”) by 
using the opportunity given to them to destroy political opponents, and not "the 
enemy’'. They did, in another form, what the rulers in Moscow did when they 
massacred the 15,000 Polish officers in Katyn Forest; they attacked the nation¬ 
states and laid the foundations for the all-obliterating revolution. 

The revelations of the Ljubljana trial have received corroboration, in various 
points, from many books of survivors from the concentration camps. Mr. Odo 
Nansen, son of the famous Norwegian explorer, wrote of his experience in the 
Sachsenhausen camp, eighteen months before the war ended: 

"It’s extraordinary how the Communists have managed things here; they have 
all the power in camp next to the SS., and they attract all the other Communists, 
from other countries, and place them in key positions . . . Many of the 
Norwegian prisoners here have turned Communist. Besides all the immediate 
advantages it offers, most likely they expect Russia to be the big noise after the 
war, and then I suppose they think it may be handy to have one’s colour right. 
Last night I was talking to our Blockaeltester, a Communist. When he and his 
mates came into power, there would be not merely retaliation but even more 
brutality and greater cruelty than the SS. uses to us. I could make no headway 
with my humanism against that icy block of hate and vengefulness, that 
hardboiled, hidebound focussing on a new dictatorship'’ 

Wing Commander Yeo-Thomas, who was parachuted into France to help the 
French resistance, was captured and taken to Buchenwald. He was told on 
arrival by a British officer already there: "Don't let on that you are officers, and if 
any of you held any executive position in peacetime keep it to yourselves. The 
internal administration • of the camp is in the hands of Communists . . . 
Buchenwald is the worst camp in Germany; your chances of survival are 
practically nil”. Wing Commander Yeo-Thomas says, "The three chief internal 


409 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


administrators of the camp, called Lageraeltester, were Communists”. Under the 
supervision of these men, “prisoners were inoculated with typhus and other 
germs and their reactions, almost always ending in death, under the various 
vaccines, studied”. Only three of this officer's group of thirty-seven captives 
survived, the others being hanged on hooks in the crematorium wall and slowly 
strangled to death. The three survivors “had to fear their fellow-prisoners almost 
as much as they had formerly feared the Germans; for the Communists, if they 
learned that officers had managed to cheat the gallows, would certainly denounce 
them”. 

Communists ran these camps, tortured and murdered the victims. If there was 
any difference between them and the Gestapo jailers it was only that they were 
more villainous, because they denounced and killed men who were supposed to 
be their comrades in battle against a common foe. As the Eastern Jews, in 
particular, play so large a part in Communism, Jews logically appear among the 
persons implicated in these deeds. That is not in itself surprising at all, for Jews, 
like all other men, are good and bad, cruel or humane; but it was kept hidden 
from the public masses, who received a picture of torture-camps inhabited 
almost entirely by Jews, tormented by depraved “Nazi” captors. In fact, the Jews 
formed a small proportion of the entire camp-population; the tormentors in the 
last three years of the war were largely Communists, whose motives have been 
shown; and among these tormentors were Jews. 

My files include a number of reports from Jewish newspapers of “trials" of 
Jews denounced by former Jewish inmates of the Auschwitz, Vlanow, Muhldorf 
and other camps. 

I have given the word “trials” in inverted commas in this case, for a good 
reason. These “trials”, with one exception, were held before rabbinical courts, in 
Western countries and before magistrates' courts in Tel Aviv. They were treated 
as Jewish affairs, of no concern to other mankind, and if any sentences were 
passed they were not recorded in any journal seen by me, though the deeds 
charged resembled those of the Ljubljana trial. The implication was plainly that, 
if any such deeds were committed, they had to be judged under the Jewish law, if 
at all, and that Gentile law had no writ. (This indeed appears nowadays to be the 
governing assumption since Zionism recreated the “Jewish nation” and it is 
reflected in a report published in the Zionist Record during 1950, which stated 
that the function of the “chief Public Relations Office of the Executive Council of 
Australian Jewry” was to “screen from public view the misdemeanours of 
individual Jews who commit some minor or major indiscretion”. The screening 
here mentioned goes on at all times and in all countries of the West). 

At Tel Aviv a Jewish doctor and two Jewish women were accused by Jewish 
witnesses of administering lethal injections to prisoners at Auschwitz, mutilating 
sexual organs, carrying out “scientific experiments”, sending victims to the death 
chambers. In another case at Tel Aviv in 1951 a Jewish doctor (then employed in 


410 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


the Tel Aviv municipal hospital) was accused by several Jewish witnesses of 
brutal acts committed at Vlanow camp, where he had acted as "assistant to the 
German camp commandant”. A Jewish woman witness said he had beaten her 
unconscious and when she recovered she found her three sons, aged 12, 15 and 
18, shot dead; a fortnight earlier, she said, she had seen the accused give order to 
the Ukrainian camp police to take away thirty prisoners, including her husband, 
who were then shot. The bare heads of these two cases were reported but, as I say, 
if any result was published it escaped my research. 

In New York a Jewish board of three members (the composition laid down by 
the Levitical Law) heard charges by a Jew against a synagogue official whom he 
accused of killing an inmate at Muhldorf, where he was a block warden. The 
report stated that the board would send its findings “to the Jewish community” 
in the accused's town “without recommendations or sanctions”, which meant 
that, if he were a “war criminal”, he would be left to his congregation to deal 
with. In all these cases it was implicit that only charges of maltreating other Jews 
came under consideration, and that if the persons accused had committed similar 
acts against non-Jewish captives these would not have formed part of the case. 

Of a different kind but the same basic nature was a case heard before an Israeli 
district court in 1954-1955. A Jew from Hungary distributed a pamphlet alleging 
that one Dr. Israel Kastner, a high Israeli Government official and a leading 
candidate (at the 1955 election) of the government majority-party, in Hungary 
during the war had collaborated with the Nazis, prepared the ground for the 
murder of Jews, saved a Nazi war criminal from punishment, and so on. Dr. 
Kastner brought suit for criminal libel against his accuser, and the Israeli judge 
after nine months handed down a judgment stating that the charges had been 
substantiated. This judgment said that Dr. Kastner was a'collaborator "in the 
fullest sense of the word” and had “sold his soul to the devil”, and the Israeli 
Premier at that time, 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” (the 
accusation was that he betrayed Jews to the Nazis). The Government then 
announced that it would appeal the judgment, through its Attorney General, and 
I could never learn what transpired, if anything. 

Thus, while much was heard of “war criminals” and their trials, these Jewish 
“war criminals” appeared only before Jewish tribunals and if they were 
punished, the world was not told. I know' of only one case (others may have 
escaped my notice) where such Jews were included in a “war criminals trial”. The 
Jewish Telegraph Agency (May 8, 1946) reported, “The verdict in the trial of 23 
guards at the Breendouck concentration camp at Antwerp, one of the lesser- 
known Nazi hells, was announced here yesterday. Among the guards are 3 Jews, 
Walter Obler, Leo Schmandt and Sally Lewin. Obler and Lewin have been 
sentenced to death and Schmandt to 15 years imprisonment”. 

Mr. Joseph Leftwich, in his discussion of “anti-Semitism” with Mr. A.K. 


411 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


Chesterton, asked of this trial, “What does it prove? That the human beast is 
found everywhere, and that Jews are no more immune than any other human 
group”. That is correct but beside the point of this argument, which is that the 
mass-mind, during the Second War, was given the false picture of a solely Jewish 
persecution conducted by non-Jews and that events in the world in this century 
are consistently so misrepresented, to the general misfortune. 

The chapter of Hitler's Jewish helpers was not a small one. Lord Templewood, 
British Ambassador to Spain during the war, says, “For month after month 
General Franco" (himself of Jewish origin) “allowed the Spanish press to act as 
the loudest possible speaker for German propaganda. None of the well- 
established papers were permitted any liberty of action. Each alike had to re-echo 
his master's voice. In this case the master was a very sinister Eastern Jew, Lazare 
by name ... In Vienna he faithfully served Hitler as a fanatical propagandist in 
support of the Anschluss. Since then he had become an important figure in the 
Nazi world . . . From the German Embassy, where he had more authority than 
the Ambassador himself, he daily directed not only the general course of the 
Spanish press, but even the actual words of the news and articles. His 
subordinates had their desks in the Spanish offices and not a word reached the 
Spanish public that had not been subject to his sinister approval. By a cunning 
mixture of brutal dictation and unabashed corruption, he succeeded in making 
the Spanish papers even more venomous than the papers actually published in 
Germany". 

I knew this Lazare, a conspirator of the suave, smiling and debonair type, and 
through him first became aware of the Jewish element among Hitler's higher 
initiates. When I met Lazare, in 1937, he was “Press Secretary" of the Austrian 
Legation in the Rumanian capital, Bucharest. Austria, then my headquarters, 
was living in daily fear of the Nazi invasion which came in 1938, and its official 
representatives abroad were by all presumed to be staunch Austrians and stout 
anti-Nazis; in the case of Jews this appeared to be doubly sure. I was struck first 
by the fact that impoverished little Austria could even afford the luxury of a 
“Press Secretary” in a Balkan capital and next by Lazare’s lavish style of life and 
entertainment. I assumed that, like many men on this fringe of diplomatic life 
(“press secretaryships” in the Balkans were somewhat dubious) he was “doing 
well on the side”, which in Bucharest was not unusual. 


He was; though not through the deals in furs or carpets which I vaguely 
suspected. His affluence, as events soon showed, came from a political source, the 
Nazi one. When Hitler marched into Austria the newspapermen of the world 
were summoned to a press conference at the historic Ballhausplatz to hear the 
Nazi version of this event. The door opened to admit the spokesman of the new 
regime, Hitler's “Press Chief” in captive Austria, the apologist (or propagandist) 
for the annexation. It was Herr Lazare, the “Austrian” (he was born a Turkish 
subject). He saw me at once and a quick smile flashed from the brazen face of 


412 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


guilt; waving his hand gaily to me, he said “Hullo, Mr. Reed, nice to meet you 
again'’. Then he explained the Fuehrer’s benevolent motives for the invasion, 
and its beneficient effects for Germany, Austria and mankind. 

The reader may see that “the real world” is very different from “the false 
picture” which the masses receive, especially in wartime, when such men as this 
control the flow of information into the mass-mind. 

Against this background, the vengeance raged and reached its Talmudic 
climax in two symbolical movements of people, one eastward and one westward. 
From the “free world” escaped fugitives were driven back by the Allied armies 
into Communist slavery; from the Communist area (where a man may not even 
leave his town without police permission) a great mass of Eastern Jews freely 
emerged and was ushered, beneath an Allied umbrella, through Europe towards 
Palestine. This two-way process gave the vengeance its tinai stamp of identity and 
may be studied in the following quotations: 

The Saturday Evening Post of April 11, 1953, said, “With this shameful 
agreement” (\ alta) “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”. 

Miss Kathryn Hulme, a Californian, was deputy director (1945-1951) of a 
refugee camp at Wildflecken in Bavaria, administered by the organization known 
as UNRRA (United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration). She 
writes in her book, “Fonda” (a colleague) “had been assigned for a time to a 
southern camp when its Russian refugees, mainly prisoners of war, had been sent 
back to Russia under terms of the Yalta Agreement. She told us how the Russian 
prisoners of war had slashed their wrists, stripped naked and hanged themselves. 
Even after every destructive object was taken from them they still found ways to 
suicide. She could never understand how Stalin had sold his idea to Roosevelt 


and Churchill that there had been no Russian prisoners of war taken by the 
Germans, only deserters' 

Now the opposite side of the picture: the treatment given to one group of 
people “singled out” from the entire mass of Hitler’s victims and Stalin’s 
captives. Miss Hulme says, “. . . and then the Jews came. We had never had a 
Jewish camp in our northern area . . . The Jews numbered less than one-fifth of 
our Zone's total DP population but they were such an articulate minority that if 
you only read the newspapers to learn about Occupation affairs , you gained the 
impression that they were the whole of the DP problem . . .You had to handle 
them with kid gloves, it was said, especially when transferring them from one 
camp to another, and heaven help the IRO worker who left a loop of barbed wire 


413 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


visible in any camp to which they were to be transferred. They were classified 
'persecuteesy the only DP’s except medical cases who got a special food ration 
because of a non-worker status . . . There was a small German community set 
down on the highway that divided the two halves of the camp. The Jewish 
delegates . . . said this was the most dangerous feature of all; the IRO must agree 
to arm their Jewish police to protect their people from these Germans living in 
their midst . . . That nearly every German in that village would be cheerfully in 
the employ of the Jews within a fortnight after their arrival never even entered my 
head as I soothingly promised to plead for authorization to arm a DP police . . . 
The Jewish DP police were in woolly green tunics, with the Star of David on their 
caps. . . Nothing had been left to chance or last-minute improvization . . .Their 
welfare office was hung with martial posters depicting young Jewish girls in 
trenches hurling grenades at Arabs. The Jewish DP police practised 
marksmanship with the carbines we had secured for them as 'defence’ against the 
Germans who were now gainfully employed in the heavy manual labour of the 
camp. The Jewish workshops swung into swift production of fine woollen 
greatcoats and stout leather shoes heavily hob-nobbed for rough terrain. We 
could only guess that this too was all for Israel and, through some mysterious 
channels, was ultimately delivered there; we never saw any of our Jewish DP’s 
wearing the useful clothing . . . Over all the ferment and frenzy flapped a flag we 
had never seen before, pale blue stripes on a white ground with the Star of 
David”. 

M iss Hulme describes the Jewish camp: "We showed off the big camp which 
we were making ready for them like rental agents proud of an accommodation 
that was without doubt the handsomest DP housing in all Bavaria . . . The rabbis 
shook their heads; it didn’t seem to be good enough”. She explains that the 
American DP Act, subsequently passed, was full of traps which debarred the 
ordinary DP; "only the Jews, who could claim and prove persecution in any 
Eastern European country in which they had set foot, could get out of that trap”. 
She records that American semi-governmental or officially supported 
organizations supplied the machinery and other workshops, the materials, and 
the "special food reinforcements” which were given only to Jews. 

The means by which this privileged class was established in the camps of 
misery were described by Lieut.-Col. Judah Nadich in the South African Jewish 
Times (February 4, 1949). Rabbi Nadich was "Jewish adviser to General 
Eisenhower with the U.S. forces in Europe, and worked closely with him in 
matters relating to DP and other Jewish problems”. He says, "To Eisenhower’s 
credit it should be said that when the appalling conditions in the DP camps were 
brought to his attention” (in 1945) "he moved quickly to improve conditions. 
Important directives were issued, increasing the food ration for the persecuted, as 
distinct from other DP ’s; special camps were set up for Jews; Jewish DP’s living 
outside camps were given preferential treatment; an adviser on Jewish affairs was 


414 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


appointed and full co-operation was granted to the Joint Distribution 
Committee and later to the Jewish Agency. Few if any of these conditions were 
granted by Montgomery in the British zone, and a constant stream of Jewish 
DP's flowed into the American zone. Eisenhower made frequent visits to the 
camps for inspection purposes and his personal visits lifted the morale of the 
DP's and served to remind officers on lower levels of the attitude of their 
Commander An-Chief Officers at fault were censured, including one of the highest 
ranking generals”. 

General Eisenhower's “attitude”, according to this authoritative account, was 
that the Jews were to be treated as a privileged class. If he accepted the advise of 
his Jewish adviser this was natural, for Rabbi Nadich, as will be seen, claimed 
that the few Jews among every hundred DP’s were the only “persecuted” and in 
this were “distinct from other DP's”. The statement reveals the function of that 
now established figure of our times, the Jewish adviser. 

Thus by 1945 only “the persecution of Jews” remained of Hitler’s all- 
embracing "persecution of political opponents” begun in 1933. Propaganda had 
elminated all but this one small section; the last quotation shows why Miss 
Hulme, from her DP camp, wrote that “if you only read the newspapers . . . you 
gained the impression that the Jews were the whole of the DP problem”. While 
the huge mass of sufferers was forgotten or driven back to the persecution from 
which some had escaped, this one group, under the protection and escort of the 
West, was clothed, supplied, equipped, armed and conducted towards its 
invasion of a small country in Arabia. 

The Asiatic East supplied these invaders; the Christian West convoyed them. 
In this undertaking there was no difference at all between “the free world” and 
the enslaved world behind “the Iron Curtain”; on the contrary, there was identity 
of purpose and synchronization in its execution. A directing intelligence was 
obviously at work which cared nothing for nation-states and frontiers, for 
wartime friend or wartime foe, or for any of the “principles” so often proclaimed 
by the premier-dictators. The West shared the vengeance with the East, but the 
pattern was set by the East, and it was the same pattern that had showed in Russia 
in 1917, in the Protocols of 1905 and in the revolutions of 1848. Therefore the 
authors of the vengeance of 1945 must be sought in the revolutionary area, and 
for this reason the nature of the revolution in J 945 may be examined, to discover 
whether it, and its leadership, had changed from 1917 (when it was ninety percent 
Jewish) and 1848 (when Disraeli said it was led by Jews). 

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 lirst 
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 

415 



THE CONTROVERSY OE ZION 


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 1 ' and “Germans”, 
between “Communism” and “Russians”. 

In the sense of that definition, the revolution, in my judgment, continued 
through the thirty years that followed 1917 to be Jewish. The Jewish nature of the 
first Bolshevist governments and of their deeds was earlier shown. The same 
characteristics appeared in the tw ; o 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 w ar”, and had been trained as Communist agitators in Russia. In 
Germany the Communist movement then was headed by the “Spartacus 
League” (“Spartacus” was Adam Weishauptfs code-name), the leaders of w hich 
were nearly all Jews: Rosa Luxembourg, Leo Jogiches (from Poland), Paul Levi, 
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 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 
percent age of their executive staff had been Jews . . . ami-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. 

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 w 7 ere not enriched thereby; the 


416 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 
constilutional republic, and found themselves under an alien, anti-Christian 
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). 

Leading Zionist and anti-Zionist Jews in America alike, implicitly or explicitly, 
attributed Jewish authorship to the revolution in Spain. Mr. Justice Brandeis, at 
the time when efforts were being made to reach an accommodation with Hitler in 
the question of the Jews, strongly opposed them and imperiously told Rabbi 
Stephen Wise: “Let Germany share the fate of Spain ’. Mr. Bernard J. Brown 
wrote, “. . . the Jews were as responsible for the establishment of a republic in 
Spain and the overthrow of the authority of the church in that country as in any 
other country where freedom reigns 1 '. 

During these two decades (that is, the period between the First and Second 
Wars) Jewish heads became ever fewer among the row that dotted the Kremlin 
wall on great occasions (when, alone, the imprisoned Russian masses saw their 
rulers; even the tumultuous cheers came from disks played through 
loudspeakers). Jews appeared, too, in the dock at great show trials, or 
disappeared from the political scene without explanation. No substantial 
diminution in Jewish control or direction of the revolution seems to have 
occurred during that period, to judge by the following figures: 

In 1920 official Bolshevik statements showed that 545 members of the chief 
ruling bodies included 447 Jews. In 1933 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 one-third 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, which itself is the continuation of an ancient, savage, pre- 


417 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


Christian idea, and contains such precepts as "You are human beings but the 
nations of the earth are not human beings but beasts”. Presumably 
Lunatscharsky qualified by such orations for his choice as Ambassador to Spain 
during the revolutionary attempt there. 

In 1935 I went to Moscow for the London Times, accompanying Mr. Anthony 
Eden. He was the first British Minister to visit the revolutionary capital. The 
Times had previously refused to send a correspondent, so that I was its first 
representative to appear there after Mr. Robert Wilton, whose story I earlier 
told. The fifteen-year vacuum had been filled by a correspondent residing in 
Riga, Latvia, Mr. R.O.G. Urch, who was the object of constant defamation 
behind the scenes. I knew of this but, being callow in these affairs, did not then 
understand its significance. 

I was at once struck by something 1 had never met in any other country. My 
first report said that Mr. Eden drove from the station through streets lined with 
"drab and silent crowds” and a Jewish censor demanded excision of these words. 
At first I thought this merely fatuous (I asked if he wished me to say that the 
throng was composed of top-hatted bourgeois ) but in following days I saw more 
and in my book of 1938 wrote: 

"The censorship department, and that means the whole machine for 
controlling the game and muzzling the foreign press, was entirely staffed by Jews, 
and this was a thing that puzzled me more than anything else in Moscow. There 
seemed not to be a single non-Jewish official in the whole outfit... I was told that 
the proportion of Jews in the government was small, but in this one department 
that 1 got to know intimately they seemed to have a monopoly, and I asked 
myself, where were the Russians? The answer seemed to be that they were in the 
drab, silent crowds which I had seen but which must not be heard of”. 

I soon learned from older hands that "the proportion of Jews in the 
government” was in effect not small, but that they retained a large measure of 
control, if they were not predominantly in control. I was unable to meet any 
Russians in Moscow, this was the other side of the same unique experience. I had 
never before beheld a ruling caste so completely segregated from the slave-mass. 

At the time of this visit to Moscow I had no cause to look for a predominance 
of Jews; the thing forced itself on my notice. I had hardly begun to think about 
“the Jewish question” in 1935. The impression I have recorded above was the 
first one of a trained observer who had never before seen Moscow or Russia. I 
find it confirmed by an equally experienced man who lived there for twelve years, 
from 1922 to 1934. Mr. William Henry Chamberlain’s book remains today 
authoritative about that period. He wrote, "Considerable number of Jews have 
made careers in the Soviet bureaucracy. Of perhaps a dozen officials whom I 
knew in the Press Department of the Commissariat for Foreign Affairs I recall 
only one who was not a Jew. Indeed, the predominance of Jews in this 
Commissariat at the time of my stay in Russia was almost ludicrous; the Russians 


418 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


were mainly represented by the grizzled doorkeeper and the unkempt old women 
who carried around tea. One also found many Jews in the Gay-Pay-Oo”, (Secret 
Police) “in the Communist International and in departments connected with 
trade and finance”. 

Mr. Chamberlain reaches a different conclusion from mine about the original 
cause of this effect. He says, “After I left Russia I sometimes received letters 
inquiring as to 'what the Jews were doing under the Soviet regime 1 , implying that 
the Jews were acting as a solid compact body and that the whole Revolution was a 
Jewish conspiracy. There is not the slightest historical warrant for such an 
assumption . . . No theory that the Jews as a racial bloc worked for the triumph 
of Bolshevism will stand serious historical analysis”. 

Two things are confused in this dictum: the directing force of Jewry and the 
entire body of people called “Jews”. Neither the Germans nor the Russians, as “a 
racial bloc”, worked for “the triumph” of National Socialism or Communism, 
but each got it. Masses and mobs never consciously “work for” the triumph of 
anything; they are pushed around by whatever highly-organized group obtains 
power over them. The “solid compact body” of workers never “works for” a 
general strike, but general strikes are proclaimed in their name. 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”. 

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 Cafe or the 
Cafe 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 news- 
publication-and-distribution machinery, including the censorship; and the 
essentially Talmudic system of “political commissars”, through which the armed 


419 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


forces were kept under terrorist discipline. 

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 
M oscow. He stated in the Giornale d'Italia 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". Then the fog of war came down 
and the next point in time at which the matter may be tested is the closing period 
and aftermath of the Second War, 1945 and the following years. 

Before the Second War even began the “war aims" of the revolution were 
publicly stated by Stalin at the Third Komintern Congress in Moscow in May 
1938: 

“The revival of revolutionary action on am scale sufficiently vast will not be 
possible unless w^e succeed in utilizing the existing disagreements between the 
capitalistic countries, so as to precipitate them against each other into armed 
conflict ... All war truly generalized should terminate automatically by 
revolution. The essential work of our party comrades in foreign countries 
consists, then, in facilitating the provocation of such a conflict ". 

The reader will observe that this is the sole statement of “war aims" w hich was 
undeviatingly pursued through the ensuing conflict, successfully “provoked" by 
the Hitler-Stalin pact. The Western leaders, by defaulting on their own earlier- 
declared “war aims" and abandoning half of Europe to the revolution, ensured 
the accomplishment of the “war aims" above staled in that area. 

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 Tuftofi 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 


420 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


Mr. Rakosi’s cabinet was “predominantly Jewish 1 ’; 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 Organization and the Hungarian 
Section of tl e World Jewish Congress” which said, “It is with great relief that the 
Hungarian Jews received the news of Cardinal Mindszenty’s arrest. W r ith 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 administration”. 


In Rumania the terror raged under Ana Pnuker, 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 “revolutionary-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”. 

The part played by, and evidently given with considered intention to, women 
in the revolution, since the days of the beldames who knitted around the 
guillotine, is of particular interest to the student who cares to trace comparisons 
between the methods of the revolution and the customs of savage African tribes. 
In communized East Germany the reign of terror was presided over by one Frau 
Hilde Benjamin, who was first made vice-president of the Supreme Court there 
and then Minister of Justice. “Red Hilde” is frequently described as a Jewess in 
the press and her atrocious regime is beyond dispute, even the London Times 
having gone so far as to call her “the dreaded Frau Benjamin”. In two years 
nearly 200,000 East Germans were convicted under her direction for “political 
crimes” and she presided over several Soviet-model “show trials” of people 
charged with such offences as belonging to the sect of Jehovah’s Witnesses. 

Communized Eastern Germany contained 17,313.700 people according to the 
1946 census, and among these are only between 2,000 and 4,000 Jews, if Jewish 
“estimates” are correct. Of this tiny minority the Johannesburg Zionist Record in 


421 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


1950 reported that "life in the Eastern Zone has brought changes for the better. 
Not a few of them today occupy high positions in the Government and 
Administration, positions which no Jew had ever before held in Germany and 
which, despite all talk of democracy, they cannot even today hold in Western 
Germany. Several Jews hold important posts in the Ministries of Information, 
Industry and Justice. The Supreme Judge in the Eastern sector of Berlin is a Jew, 
and so are several senior judges in the provinces outside Berlin. In the press, too, 
as well as in the theatre, quite a considerable number of Jews have been given 
responsible positions”. 

Even four thousand Jews presumably could not occupy all those high places 
and the same journal in another issue said, "When the Russian occupation 
authorities were established shortly after the end of the war, there were many 
Jews occupying key positions and holding high ranks in the Soviet 
administration. They included Jews who had lived in Russia . . . and who came to 
Germany and Austria in the ranks of the Red Army, and Jews from areas 
annexed by Russia in the last ten years, the Baltic states Latvia and Lithuania”. 

This brings the story nearly down to our present day and what remains will be 
discussed in a concluding chapter. When the revolution spread outward into the 
area abandoned to it by the West in 1945 the history of 1917-1918 in Russia was 
repeated. A Talmudic vengeance was wreaked and Jewish governments were 
with obvious intent set up everywhere. There was no great change in that state of 
affairs, either real or apparent, for another eight years. What was done 
reaffirmed once more the nature of the revolution and of its directing force and 
Talmudic purpose. 


422 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


THE ZIONIST STATE 

The revolution, having spread into the half of Europe held clear for it by the 
Western Allies, did one more thing: in the manner of a serpent striking, it thrust 
out a tongue that reached to the southern shores of Europe, across the 
Mediterranean and into the tiny land called Palestine. The money, equipment, 
escort and convoy were provided by the West, but the revolution supplied the 
two indispensable constituents of the Zionist State: the people to invade it and the 
amis which made its conquest certain. 

The West connived, but the Zionist state in the last analysis was the creation of 
the revolution, which in this manner fulfilled the Levitical doctrine of "the 
return'’. These incursions into Europe and into Arabia were the sole "territorial 
gains" reaped from the Second War, in the early stages of which the Western 
"premier-dictators" for a second time had publicly renounced all thought of 
territorial gain. The result of these two developments was to leave, in bisected 
Europe and bisected Palestine, two permanent detonation points of new war, 
which at any moment could be set off by any who might think to further their 
ambitions by a third war. 

The reader will recall that in the years preceding the Second War Zionism was 
in collapse in Palestine; and that the British Parliament in 1939, having been 
forced by twenty years of experience to realize that the "Jewish National Home" 
was impossible to realize, had decided to abandon the unworkable “Mandate" 
and to withdraw after ensuring the parliamentary representation of all parties in 
the land, Arab, Jews and others. The reader then beheld the change which came 
about when Mr. Churchill became Prime Minister in 1940 and privately 
informed Dr. Weizmann (according to Dr. Weizmann’s account, which has not 
been challenged) that he "quite agreed" with the Zionist ambition "after the war 
. . . to build up a state of three or four million Jews in Palestine". 

Mr. Churchill always expressed great respect for parliamentary government 
but in this case, as a wartime potentate, he privily and arbitrarily overrode a 
policy approved, after full debate, by the House of Commons. After that, the 
reader followed Dr. Weizmann in his journeys to America and saw how Mr. 
Churchill’s efforts "to arm the Jews” (in which he was opposed by the responsible 
administrators on the spot) received support from there under the "pressure” of 
Dr. Weizmann and his associates. 

That was the point at which the reader last saw the Zionist state in gestation. 
Throughout 1944, as Mr. Churchill records in his war memoirs, he continued to 
press the Zionist ambition. “It is well known I am determined not to break the 
pledges of the British Government to the Zionists expressed in the Balfour 
Declaration, as modified by my subsequent statement at the Colonial Office in 
1921. No ehange can he made in policy without full discussion in Cabinet" (June 
29, 1944). The policy had been changed after full discussion in Cabinet and 


423 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


Parliament, in 1939. Here Mr. Churchill simply ignored that major decision on 
policy and reverted to the earlier one, echoing the strange words of another 
Colonial Secretary (Mr. Leopold Amery, earlier quoted) that this policy could 
not change. 

Again, ‘There is no doubt that this’' (the treatment of Jews in Hungary) Ts 
probably the greatest and most horrible crime ever committed in the whole 
history of the world ... all concerned in this crime who may fall into our hands, 
including the people who only obeyed orders by carrying out the butcheries, 
should he put to death after their association with the murders has been proved 
. . . Declarations should be made in public, so that everyone connected with it 
will be hunted down and put to death'’ (July 11, 1944). Here Mr. Churchill, like 
President Roosevelt and Mr. Eden, implicitly links the execution of captives 
solely with their crimes against Jews, thus relegating all other sufferers to the 
oblivion into which, in fact, they fell. Incidentally, the reader saw in the last 
chapter that Jews were among the tormentors, as well as among the victims. 

To continue: "I am anxious to reply promptly to Dr. Weizmann’s request for 
the formation of a Jewish fighting force put forward in his letter of July 4” (July 
12, 1944). “I like the idea of the Jews trying to get at the murderers of their fellow- 
countrymen in Central Europe and I think it would give a great deal of 
satisfaction in the United States. I believe it is the wish of the Jews themselves to 
fight the Germans everywhere. It is with the Germans they have their quarrel” 
(July 26, 1944). If Mr. Churchill, as stated by Dr. Weizmann, had agreed to the 
building up “of a state of three or four million Jews in Palestine”, he must have 
known that the Zionists had a much larger quarrel with the population of 
Arabia, and that any “Jewish fighting force” would be more likely to fall on these 
innocent third parties than on the Germans. 

Mr. Churchill’s last recorded allusion (as wartime prime minister) came after 
the fighting in Europe ended: “The whole question of Palestine must be settled at 
the peace table ... I do not think we should take the responsibility upon 
ourselves of managing this very difficult place while the Americans sit back and 
criticise. Have you ever addressed yourselves to the idea that we should ask them 
to take it over? ... I am not aware of the slightest advantage which has ever 
accrued to Great Britain from this painful and thankless task. Somebody else 
should have their turn now” (July 6, 1945). 

This passage (considered together with President Roosevelt's jocular remark 
to Stalin, that the only concession he might offer King Ibn Saoud would be “to 
give him the six million Jews in the United States'’) reveal the private thoughts of 
these premier-dictators who so docilely did the bidding of Zion. Mr. Churchill 
wished he could shift the insoluble problem to the American back; Mr. Roosevelt 
would gladly have shifted it on to some other back. In this matter the great men, 
as an unwary remark in each case shows, behaved like the comedian who cannot 
by any exertion divest himself of the gluey flypaper. Mr. Churchill, in this inter- 


424 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


office memorandum, was not aware “of the slightest advantage that has ever 
accrued to Great Britain from this painful and thankless task 11 . But in public, 
when Zion was listening, he continued (and to the moment of writing this book 
continues) to applaud the Zionist adventure in a boundless manner which 
aroused the curiosity even of Jewish critics (as will be seen). 

At the time when Mr. Churchill dictated this last memorandum his words 


about “settling the question of Palestine at the peace table 11 were so irrelevant 
that he might have had humorous intent in using them. The issue was closed, for 
the Zionists had arms, the men to use these arms were to be smuggled through 
Europe from the revolutionary area by the West (as shown in the last chapter), 
and both major political parties in England and America were ready to applaud 
any act of aggression, invasion or persecution the transmigrants committed with 
the arms they had obtained. 

This was particularly evident in the case of the Socialist party in England, 
which at that time was still the country chiefly involved in the fate of Palestine. 
The Labour party (as it called itself) in England presented itself as the champion 
of the poor, defenceless and oppressed; it had been born and bred in the promise 
of old-age pensions, unemployment relief, free medicine and the care and relief of 
the destitute, poor or humble generally. As the war drew towards its end this 
party at long last saw before it the prospect of office with a substantial majority. 
Like the Conservative party (and both parties in America) it apparently 
calculated that victory was even at this stage not quite certain and that it could be 
ensured by placa ting Zion. Thus is placed at the head of its foreign policy the aim 
to drive from a little country far away some people who were poorer, more 
friendless and longer oppressed than even the British worker in the worst days of 
the Industrial Revolution. In 1944 its leader, Mr. Clement Attlee, proclaimed the 
new, crowning tenet of British Socialism: “Let the Arabs be encouraged to move 
out' 1 (of Palestine) “as the Jews move in. Let them be handsomely compensated 
for their land, and their settlement elsewhere be carefully organized and 
generously financed 11 (twelve years later nearly a million of these people, 
encouraged to move out by bombs, still languished in the neighbour Arab 
countries of Palestine; and the British Socialist Party, at every new turn of events, 
was more clamant than ever for their further chastisement). 

The British Socialists, when they made this statement, knew that the Zionists, 
under cover of the war against Germany, had amassed arms for the conquest of 
Palestine by force. General Wavell, the commander in the Middle East, had long 
before informed Mr. Churchill that “left to themselves, the Jews would beat the 


Arabs 11 who had no source of arms-supply). General Waved's view about the 
Zionist scheme was that of ad responsible administrators on the spot, and for that 
reason he was disliked by Dr. Weizmann. The reader has already seen, as far back 
as the First War, that Dr. Weizmann’s displeasure was dangerous even to high 
personages and it may have played a part in General Wavelfs removal from the 


425 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 

Middle East command to India. The official British History of the War in the 
Middle East describes General Wavell as “one of the great commanders in 
military history 11 and says tiredness, caused by his great responsibilities, was 
aggravated by the feeling that he did not enjoy the full confidence of Mr. 
Churchill, who bombarded his Middle East commander with “irritating 11 and 
“needless 11 telegrams about “matters of detail 11 . By his relegation General Wavell 
may have been another victim of Zionism, and British military prowess have 
suffered accordingly in the war; this cannot be established but it is a reasonable 
surmise. 

In 1944 assassination again appeared in the story. Lord Moyne, as Colonial 
Secretary, was the Cabinet minister then responsible for Palestine, the post 
earlier held by Lord Lloyd (who had been rudely rebuked by Mr. Churchill for 
tardiness in “arming the Jews 1 'and had died in 1941). Lord Moyne was the friend 
of all men, and sympathetic to Judaism, but he shared the view of all his 
responsible predecessors, that the Zionist enterprise in Palestine would end 
disastrously. For that reason, and having sympathy for suffering mankind in 
general, he was inclined to revive the idea of providing land in Uganda for any 
Jews who truly needed to find a new home somewhere. 

This humane notion brought him the mortal hatred of the Zionists, who would 
not brook any diversion of thought from the target of their ambition, Palestine. 
In 1943 Lord Moyne modified his view, according to Mr. Churchill, who 
suggested that Dr. Weizmann should go to Cairo, meet Lord Moyne there and 
satisfy himself of the improvement. Before any meeting could come about Lord 
Moyne was assassinated in Cairo (November 1944) by two Zionists from 
Palestine, one more peacemaker thus being removed from a path strewn with the 
bones of earlier pacifiers. This event for a moment disturbed the flow of Mr. 
Churchill's memoranda to his colleagues about “arming the Jews 11 , and the 
responsible men in Palestine once again urgently recommended that Zionist 
immigration thither be suspended. Mr. Churchill's reply (November 17, 1944) 
was that this would “simply play into the hands of the extremists’ 1 , whereon the 
extremists were left unhindered in their further plans and their tribe increased. 

As the Second War approached its end in Europe Mr. Churchill's hopes of 
some spectacular transaction which would happily integrate the Chazars in 
Arabia faded. If his suggestion (that Ibn Saoud be made “lord of the Middle 
East, provided he settles with you 11 , i.e. Dr. Weizmann) was ever conveyed by Dr. 
Weizmann to President Roosevelt, an episode of 1944 may have been the result of 
it. An American, Colonel Hoskins, (“President Roosevelt's personal 
representative in the Middle East”; Dr. Weizmann) then visited the Arab leader. 
Colonel Hoskins, like all qualified men, had no faith in the plan to set up a Zionist 
state but was in favour of helping Jews to go to Palestine (if any so wished) in 
agreement with the Arabs. He found that King Ibn Saoud held himself to have 
been grossly insulted by Dr. Weizmann of whom he spoke “in the angriest and 


426 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


most contemptuous manner, asserting that I” (Dr. Weizmann) “had tried to 
bribe him with twenty million pounds to sell out Palestine to the Jews 11 ; and he 
indignantly rejected any suggestion of a deal on such terms. Therewith all 
prospect of any “settlement 11 vanished and Colonel Hoskins also passed from the 
story, another good man defeated in his attempt to solve the insoluble problem 
posed by Mr. Balfour. 

Thus, as the war entered its last months, only two alternatives remained. The 
British Government, abandoning the decision of 1939, could struggle on, trying 
to hold the scales impartially between the native inhabitants and their besiegers 
from Russia; or it could throw up “the Mandate 11 and withdraw, whereupon the 
Zionists would expel the native inhabitants with arms procured from the 
European and African theatres of war. 

This second great moment in the Palestinian drama approached. Mr. 
Roosevelt had been told by Dr. Weizmann that the Zionists “could not rest the 
case on the consent of the Arabs 11 but had remained non-committal. Mr. 
Churchill, according to Dr. Weizmann, //^committed himself, in private, and in 
1944 Dr. Weizmann grew impatient to have from Mr. Churchill a public 
committal in the form of an amended Balfour Declaration which would award 
territory (in place of the meaningless phrase, “a national home 11 ) to Zion (in 1949 
he was still very angry that Mr. Churchill, on the “pretext 11 that the war must first 
be finished, refrained from making this final public capitulation). 

Like Macbeth, Dr. Weizmann’s “top-line politicians 11 flinched and shrunk as 
the moment for the deed approached. Neither Mr. Churchill nor Mr. Roosevelt 
would openly command their soldiers to do it and the Zionists furiously cried 
“Infirm of purpose! 11 Then Mr. Roosevelt went to Yalta, wearing the visage of 
doomed despair which the news-reel pictures recorded, arranged for the bisection 
of Europe, and at the end briefly informed Mr. Churchill (who was 
“flabbergasted 11 and “greatly disturbed 11 by the news, according to Mr. Hopkins) 
that he was going to meet King Ibn Saoud on board the U.S. cruiser Quincy. 

What followed remains deeply mysterious. Neither Mr. Roosevelt nor Mr. 
Churchill had any right to bestow Arab land on the lobbyists who beleaguered 
them in Washington and London; nevertheless, what was demanded of them 
was, in appearance, so small in comparison with what had just been done at 
Yalta, that Mr. Roosevelt’s submission and some harsh ultimatum to King Ibn 
Saoud would have surprised none. Instead, he suddenly stepped out of the part 
he had played for many years and spoke as a statesman; after that he died. 

He left Yalta on February 11, 1945, and spent February 12, 13 and 14 aboard 
the Quincy , receiving King Ibn Saoud during this time. He asked the king “to 
admit some more Jews in to Palestine 11 and received the blunt answer, Ck No”. Ibn 
Saoud said that “there was a Palestine army of Jews all armed to the teeth and. . . 
they did not seem to be fighting the Germans but were aiming at the Arabs”. On 
February 28 Mr. Roosevelt returned to Washington. On March 28 Ibn Saoud 


427 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


reiterated by letter his verbal warning (since confirmed by events) of the 
consequences which would follow from American support of the Zionists. On 
April 5 President Roosevelt replied reaffirming his own pledge verbally given to 
Ibn Saoud that: 

4 7 would take no action , in my capacity as Chief of the Executive Branch of this 
Government which might prove hostile to the Arab people On April 12 he died. 
This pledge would never have become known but for the action of an American 
statesman. Secretary of State James G. Byrnes, who published it six months later 
(October 18, 1945) in a vain attempt to deter Mr. Roosevelt's successor. 
President Truman, from taking the very “action hostile to the Arabs’ 1 which 
President Roosevelt swore he would never commit. 

Mr. Roosevelt's pledge was virtually a deathbed one, and another of history’s 
great unanswered questions is. did he mean it? If by any chance he did, then once 
more death intervened as the ally of Zionism. His intimate Mr. Harry Hopkins 
(who was present at the meeting and drafted a memorandum about it) sneered at 
the suggestion that it might have been sincerely intended, saying that President 
Roosevelt was “ wholly committed publicly and privately and by conviction” to the 
Zionists (this memorandum records Mr. Roosevelt's statement that he had 
learned more from Ibn Saoud about Palestine in five minutes than he had 
previously learned in a lifetime; out of this, again, grew the famous anecdote that 
Ibn Saoud said, “We have known for two thousand years what you have fought 
two world wars to learn”). However, Mr. Hopkins may conceivably not be a 
trustworthy witness on this one occasion, for immediately after the meeting he, 
the president's shadow, mysteriously broke with Mr. Roosevelt, whom he never 
saw again! Mr. Hopkins shut himself in his cabin and three days later, at Algiers, 
went ashore, “sending word” through an intermediary that he would return to 
America by another route. The breach was as sudden as that between Mr. Wilson 
and Mr. House. 

What is clear is that the last few weeks and days of Mr. Roosevelt's life were 
overshadowed by the controversy of Zion, not by American or European 
questions. Had he lived, and his pledge to Ibn Saoud become knowm, Zionism, 
which so powerfully helped to make and maintain him president for twelve years, 
would have become his bitter enemy. He died. (The pledge was categorical; it 
continued, “no decision will be taken with regard to the basic situation in 
Palestine without full consultation with both Arabs and Jews”; this w ; as direct 
repudiation of Dr. Weizmann, who had told him, “we could not rest the case on 
Arab consent”) 

Thus, cloaked in a last-moment mystery. Mr. Roosevelt too passed from the 
story. A parting glimpse of the throng which had gathered round him during his 
twelve-year reign is given by the senior White House correspondent, Mr. 
Merriman Smith; this description of a wake shows that the carousing of Yalta 
accompanied the president even to his grave: 


428 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


“Most of the people on the train were members of the Roosevelt staff. Before 
the train was out of sight of the crepe-hung Hyde Park depot, they started what 
turned out to be a post-funeral wake. Liquor flowed in every compartment and 
drawing-room. The shades w 7 ere drawn throughout the train and from the 
outside it looked like any train bearing mourners home. But behind those 
curtains, the Roosevelt staff had what they thought was a good time. Their Boss 
would have approved ... I saw one of the top New 7 Dealers hurl a tray of empty 
glasses into a toilet and shout in mock bravado, 'Dow n the hatch, we won’t need 
you any more'. Porters and club stewards bustled up and dowm the corridors with 
gurgling, sloshing trays. If you hadn’t known the people in the drawing room, 
you would have thought they were on their way home from a football game. 
Some of the people were using whisky as an antidote for worry over their jobs . . . 
I could hear an alcoholic chorus of Auld Lang Syne ..." 

Such were the trappings of statesmanship, during those last days when “the 
boys" toiled towards another “victory", when the Communist armies seized half 
of Europe, and the Zionists from Russia were convoyed by the West towards the 
invasion of Palestine. 

In this question of Palestine. Mr. Roosevelt was liberated from his dilemma by 
death. Mr. Churchill w ; as left to face his. He had courted Zionist favour from the 
days of the 1906 election. He had been a member of the British Government in 
1917. of which another member ( Mr. Leopold Amery, quoted in a Zionist paper 
in 1952) said, “We thought when we issued the Balfour Declaration that if the 
Jews could become a majority in Palestine they w ould form a Jewish state . . . We 
envisaged not a divided Palestine, which exists only west of the Jordan". 

Mr. Churchill never publicly stated any such intention (indeed, he denied it), 
but if it w as his view this means that even the Zionist state set up after the Second 
World War by no means fulfils the intention of those who made the Balfour 
Declaration, and that further conquests of Arab lands have yet to be made by 
war. 

The governing word in the passage quoted is “if"; “//the Jews could become a 
majority . . ."By 1945 three decades of Arab revolt had shown that the Zionists 
never would become a majority " unless the Arabs w ere driven out of their native 
land by arms. The question that remained was, who was to drive them out? Mr. 
Roosevelt had sworn not to. Dr. Weizmann, ever quick to cry “f stay here on my 
bond", liked to claim that Mr. Churchill was committed as far as Dr. Weizmann 
wanted him to go. 

Even Mr. Churchill could not do this deed. He, too, then wms liberated from 
his dilemma; not by death, but by electoral defeat. His memoirs express wounded 
pride at this rebuff; “All our enemies having surrendered unconditionally or 
being about to do so, I was immediately dismissed by the British electorate from 
all further conduct of their affairs". 

It w 7 as not as simple as that. The future historian has to work from such 

429 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


material, but the living participant knows better, and I was in England and saw 
the election when Mr. Churchill was “dismissed”. In truth the British electorate 
could hardly have been expected to see in the outcome of the war (of which Mr. 
Churchill is the bitterest critic) cause for a vote of thanksgiving to Mr. Churchill, 
but there were other reasons for his defeat than mere disillusionment. 

As in American elections, so in this British one of 1945 the power to “deliver 
the vote” was shown. Mr. Churchill had gone far in “arming the Jews” and in 
privately committing himself to Zionism, but not far enough for Dr. Weizmann. 
In England at the mid-century control of the press was virtually complete, in this 
question; Zionist propaganda at the election turned solidly against Mr. Churchill 
and was waged in behalf of the Socialists, who had given the requisite promise of 
support for “hostile action” against the Arabs (“The Arabs should be 
encouraged to move out as the Jews move in . . . ”). The block of Jewish 
Members of Parliament swung over in a body to the Socialist party (and was 
strongest in the left wing of it, where the Communists lurked). With high elation 
the Zionists saw the discomfiture of their “champion” of 1906, 1917 and 1939. 
Dr. Weizmann says that the Socialist victory (and Mr. Churchill’s “dismissal”) 
“delighted all liberal elements”. This was the requital for Mr. Churchill’s forty 
years of support for Zionism; he had not actually ordered British troops to clear 
Palestine of Arabs and, for a while, was an enemy. 

Thus Mr. Churchill was at least reprieved from the task of deciding what to do 
about Palestine and should not have been so grieved as he depicts himself, when 
he was dismissed soon after “victory”. The British Socialists, at last provided 
with a great majority in parliament, then found at once that they were expected 
by forcible measures to “encourage the Arabs to move out”. When they too 
shrank from the assassin’s deed the cries of “betrayal” fell about their ears like 
hailstones. Dr. Weizmann’s narrative grows frantic with indignation at this 
point; the Socialist government, he says, “within three months of taking office 
repudiated the pledge so often and clearly, even vehemently, repeated to the 
Jewish people”. During forty years Lord Curzon seems to have been the only 
leading politician caught up in this affair to realize that even the most casual 
word of sympathy, uttered to Dr. Weizmann, would later be held up as “a 
pledge”, solemly given and infamously broken. 

Among the victorious Socialists a worthy party-man, one Mr. Hall, inherited 
the Colonial Office from Lord Lloyd, Lord Moyne and others dead or defamed, 
and was barely in it when a deputation from the World Zionist Congress arrived: 

“I must say the attitude adopted by the members of the deputation was 
different from anything which I have ever experienced. It was not a request for the 
consideration by His Majesty’s Government of the decisions of the Zionist 
conference, hut a demand that His Majesty’s Government should do what the 
Zionist Organization desired them to do ”. Ten years later an American ex¬ 
president, Mr. Truman, recalled similar visits during his presidency in similar 


430 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


terms of innocent surprise; in 1945 the thing had been going on since 1906 
without disturbing Mr. Hall’s political slumbers. Soon after this he was ousted 
from the Colonial Office, his suitability for a peerage suddenly being realized. 

The Socialist government of 1945, which in domestic affairs must have been 
nearly the worst that a war-weary country, in need of reinvigoration, could have 
received, in foreign affairs did its country one service. It saved, of honour, what 
could be saved. Under pressure from the four corners of the world it refused to 
play the assassin’s part in Palestine; if it did not protect the Arabs, and by that 
time it probably could not protect them, at least it did not destroy them for the 
Zionist taskmaster. 

This achievement was the sole work of a Mr. Ernest Bevin, in my estimation 
the greatest man produced in British political life during this century. According 
to report, King Georve VI, the most unobtrusive of monarchs, urged the 
incoming Socialist prime minister, Mr. Attlee, to make his best and strongest 
man Foreign Secretary, because the state of the world so clearly demanded this. 
Mr. Attlee thereon revised a list already drafted, expunging the name of some 
worthy “liberal” who might have involved his country in the coming pogrom of 
Arabs, and inserting that of Mr. Bevin. 

By 1945 Palestine was clearly too big an issue for Colonial Secretaries to 
handle; it was, and will long remain, the major preoccupation of Prime Ministers 
and Foreign Secretaries, Presidents and Secretaries of State in England and 
America, because it is the most inflammable source of new wars. In 1945, as soon 
as “victory” was won, it was seen to dominate and pervert the politics of all 
nation-states. Without awe, Ernest Bevin, the farm lad from Somerset and the 
dockers’ idol, took up the bomb and sought to remove the fuse. Had he received 
support from one leading man in any Western country he might have saved the 
day. They all fell on him like wolves; there was something of the camp-meeting 
and of revivalist hysteria in the abandon of their surrender to Zionism. 

He was a robust man, with the beef and air of the West Country in his bones 
and muscle and its fearless tradition in his blood, but even he was physically 
broken within a few years by the fury of unremitting defamation. He was not 
spiritually daunted. He realized that he had to do with an enterprise essentially 
conspiratorial, a conspiracy of which the revolution and Zionism were linked 
parts, and he may be unique among politicians of this century in that he used a 
word (“conspiracy”) which has a dictionary meaning plainly applicable to this 
case. He bluntly told Dr. Weizmann that he would not be coerced or coaxed into 
any action contrary to Britain’s undertakings. Dr. Weizmann had not 
experienced any such instruction, at that high level, since 1904, and his 
indignation, surging outward from him through the Zionist organizations of the 
world, produced the sustained abuse of Mr. Bevin which then followed. 

Mr. Churchill, had he remained prime minister, would apparently have used 
British arms to enforce the partition of Palestine. That seems to be the 


431 



I HE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


inescapable inference from his memorandum to the Chiefs of Staff Committee 
(January 25, 1944), in which he said "the Jews, left to themselves, would beat the 
Arabs; there cannot therefore be any great danger in our joining hands with the 
Jews to enforce the kind of proposals about partition which are set forth . . .” The 
reader may see how greatly circumstances alter cases. The bisection of Europe 
was for Mr. Churchill "a hideous partition, which cannot last”. Partition in 
Palestine was worthy to be enforced by "joining hands with the Jews”. 

Mr. Bevin would have no truck with such schemes. Under his guidance the 
Socialist government announced that it "would not accept the view that the Jews 
should be driven out of Europe or that they should not be permitted to live again in 
these” (European) " countries without discrimination, contributing their ability 


and talent towards rebuilding the prosperity of Europe”. 

The words show that this man understood the nature of Zionist chauvinism, 
the problem posed by it and the only solution. They depict what will inevitably 
happen one day, but that day has been put back to some time after another 
ruinous era in Palestine, which will probably involve the world. He was either the 
first British politician fully to comprehend the matter, or the first to act with the 
courage of his knowledge. 

The Socialist government of 1945 was driven, by responsible office, to do what 
all responsible governments before it had equally been forced to do: to send out 
one more commission of enquiry (which could but repeat the reports of all earlier 
commissions) and in the meantime to regulate Zionist immigration and to 
safeguard the interest of the native Arabs, in accordance with the pledges of the 
original Balfour Declaration. 

Dr. Weizmann considered this "a reversion to the old, shifty double emphasis 
on the obligation towards the Arabs of Palestine" and the Zionist power went to 
work to destroy Mr. Bevin, on whose head, for the next two years, a worldwide 
campaign was turned. It was concentric, synchronised and of tremendous force. 
First, the Conservative party was sent into action. The Socialists had defeated 
them by capitulations to Zionism, which brought them the help of the controlled 
press. The Conservatives, being out of office, played this trump card against the 
Socialists, and in turn made their capitulations to Zion. This was at once made 
clear: the party proclaimed that it would combat the domestic and support the 
foreign policy of the Socialists, but from the moment of the Socialist declaration 
about Palestine it made one exception to the second rule; it began a sustained 
attack on the Socialist government's policy about Palestine, which meant, on Mr. 
Bevin. 

At that point Mr. Churchill, safe in opposition, demeaned himself by accusing 
Mr. Bevin of "anti-Jewish feelings' 1 , a shot taken from the locker of the Anti- 
Defamation League (which added a new epithet, "Bevinism”, to its catalogue of 
smearwords). No such traducement of a political adversary ever came from Mr. 
Bevin, Mr. Churchill's outstanding colleague during the long war years. 


432 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


Thus Mr. Bevin, at the post of greatest danger, received the full support of the 
opposition party in all matters of foreign policy save one, Palestine. He might yet 
have saved the day but for the intervention of the new American president, Mr. 
Harry S. Truman, with whose automatic elevation (on the death of the 
incumbent) from the Vice-Presidency the story of the 20th Century resumed the 
aspect of Greek tragedy (or of a comedy of errors). Mr. Truman involved his 
country up to the neck in the Palestinian embroglio at the very moment when in 
England, at long last, a man had arisen who was able and staunch enough to 
liquidate the disastrous venture. 

Unless a man has that genius which needs no basis in acquired knowledge, a 
small town in the Middle West and Kansas City are poor places for learning 
about world affairs. Mr. Truman, when the presidency was thrust upon him, had 
two major disqualifications for the office. One was native remoteness from world 
politics, and the other was too close acquaintance with ward politics, of which he 
had seen much. In Kansas City he had watched the machine at work; he knew 
about patronage, ward bosses and stuffed ballot-boxes. He had received the 
impression that politics were business, and essentially simple in the basic rules, 
which allowed no room for high-falutin’ ideas. 

A middle-sized, hale, broadly-smiling man who was to sign the order for an act 
of destruction unprecedented in the history of the West, he strode briskly on to 
the stage of great events. He decided at Potsdam that “Uncle Joe” was “a nice 
guy” and there completed Mr. Roosevelt's territorial rearrangements in Europe 
and Asia. He arranged for the atom-bombing of defencless Hiroshima and 
Nagasaki. No comparable series of acts ever fell to the lot of a once-bankrupt 
haberdasher precipitated into the office of a “premier-dictator”. Then he turned 
his gaze on domestic affairs and the next Congressional and presidential 
elections. In these, he knew (and said), the Zionist-controlled vote was decisive. 

While Mr. Bevin strove to undo the tangle, Mr. Truman undid Mr. Bevin’s 
efforts. He demanded that a hundred thousand Jews be admitted immediately to 
Palestine, and he arranged for the first partisan commission of enquiry to go to 
Palestine. This was the only means by which any commission could ever be 
expected to produce a report favourable to the Zionist scheme. Two of its four 
American members were avowed Zionists; the one British member was Zionist 


propagandist and a left-wing enemy of Mr. Bevin. This “Anglo-American 
Commission” went to Palestine, where Dr. Weizmann (for perhaps the tenth 
time in some thirty years) was the chief personage heard. It recommended 
(though “cautiously”) the admission of one hundred thousand “displaced 
persons" (the term was presumably meant to mislead the public masses and was 
at the moment of some importance; no truly displaced persons wanted to go to 
Palestine). 

Therewith the fat of the next war was in the fire, and an American president 
publicly supported “hostile action” against the Arabs, for it was that. The next 


433 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


Zionist Congress (at Geneva in 1946) joyfully recorded this new “pledge” (Mr. 
Truman's “suggestion” and the partisan commission's “cautious 
recommendations”). This was a characteristic Zionist Congress, being composed 
chiefly of Jews from Palestine (who had already migrated there) and from 
America (who had no intention of going there); the herded-mass, to be 
transported thither, was not represented. Dr. Weizmann’s description of the 
decisions taken are of great significance. 

He says the congress “had a special character” and showed “a tendency to rely 
on methods. . . referred to by different names: ‘resistance’, ‘defence’, ‘activism’.” 
Despite these “shades of meaning” (he says) “one feature was common to all of 
them: the conviction of the need for fighting against British authority in Palestine, 
or anywhere else, for that matter”. 

Dr. Weizmann's guarded remarks must be considered in the context of his 
whole book and of the entire history of Zionism. What he means is that the 
Zionist World Congress at Geneva in 1946 decided to resume the method of 
terror and assassination which had proved effective in Russia in the germinating- 
stage of the two-headed conspiracy. The congress knew this to be the method 
“referred to by different names” during its discussions, for it had already been 
resumed in the assassination of Lord Moyne and many terrorist exploits in 
Palestine. The prompting impulse for the Congress's decision (which in fact it 
was) came from the American president’s recommendation that a hundred 
thousand people should be forcibly injected into Palestine. The Zionists took 
that to be another “pledge”, committing America to approval of anything they 
might do, and they were right. 

Dr. Weizmann knew exactly what was at stake and in his old age shrank from 
the prospect that reopened before him: reversion to the worship of Moloch, the 
god of blood. He had seen so much blood shed in the name of revolutionary- 
Communism and revolutionary-Zionism, the two causes which had dominated 
his parental home and home town in the Pale. In his youth he had exulted in the 
riots and revolutions and had found the assassinations a natural part of the 
process; in his maturity he had rejoiced in the ruin of Russia despite the decades 
of bloodshed which ensued. For fifty-five years he had cried havoc and unloosed 
dogs of war. Almost unknown to the masses embroiled in two wars, he had 
become one of the most powerful men in the world. Beginning in 1906, when he 
first wheedled Mr. Balfour, he had gradually risen until his word in the lobbies 
was law, when he could command audience of monarchs and obedience of 
presidents and prime ministers. Now, when the enterprise he had so long 
schemed for was on the brink of consummation, he recoiled from the 
bloodstained prospect that opened immeasurably before him; blood, and more 
blood, and at the end . . . what? Dr. Weizmann remembered Sabbatai Zevi. 

He was against “truckling to the demoralizing forces in the movement”, the 
cryptic phrase he uses to cover those referred to by Mr. Churchill as “the 


434 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


extremists”, and by the administrators on the spot as “the terrorists”. This meant 
that he had changed as his end approached, for without terrorism Zionism would 
never have established itself at all and if, in 1946, his Zionist state was to be 
achieved, this could only be done by violence. Thus at the last Dr. Weizmann 
realized the futility of his half-century of “pressure behind the scenes” and no 
doubt saw the inevitable fiasco that lay ahead, after the Zionist state had been 
born in terror. Psychologically, this was a moment of great interest in the story. 
Perhaps men grow wise in their old age; they tire of the violent words and deeds 
which seemed to solve all problems in their conspiratorial youth, and this 
revulsion may have overtaken Chaim Weizmann. If it did, it. was too late to alter 
anything. The machine he had built had to continue, of its own momentum, to its 
own destruction and that of any in its path. The remaining future of Zionism was 
in the hands of “the demoralizing forces in the movement”, and he had put it 
there. 

He was denied a vote of confidence and was not re-elected president of the 
World Zionist Organization. Forty years after Herzl, he was cast aside as he had 
cast Herzl aside, and for the same essential reason. He and his Chazars from 
Russia had overthrown Herzl because Herzl wanted to accept Uganda, which 
meant renouncing Palestine. He was overthrown because he feared to re-embark 
on the policy of terror and assassination, and that also meant renouncing 
Palestine. 

The note of despair sounded even earlier, in his allusions to Lord Moyne’s 
murder: “Palestine Jewry will . . . cut out, root and branch, this evil from its 
midst . . . this utterly un-Jewish phenomenon”. These words were addressed to 
Western ears and were specious; political murder was not “an utterly un-Jewish 
phenomenon" in the Talmudic areas of Russia where Dr. Weizmann spent his 
revolutionary and conspiratorial youth, as he well knew, and a series of similar 
deeds stained the past. Indeed, when he spoke to a Zionist audience he candidly 
admitted that political murder was not an “utterly un-Jewish phenomenon” but 
the opposite: “What was the terror in Palestine but the old evil in a new and 
horrible guise”. 

This “old evil”, rising from its Talmudic bottle to confront Dr. Weizmann at 
Geneva in 1946, apparently accounts for the note of premonition which runs 
through the last pages of his book of 1949 (when the Zionist state had been set up 
by terror). The Moyne murder, he then forebodingly said, “illumines the abyss 
into which terrorism leads”. Thus in his last days Dr. Weizmann saw whither his 
indefatigable journey had led: to an abyss! He lived to see it receive a first batch of 
nearly a million victims. From the moment of his deposition effective control 
passed into the hands of “the terrorists”, as he calls them, and his belated cry of 
“Back!” fell on empty air. The “activists” (as they prefer to call themselves) were 
left with power to ignite a third world conflict when they pleased. Dr. Weizmann 
survived to play a determining part in the next stage of the venture but never 


435 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


again had true power in Zionism. 

From 1946 the terrorists took command. They set to work to drive the British 
from Palestine first, and knew they could not fail in the state of affairs which had 
been brought about during the Second War. If the British defended either 
themselves or the Semitic Arabs the cry of “anti-semitism” would rise until the 
politicians in Washington turned on the British; then, when the British left, the 
terrorists would drive out the Arabs. 


The terror had been going on for many years, the Moyne murder being only 
one incident in it; indeed, one of the harassed Colonial Secretaries, Mr. Oliver 
Stanley, in 1944 told the House of Commons that it had sensibly impeded “the 
British war effort", or in other words, prolonged the war (he is a trustworthy 
witness, for he was hailed by the Zionists at his death as “a staunch friend”). In 
1946 and 1947. after the Geneva Congress, it was intensified, hundreds of British 
soldiers being ambushed, shot while asleep, blown up and the like. The terror was 
deliberately given the visible appearance of “the old evil" when two British 
sergeants were slowly done to death in an orchard and left hanging there. The 
choice of this Levitical form of butchery ("hanging on a tree", the death 
“accursed of God" ) signified that these things were done under the Judaic Law. 

The British government, daunted by the fury of the American and British 
press, under common constraint, feared to protect its officials and soldiers, and 
one British soldier wrote to The Times: “What use has the army for the 
government’s sympathy ? It does not avenge those who are murdered, nor does it 
prevent any further killings. Are we no long a nation with sufficient courage to 
enforce law and order where it is our responsibility to do so?” 

This was the case. The great Western governments had fallen, under “irrestible 
pressure", into a nerveless captivity, and Britain and America had ceased, 
anyway for the time, to be sovereign nations. At length the British government, in 
despair, referred the problem of Palestine to the new organization in New York 
called “the United Nations” (which had as little right to dispose of Palestine as 
the League of Nations before it). 

Delegates from Haiti, Liberia, Honduras and other parts of “the free world" 
thronged to Lake Success, a forlorn, suburban pond outside New York. There 
was an hissing in the world at this time and from the parent UNO bodies called 
COBSRA, UNRRA, UNESCO uncoiled. On this particular day something 
called UNSCOP (United Nations Special Committee on Palestine) rendered to 
UNO its report recommending "the partition of Palestine”. 

Dr. Weizmann (though deposed by the Zionist Organization for his warnings 
against terrorism) was once more the chief authority heard by UN SCOP in 
Jerusalem, and then quickly returned to New York where, in October and 
November of 1947, he dominated the hidden scene as lobbyist supreme. 
“Irresistible pressure” operated with relentless force. The delegates whom the 


436 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


public masses saw on the moving-picture screens were puppets; the great play 
was all behind the curtain and in that, Chesterton’s “real world”, of which the 
multitude saw nothing, two great operations were in progress, by means of which 
the fate of Palestine was settled far from the debating halls of the United Nations. 
First, hundreds of thousands of Jews from Russia and Eastern Europe were 
being smuggled across Western Europe to invade Palestine. Second, the 
approach of an American presidential election was being used by the Zionists as a 
means to set the rival parties there bidding against each other for Zionist support, 
and thus to ensure that the decisive American vote in the United Nations would 
be cast for the invasion. 

In each case, and as in the preceding three decades, men arose who strove to 
disentangle their countries from its consequences. The secret convoying of the 
Eastern Jews across Western Europe was revealed by a British general Sir 
Frederick Morgan (to whose work in planning the invasion of Normandy 
General Eisenhower's book pays tribute). When the fighting ended General 
Morgan was lent bv the British War Office to “UNRRA”, the offspring-body of 
the United Nations which was supposed to "‘relieve and rehabilitate” the 
sufferers from the war. General Morgan was put in charge of the most hapless of 
these (the “displaced persons”) and found that “UNRRA”, which cost the 
American and British taxpayer much money, was being used as an umbrella to 
cover the mass-movement of Jews from the eastern area to Palestine. These 
people were not “displaced persons”. Their native countries had been ""liberated” 
by the Red Armies and they were able to live in them, their welfare ensured by the 
special law against “anti-semitism” which all these communized countries 
received from their Communist overlord. They had not been ‘"driven from 
Germany", where they had never lived. In fact, these were, once more, the 
Ostjnden, the Chazars, being driven by their Talmudic masters to a new land for a 
conspiratorial purpose. 

In this way a new war was being cooked over the embers of the dying one and 
General Morgan twice (in January and August 1946) publicly stated that “a 
secret organization existed to further a mass movement of Jews from Europe, a 
second Exodus”. Senator Herbert Lehman, a prominent Zionist who was 
Director General of UNRRA, said this warning was “anti-semitic” and 
demanded General Morgan’s resignation. He relented when General Morgan 
disclaimed “anti-semitic” intent, but when the general repeated his warning eight 
months later he was summarily dismissed by the new Director General, a Zionist 
sympathizer and former Mayor of New York, Mr. Fiorello La Guardia, known 
to New Yorkers as The Little Flower. Mr. La Guardia then appointed a Mr. 
Myer Cohen in General Morgan’s place. The British government hastened to 
punish General Morgan by retiring the celebrated invasion-planner, stating 
(falsely) that this was at his request. 

Two independent bodies of high status confirmed General Morgan’s 


437 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


information; in the servient condition of the press their disclosures received little 
publicity. A Select Committee on Estimates of the British House of Commons 
reported (November 1946) that “very large numbers of Jews, almost amounting 
to a second Exodus, have been migrating from Eastern Europe to the American 
zones of Germany and Austria with the intention in the majority of cases of 
finally making their way to Palestine. It is clear that it is a highly organized 
movement, with ample funds and great influence behind it, but the Subcommittee 
were unable to obtain any real evidence who are the real instigators 1 ’. A War 
Investigating Committee sent to Europe by the United States Senate said that 
“heavy migration of Jews from Eastern Europe into the American zone of 
Germany is part of a carefully organized plan financed by special groups in the 
United States'". 

The picture, once again, is of a conspiracy supported by the Western 
governments, in this case the American one in particular. The “organization 11 in 
America disposed of American and British public funds lavishly, and effected the 
mass-transfer of population under the cloak of war-relief. Its leaders were able 
summarily to dismiss high officials, publicly-paid, who exposed what went on, 
and the British government supported this action. Although by that time (1946- 
1947) the perfidy of the revolutionary state was supposed to have been realized by 
the Western politicians (so that “cold war 11 was waged with it), the three 
governments of Washington, London and Moscow acted in perfect accord in this 
one matter. The “exodus 11 came from Russia and from the part of Europe 
abandoned by the West to the revolution. No man may leave the Soviet state 
without permission, most rarely granted, but in this one case the Iron Curtain 
opened to release a mass of people, just large enough to ensure immediate war 
and permanent unrest in the Near East. Just as smoothly, thirty years before, the 
frontiers and ports of Germany (an enemy), England (an ally ) and America (a 
neutral) had opened to allow the revolutionaries to go to Russia. On both 
occasions, at this supreme level of policy, the super-national one, there were no 
allies, enemies or neutrals; all governments did the bidding of the supreme power. 

One of the British Colonial Secretaries earliest involved in Zionism and the 
Balfour Declaration of 1917, Mr. Leopold Amery, had said: “We thought when 
we issued the Balfour Declaration that if the Jews could become a majority in 
Palestine they would form a Jewish state" . In 1946-1948, at last, this thought was 
being realized, in the only way possible: by the mass-transplantation of Eastern 
Jews to Palestine. Only one thing still was needed: to obtain from “the United 
Nations 11 some act of mock-legalization for the invasion about to occur. To 
ensure that, the capitulation of the American president was necessary; and the 
way to bring that about was to threaten his party-advisers with the loss of the 
approaching presidential election, which lay a year ahead. 

A third war was in truth being hatched, in the thinning fog of the second war, 
by this clandestine movement of population, and in America (after the dismissal 


438 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


of General Morgan in Europe) the two men whose offices made them directly 
responsible tried to nip the peril in the bud. One was General Marshall, whose 
interventions in the question of invading Europe and later in that of China have 
been shown by their consequences to have been most ill-omened. In the question 
of Palestine he showed prudence. In 1947 he was Secretary of State and was thus 
chiefly responsible, under the president, for foreign policy. He strove to ward off 
his country’s involvement in the Palestinian fiasco and, as in all such cases, his 
relegation soon followed. 

The other man was Mr. James Forrestal, Secretary for Defence. He was a 
successful banker, brought into government in wartime for his executive ability; 
he was wealthy and only the impulse to serve his country can have moved him to 
take office. He foresaw disastrous consequences from involvement and died 
believing he had utterly failed in his effort to avert it. Of all the men concerned 
during two generations, he alone left a diary which fully exposes the methods by 
which Zion controls and manipulates governors and governments. 

Mr. Truman went further than even President Roosevelt in taking foreign 
policy and national security out of the province of the responsible ministers, and 
in acting contrary to their counsel under the pressure applied through electoral 
advisers. The story is made complete by Mr. Forrestal’s Diary, Mr. Truman’s 
own memoirs, and Dr. Weizmann’s book. 

The struggle behind the scenes for control over the American president, and 
therewith of the Republic itself, lasted from the autumn of 1947 to the spring of 
1948, that is, from the United Nations debate about the partition of Palestine to 
the proclamation of the Zionist state after its forcible seizure. 

Dates are important. In November 1947 the Zionists wanted the “partition” 
vote and in May 1948 they wanted recognition of their invasion. The presidential 
election was due in November 1948, and the essential preliminary to it, the 
nomination contests, in June and July 1948. The party-managers instructed Mr. 
Truman that re-election was in the Zionist gift; the opposition candidate received 
similar advice from his party-managers. Thus the election campaign took on the 
nature of an auction, each candidate being constantly under pressure from his 
organizers to outbid the other in supporting the invasion of Palestine. In these 
circumstances the successful candidate could only feel that election was a reward 
for “supporting partition” in November 1947 and “granting recognition” in 
May 1948; nothing could more clearly illustrate the vast change which the mass- 
immigration of Eastern Jews, in the period following the Civil War, had brought 
about in the affairs of the American Republic. Mr. Forrestal left a full account of 
the chief moves in this fateful, hidden contest. 

The time-bomb planted by Mr. Balfour thirty years earlier reached its 
explosion-moment when the British government in 1947 announced that it would 
withdraw from Palestine if other powers made impartial administration there 
impossible; this was the reply to President Truman’s proposal that 100,000 


439 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


“displaced persons” be allowed to enter Palestine immediately. Mr. Truman’s 
responsible advisers at once informed the American government of the 
consequences which would flow from a British withdrawal. General Marshall 
told the American Cabinet that such a British withdrawal “would be followed by 
a bloody struggle between the Arabs and Jews” (August 8, 1947), and his Under 
Secretary of State, Mr. Robert Lovett, pointed to the danger of “solidifying 
sentiment among all the Arabian and Mohammedan peoples” against the United 
States (August 15. 1947). 

This warning was at once answered by the voice of party-politics. At a Cabinet 
lunch Mr. Robert Hannegan (Postmaster General, but previously national 
chairman of the President’s party, the Democratic Party) urged the President to 
“make a statement of policy on Palestine” demanding “the admission of 150,000 
Zionists”. Thus the party-man’s counsel was that President Truman should 
respond to the British warning by increasing his bid for Zionist electoral support, 
from 100,000 to 150,000 persons. Mr. Hannegan said this new demand “would 
have a very great influence and great effect on the raising of funds for the 
Democratic National Committee” and, as proof of what he promised, added that 
the earlier demand (related to 100,000 immigrants) had produced the result that 
'‘very large sums were obtained from Jewish contributors and they would be 
influenced in either giving or withholding by what the President did on Palestine 

Thus the issue from the outset was presented to the President in the plainest 
terms of national interest on the one hand and party-contributions, party-votes 
and party-success on the other. It was argued throughout the months that 
followed and finally determined on that basis, without any gloss. 

Mr. Forrestal’s alarm became acute. He held that if state policy and national 
security (his province) were to be subordinated to vote-buying the country would 
pass under Zionist control and earlier (in 1946) had asked the President if 
Palestine could not be “taken out of politics”. Mr. Truman at that time had 
“agreed about the principle” but evinced the feeling “that not much will come of 
such an attempt, that political manoeuvring is inevitable, politics and our 
government being what they are ''. 

In September 1947, Mr. Forrestal spurred by his misgivings, laboured 
tirelessly to have Palestine “taken out of politics”. His idea was that both 
contending parties must contain a majority of people who could be brought to 
agree, in the paramount national interest, that major foreign issues be set above 
dispute, so that Palestine could not be used for huckstering at election-time. He 
found only disdain for this idea among the men of “practical politics”. 

Deeply disturbed by Mr. Hannegarfis above-quoted remarks of September 4, 
Mr. Forrestal at a Cabinet lunch on September 29, 1947 openly asked President 
Truman “whether it would not be possible to lift the Jewish-Palestine question 
out of politics”. Mr. Truman said “it was worth trying to do, although he was 
obviously sceptical”. At the next Cabinet lunch (October 6) the party-boss 


440 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


rebuked the responsible Cabinet officer: 

"Mr. Hannegan brought up the question of Palestine. He said many people 
who had contributed to the Democratic campaign were pressing hard for 
assurances from the administration of definitive support for the Jewish position in 
Palestine ”. 

Mr. Forrestal foresaw Mr. Truman’s capitulation and his alarm increased. He 
saw the Democratic party-manager, Mr. J. Howard McGrath (November 6, 
1947) and again could make no headway. Mr. McGrath said, “There were two or 
three pivotal states which could not be carried without the support of people who 
were deeply interested in the Palestine question ”. Mr. Forrestal made no 
impression with his rejoinder, “I said I would rather lose those states in a national 
election than run the risks which I felt might develop in our handling of the 
Palestine question”. 

The next day he again received support from General Marshall, who told the 
Cabinet that the Middle East was “another tinder box”, and Mr. Forrestal then 
“repeated my suggestion . . . that a serious attempt be made to lift the Palestine 
question out of American partisan politics . . . Domestic politics ceased at the 
Atlantic Ocean and no question was more charged with danger to our security than 
this particular one ” (November 7, 1947). 

The “partition” vote was by this time near and Mr. Forrestal made another 
appeal to Mr. McGrath , the Democratic party-manager, showing him a secret 
report on Palestine provided by the governmental intelligence agency. Mr. 
McGrath brushed this aside, saying Jewish sources were responsible for a 
substantial part of the contributions to the Democratic National Committee and 
many of these contributions were made "with a distinct idea on the part of the 
givers that they will have an opportunity to express their views and have them 
seriously considered on such questions as the present Palestine question. There 
was a feeling among the Jews that the United States was not doing what it should 
to solicit votes in the United Nations General Assembly in favour of the Palestine 
partition, and 'beyond this the Jews would expect the United States to do its 
utmost to implement the partition decision if it is voted by the United Nations 
through force if necessary*. ” 

This quotation reveals the process of progressively raising the bid for Zionist 
funds and the Zionist vote which went on behind the scenes. At the start only 
United States support for the partition proposal had been “expected”. Within a 
few weeks this “expectation” had risen to the demand that the United States 
should “solicit” the votes of other countries in support of partition and should use 
American troops to enforce partition, and the party-manager was quite 
accustomed to such notions (if American troops in the 1950’s or 1960’s find 
themselves in the Near East, any of them who have read Mr. Forrestal’s Diaries 
should know how they come to be there). Mr. Forrestal must have acted from a 
sense of duty, not of hope, when he implored Mr. McGrath “to give a lot of 


441 


THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


thought to this matter because it involved not merely the Arabs of the Middle 
East, but also might involve the whole Moslem world with its four hundred 
millions of people: Egypt, North Africa, India and Afghanistan’’. 

While Mr. Forrestal fought this losing battle behind the curtained windows of 
the White House and of party-headquarters. Dr. Weizmann, in Washington, 
New York and Lake Success was indefatigably organizing “the vote” on 
partition. He was having his difficulties, but was rescued from them at this 
culminant moment when he found “a welcome and striking change” among 
some of those “wealthy Jews” who formerly had opposed Zionism. At this 
belated stage in his narrative he first mentions Mr. Bernard Baruch, saying that 
Mr. Baruch had formerly been “an oppositionist Jew”, one of the “rich and 
powerful Jews who were against the idea of the Jewish National Home, but they 
did not know very much about the subject”. 

One can only speculate about the exact composition and nature of the “Jewish 
International” which Dr. Kastein described as having come into existence 
around the start of this century. It is permissable, in the light of all that has 
happened in these fifty years, to envisage it as a permanent, high directorate, 
spread over all nation-state boundaries, the membership of which probably 
changes only when gaps are left by death. If that is its nature, a reasonable further 
inference would be that Dr. Weizmann was a very high functionary, perhaps the 
highest functionary, subordinate to it, but that undoubtedly there was a body 
superior to him. In that case, I would judge that its four most important 
members, in the United States at that period, would have been Mr. Bernard 
Baruch, first, and Senator Herbert Lehman, Mr. Henry Morgenthau junior and 
Justice Felix Frankfurter, next. If there were a doubt, it would previously have 
attached to Mr. Baruch, who had never publicly associated himself with “leftist” 
causes or with Zionism. His great crony, Mr. Winston Churchill, quoted Mr. 
Baruch’s “negative view” about Zionism to Dr. Weizmann, who in consequence 
(as he says) “took great care not to touch on the Jewish problem” when he earlier 
met Mr. Baruch in America. 


Nevertheless, at this decisive moment Mr. Baruch suddenly “changed a great 
deal” (Dr. Weizmann) and his support, added to the Zionist “pressure” that was 
being exerted on American politics, was determining. Dr. Weizmann, as he 
hurried round the lobbies at Lake Success, learned that the American delegation 
was opposed to the partition of Palestine. Thereon he enlisted the “particularly 
helpful” support of Mr. Baruch (until then, for forty years or more, regarded as 
an opponent of Zionism even by such intimates as Mr. Winston Churchill!), and 
also of the junior Mr. Henry Morgenthau (whose name attaches to the plan of 
“blind vengeance” adopted by Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Churchill at Ottawa in 
1944). 


Mr. Baruch presumably did not hold Dr. Weizmann in the awe which seems to 
have seized the Western politicians at the Zionist leader’s approach. Therefore 


442 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


his sudden support of Zionism must denote either an abrupt conversion or the 
revelation of a feeling earlier concealed; in either case, his intervention was 
decisive as will be seen. 

Dr. Weizmann was well supported by the other powerful Jews in the 
Democratic Party. Senator Lehman was head of UNRRA when it was used to 
smuggle the Eastern Jews across Europe to Palestine, and had demanded 
General Morgan’s resignation for publicly calling attention to this mass- 
movement of people; his part in the drama was already plain. Mr. Justice 
Frankfurter was equally busy; Mr. Forrestal was told by Mr. Loy Henderson (in 
charge of Middle Eastern Affairs in the State Department) that “very great 
pressure had been put on him as well as Mr. Lovett to get active American 
solicitation for United Nations votes for the Palestine partition; he said Felix 
Frankfurter and Justice Murphy had both sent messages to the Philippines 
delegate strongly urging his vote” (this is the same Mr. Frankfurter who called on 
Mr. House at the 1919 Peace Conference in Paris “to talk about the Jews in 
Palestine”; he was also the devoted instructor of Mr. Alger Hiss at the Harvard 
Law School). 

Having such support. Dr. Weizmann was a besieging general backed by 
superior armies when he called on the citadel’s commander. President Truman, 
on November 19, 1947, to demand that the United States support the partition of 
Palestine, and furthermore, that the Negev district (to which Dr. Weizmann 
attached “great importance”) be included in the Zionist territory. 

Mr. Truman's discipline was exemplary: “he promised me that he would 
communicate at once with the American delegation ” (Dr. Weizmann). Out at Lake 
Success the chief American delegate, Mr. Herschel Johnson, as he was about to 
inform the Zionist representative of the American decision to vote against the 
inclusion of the Negev, was called to the telephone and received, through 
President Truman, Dr. Weizmann’s orders. With that the deed was done and on 
November 29, 1947 the General Assembly of the United Nations recommended 
(Zionist propaganda always says “decided”) that “independent Arab and Jewish 
states, and the specific international regime for the City ofJerusalem' should come 
into existence after termination of the British “Mandate'’ on August 1, 1948. 

The vote was 31 against 13 with 10 abstentions. The manner in which the 
American vote was procured has been shown. As to some of the other votes, 
Under Secretary Robert Lovett said at the next Cabinet lunch (December 1, 
1947) that “he had never in his life been subject to so much pressure as he had 
been in the last three days”. The Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, which had 
a concession in Liberia, reported (he said) that it had been asked by telephone to 
instruct its representative in Liberia “to bring pressure on the Liberian 
Government to vote in favour of partition’’. (Mr. Loy Henderson's account of the 
“great pressure” used to get American “solicitation” of the votes of small 
countries has already been quoted). Thus was the “vote” of “the United 


443 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 

Nations’' produced in the most explosive issue of this century’s world affairs. 

At the Cabinet lunch immediately after this “vote’’ Mr. Forrestal returned to 
the attack: C T remarked that many thoughtful people of the Jewish faith had deep 
misgivings about the wisdom of the Zionists’ pressures for a Jewish state in 
Palestine . . . The decision was fraught with great danger for the future security of 
this country ”. He then discussed the question (December 3, 1947) with Mr. James 
F. Byrnes, who had ceased to be Secretary of State earlier in the year (his 
relegation was foreseeable; it was he who disclosed President Roosevelt’s pledge 
to Ibn Saoud). 

Mr. Byrnes said President Truman’s actions had placed the British 
Government “in a most difficult position” and added that Mr. David K. Niles 
and Judge Samuel Rosenman “were chiefly responsible” for it. Both these men 
had been brought into the White House among the “Palace Guard” with which 
Mr. Roosevelt surrounded himself; Mr. Niles (of Russian-Jewish descent) was 
the “adviser on Jewish affairs” and Judge Rosenman had helped write 
presidential speeches. These men (said Mr. Byrnes) told Mr. Truman “that 
Dewey was about to come out with a statement favouring the Zionist position on 
Palestine, and had insisted that unless the President anticipated this moment New 
York State would he lost to the Democrats ”. 

Here Mr. Byrnes gave another glimpse of the behind-the-scenes auction. The 
two candidates for the highest office in the United States (Mr. Thomas Dewey 
was the prospective nominee of the other party, the Republican) in these 
portrayals look like children, incited against each other by the offer of a dangling 
bag of sweets. Mr. Truman, by doing the Zionist bidding in the matter of 
partition, had by no means ensured the Democrats of the prize, for the election 
was still a year distant and during that time the Zionists were to demand more 
and more, and the Republican party to bid higher and higher for the dangling 
reward. 

Mr. Forrestal, in desperation, now tried to convince the Republican Mr. 
Dewey: “I said the Palestine matter was a matter of the deepest concern to me in 
terms of the security of the nation, and asked, once more, if the parties could not 
agree to take this question out of their electoral campaigning”. Governor (of 
New York State) Dewey’s response was much the same as President Truman's: 
“It was a difficult matter to get results because of the intemperate attitude of the 
Jewish people who had taken Palestine as the emotional symbol, because the 
Democratic party would not be willing to relinquish the advantages of the Jewish 
vote”. Thereon Mr. Dewey continued to try and outdo the Democratic 
politicians in his bid for “the Jewish vote” (and to his own surprise nevertheless 
lost the election). 

Mr. Forrestal next tried to strengthen the hand of the State Department, in its 
resistance to the President, by a memorandum (January 21, 1948) in which he 
analyzed the dangers to American national security flowing from this 


444 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


entanglement: “It is doubtful if there is any segment of our foreign relations of 
greater importance or of greater danger ... to the security of the United States 
than our relations in the Middle East 1 ’. He warned against doing “permanent 
injury to our relations with the Moslem world” and “a stumble into war”. He 
said he had found “some small encouragement” among individual Republicans 
for his proposal to take the question “out of party-politics”, but among the 
Democrats had met a feeling “ that a substantial part of the Democratic funds come 
from Zionist sources inclined to ask in return for a lien upon this part of our national 
policy”. 

The last nine words are explicit and are literally correct. The Zionists 
demanded the submission of American state policy and offered in return a four- 
year tenure of the presidency to the highest bidder. Whether they were in truth 
able to deliver what they offered has never been tested; the party-managers took 
them at their word and the candidates of both parties put on the sackcloth of 
submission before they were nominated, knowing (or believing) that they would 
not even achieve nomination unless they wore it. 

Mr. Forrestal urged the Secretary of State (General Marshall) to remonstrate 
with the President, pointing out that a large body of Jews “hold the view that the 
present zeal of the Zionists can have most dangerous consequences, not merely in 
their divisive effects in American life, but in the long run on the position of Jews 
throughout the world ”. 

Under-Secretary Lovett, on reading Mr. Forrestafs memorandum, produced 
one already prepared by the Planning Staff of the State Department. This 
informed the President that the partition plan was “not workable” (exactly as 
British governments had been warned by their colonial administrators that “the 
Mandate” was “not workable”); that the United States was not committed to 
support it if it could not be effected without force; that it was against American 
interest to supply arms to the Zionists while refusing them to the Arabs; that the 
United States should not take on itself to enforce the “recommendation” of 
partition and should try to secure withdrawal of the partition proposal. 

Mr. Lovett added, “the use of the United Nations by others as a propaganda 
platform is complicating our conduct of foreign relations” and said the State 
Department was “seriously embarrassed and handicapped by the activities of 
Niles at the White House in going directly to the President on matters involving 
Palestine”. On that very day, the Under-Secretary complained, he had once more 
been under “pressure”; Mr. Niles had telephoned from the White House 
“expressing the hope that the embargo on the sales of arms to the Zionists would 
be lifted”. 

At that point Mr. Forrestal evidently became an acute annoyance to the 
powers behind the White House and his elimination was decided. First he 
received a visit from Mr. Franklin D. Roosevelt junior. Whatever the father’s 
deathbed pledge not to take “hostile action against the Arabs”, the son (a New 


445 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 

York politician, with presidential hopes) was an extreme Zionist partisan. Mr. 
Forrestal pointedly said, “I thought the methods that had been used by people 
outside of the Executive branch of the government to bring coercion and duress on 
other nations in the General Assembly bordered closely on scandal ”. He records (as 
if with surprise) that his visitor “made no threats” in response to this, and he then 
explained his proposal to “lift the question out of politics” by agreement between 
the parties. 

Mr. Roosevelt, his father’s son, replied that “this was impossible, that the 
nation was too far committed, and that, furthermore, the Democratic Party 
would be bound to lose and the Republicans to gain by such an agreement”. Mr. 
Forrestal answered that “failure to go along with the Zionists might lose the 
states of New York, Pennsylvania and California;” (the “pivotal states” earlier 
mentioned by party-manager McGrath) “I thought it was about time that 
somebody should pay some consideration to whether we might not lose the 
United States”. 

No comment by Mr. Roosevelt is recorded, but he was a harbinger of ill for 
Mr. Forrestal because on this same day (February 3, 1948) came the intervention 
of Mr. Bernard Baruch. Mr. Baruch, earlier an opponent of Zionism, was now so 
zealous in the cause that he advised Mr. Forrestal “ not to be active in this matter 
. . . I was already identified, to a degree that was not in my own interests, with 
opposition to the United Nations policy on Palestine”. 

Ominous words for Mr. Forrestal! The annals here record for the first time a 
specific intervention by Mr. Baruch in high affairs, and its nature. His counsel 
was that Mr. Forrestal, a Cabinet officer, consider his own interest, which was 
endangered; until that time Mr. Forrestal as a responsible Cabinet officer had 
considered only the interest of his country. Mr. Forrestal does not say whether he 
saw in this advice anything threatening; his allusion to Mr. Roosevelt on the 
same day shows that the thought of “threats” was in his mind. 

He then gave way to the fear which in the end cowed nearly all men who strove 
against the thrall of Zion. Four days later (February 7, 1948) he drew up a last 
paper on the subject which he never submitted to the President, but which 
contains something of historical importance. He said that on February 6 
“Eisenhower told me that effective United States participation in a Palestine 
police force would involve about one division with appropriate supporting 
units”. At that time, therefore, General Eisenhower (then Chief of Staff) was 
drafting plans for the potential engagement of American troops in Palestine. Mr. 
Forrestal put away this last memorandum. On February 12 and 18 he made two 
final appeals to General Marshall to contend with the President and the party- 
managers and at that point his efforts ceased. 

His desisting availed him nothing for within a twelvemonth he was literally 
hounded to death. His end needs to be described here, before the armed seizure of 
Palestine is recorded; it is the classic case of persecution by defamation, leading 


446 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


to death. 

I first went to America early in 1949 and was perplexed by the venom of the 
attacks, in the press and radio, on one Mr. James Forrestal, Secretary for 
Defence. I knew nothing of him but his name, and the part he played in this affair 
(as above recorded) was then entirely unknown to the public. Nevertheless they 
read or heard daily that he was insane, a coward who had left his wife to be 
attacked by a burglar, a tax defaulter, and all manner of other things. By chance I 
met a friend of his who told me that he had been so reduced by this persecution 
that those near to him were gravely alarmed. A few weeks later he threw himself 
from a high window, leaving in his room some copied verses from Greek tragedy 
which ended with the refrain, “Woe, woe! will be the cry . . .” 

American libel laws are liberal and differ from state to state, and litigation is 
long. Even a successful action may not bring redress. Hardly any limit is in 
practice set to what may be said about a man singled out for defamation; the 
slanders are printed in the language that incites mob-passions and when 
broadcast are uttered in rabid accents that recalled to me the voices of primitive 
African tribespeople in moments of catalepsy. Among Mr. Forrestafs effects 
was found a scrapbook full of these attacks, and towards the end he could not 
listen to the radio. The refuse of calumny was emptied on his head and at the end 
two broadcasters joined for the kill. One of them announced (January 9, 1949) 
that President Truman would “accept Forrestafs resignation within a week” 
(and followed this with some slander about shares in the German Dye Trust). On 
January 11 the second broadcaster told the millions that President Truman 
would by that time have accepted Mr. Forrestafs resignation, had not the first 
broadcaster anticipated the event (the jewel-robbery story was added to this). A 
few weeks earlier President Truman had told the Press that he had asked Mr. 
Forrestal not to resign; on March 1 he sent for Mr. Forrestal and demanded his 
immediate resignation, without explanation, to be effective from May 1. Mr. 
Forrestal committed suicide on May 21. At the funeral ceremony Mr. Truman 
described him as “a victim of the war”! 

(In parentheses, at that time another man was being hounded to the same 
death, which he escaped, later in the same year, only by the failure of his suicide 
attempt. His persecution came from the same defamationist source, though his 
offence was in the other field. Communism. Mr. Whittaker Chambers sinned by 
his efforts to expose Communist infiltration of the American Government. I was 
in America at the time of his ordeal, which is described in his book; this contains 
the striking example, to which I earlier alluded, of the Talmudic practice of 
“cursing by an angry, fixed look” (the Jewish Encyclopaedia). Fiteral Talmudists 
would presumably see in Mr. Chambers’s suicide attempt, and in the ill-health 
which subsequently afflicted him, a token of the literal efficacy of “the Law” in 
this respect). 

After Mr. Forrestafs retreat into silence, at the warning of Mr. Baruch, the 

447 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


responsible men at the State Department continued their struggle, headed by 
General Marshall. (All this while, in England, Mr. Bevin was carrying on his 
lonely fight against the Conservative opposition and against the mass of his own 
party alike). At one point, for the first time since 1917, the responsible Cabinet 
officers and officials in both countries seemed to have won the day. 

This was in March 1948. Violence in Palestine had so greatly increased after 
the United Nations’ “recommendation” for the country’s bisection that the 
Security Council grew alarmed and beat a retreat. Even President Truman was 
shaken and his representative in the Security Council announced the reversal of 
American policy, proposing (March 19, 1948) that the partition proposal be 
suspended, that a truce be arranged, and that the end of the “Mandate” be 
followed by a “Trusteeship” (this was in effect the proposal of the State 
Department memorandum of January). 

At the last moment the idea of “the Jewish state” thus seemed about to 
collapse. The post-war return to reason was beginning (that process which Mr. 
Lloyd George, thirty years before, had warningly called the “thaw”) and if the 
coup now failed only a third world war could provide another opportunity. The 
“Trusteeship” would be the “Mandate” in a new form,.but with the United 
States as the country chiefly involved, and in another ten or twenty years 
America, foreseeably, would find the “Trusteeship” as “unworkable”, under 
Zionist pressure, as the British had found the “Mandate”. 

It was then or never, and the Zionists struck at once. They presented the 
“United Nations” with the accomplished fact by bisecting Palestine themselves. 
The terrorist deed by means of which this was accomplished was the result of the 
policy adopted at the World Zionist Congress of 1946, where “the demoralizing 
forces in the movement” (Dr. Weizmann’s words) had recommended methods of 
“Resistance . . . defence . . . activism”, and Dr. Weizmann, who knew what was 
meant, had been deposed for objecting to them. 

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 


448 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


Arab population of Palestine fled into the neighbouring Arab states. 

The massacre at Deir Yasin was briefly 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 1 ', 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 modern 


Jew does not take his 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. 


449 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


Deir Yasin, for a little while, solved the Zionists' problem. The partition of 
Palestine had been achieved, by force. At the same time the event revealed (to the 
Arabs, if not then to the West) the nature of Dr. WeizmamYs "abyss into which 
terrorism leads”. From April 9, 1948 the West itself stood on the brink of this 
abyss, dug by the acts of two generations of its politicians. 

Thus the situation changed completely between March 19, 1948, when the 
American Government decided that partition was "unworkable” and reversed 
its policy, and April 9, 1948, when terrorism effected partition. Dr. Weizmann 
must still have been haunted by his fears, but now that the territory for the Jewish 
state had been cleared he would not or could not withdraw from "the abyss”. The 
aim now was to achieve a second reversal of American policy, to gain an 
expression of approval for what had been done by terrorism, and to this end, 
once more, Dr. Weizmann bent all his efforts. At the first reversal of American 
policy he had been urgently summoned from London to Lake Success by letters, 
cables and telephone calls, and the day before it was announced he was again 
closeted with President Truman. As the days passed, and the news from Deir 
Yasin flickered briefly over the tapes, he laboured tirelessly at his supreme task: 
the winning of "recognition” for the Jewish State set up by the terrorists at Deir 
Yasin. 

Dr. Weizmann's energy was extraordinary. He conducted a one-man siege of 
the entire "United Nations” (of course, he was everywhere received as the 
representative of a new kind of world-power). He was "in close contact”, for 
instance, with the delegates of Uruguay and Guatemala, whom he calls "the ever 
gallant defenders” of Zionism, and with the Secretary General of the United 
Nations, at that time a Mr. Trygve Lie from Norway. In mid-April, with the 
tidings from Deir Yasin rising to its very nostrils, the General Assembly of the 
United Nations met. The American vote was clearly to be decisive, and Dr. 
Weizmann remarks that he "began to be preoccupied with the idea of American 
recognition of the Jewish state”. In other words. American state policy, formed 
in the constitutional process of consultation between the Chief Executive and his 
responsible Cabinet officers, was once more to be reversed at the demand of 
Chaim Weizmann. 

Dates are again significant. On May 13 1948 Dr. Weizmann saw President 
Truman; the contest for the presidential nominations then lay immediately ahead 
and the presidential election a few months beyond, so that this was the ideal 
moment to apply "irresistible pressure”. Dr. Weizmann informed President 
Truman that the British mandate would end on May 15 and a provisional 
government would then take over "the Jewish state”. He urged that the United 
States "promptly” recognize it and the President acted with zealous alacrity. 

On May 14 (Palestine time) the Zionists in Tel Aviv proclaimed their new state. 
A few minutes later "unofficial news” reached Lake Success that President 
Truman had recognized it. The American delegates (who had not been informed) 


450 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


“were incredulous”, but “after much confusion” they made contact with the 
White House and received from it Dr. Weizmann’s instructions, transmitted 
through the President. Dr. Weizmann forthwith repaired to Washington as the 
President of the new state and President Truman received his guest, thereafter 
announcing that the moment of recognition was “the proudest of my life”. 

Eight years later President Truman in his memoirs depicted the circumstances 
in which his “proudest moment” came about, and his account may appropriately 
be cited here. Describing the six-month period (from the “partition-vote” in 
November 1947 to “recognition” in April 1948), he says: 

“Dr. Chaim Weizmann . . . called on me on November 19 and a few days later 
I received a letter from him”. Mr. Truman then quotes this letter, dated 
November 27; in it Dr. Weizmann refers to “rumours” that “our people have 
exerted undue and excessive pressure on certain” (United Nations) 
“delegations” and, speaking for himself, says “there is no substance in this 
charge”. Mr. Truman comments, “The facts were that not only were there 
pressure movements around the United Nations unlike anything that had been 
seen there before, but that the White House, too, was subjected to a constant 
barrage . 1 do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the 
White House as I had in this instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme 
Zionist leaders — actuated by political motives and engaging in political threats — 
disturbed me and annoyed me. Some were even su gesting that we pressure 
sovereign nations into favorable votes in the General Assembly .” 

The “political threats” mentioned here obviously related to President 
Truman’s approaching re-election campaign; this is the only reasonable 
interpretation of the words. Mr. Truman (according to Dr. Weizmann) 
promised, at the interview on November 19, “to communicate at once with the 
American delegation” and the United States vote was then given, on November 
29, to the “recommendation” that Palestine be partitioned. Thus President 
Truman’s anger (as recorded in his narrative of 1956) at the methods used in no 
wise delayed his capitulation to them in 1947 (if that were not made plain the 
reader of his Memoirs might gain a different impression). 

Mr. Trunrin (in 1956) recorded the outcome of the “solution” (the partition 
recommendation) supported by him in November 1947: “every day now brought 
reports of new violence in the Holy Land”. He also found that his capitulation of 
November and Dr. Weizmann’s disclaimer of “undue pressure” had no effect at 
all in the months that followed: <( The Jewish pressure on the White House did not 
diminish in the days following the partition vote in the United Nations. Individuals 
and groups asked me, usually in rather quarrelsome and emotional ways, to stop the 
Arabs, to keep the British from supporting the Arabs, to furnish American soldiers, 
to do this, that and the other" (Disraeli’s picture of “the world being governed by 
very different persons from what is imagined by those who are not behind the 
scenes”). 


451 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


The President sought refuge in retreat: “As the pressure mounted, I found it 
necessary to give instructions that I did not want to be approached by any more 
spokesman for the extreme Zionist cause. I was even so disturbed that I put off 
seeing Dr. Weizmann , who had returned to the United States and had asked for 
an interview with me". Mr. Truman, in 1956, evidently still held the 
postponement of an interview with Dr. Weizmann to have been so drastic a 
measure as to deserve permanent record. He was then visited (March 13,1948) by 
an old Jewish business associate “who was deeply moved by the sufferings of the 
Jewish people abroad" (this was less than a month before the massacre at Deir 
Yasin) and who implored him to receive Dr. Weizmann, which President 
Truman at once did (March 18). 

This was the day before American support was withdrawn from the partition 
recommendation (March 19). Mr. Truman says that when Dr. Weizmann left 
him (on March 18) “I felt he had reached a full understanding of my policy and 
that I knew what it was he wanted". Mr. Truman then passes over the bloody 
weeks that followed without a word (he does not mention Deir Yasin), except for 
an incidental statement that “the Department of State’s specialists on the Near 
East were, almost without exception, unfriendly to the idea of a Jewish state ... I 
am sorry to say that there were some among them who were also inclined to be 
anti-Semitic". He resumes his narrative two months later (May 14, after Deir 
Yasin and the accompanying bloodshed) then saying, “Partition was not taking 
place in exactly the peaceful manner I had hoped, but the fact was that the Jews 
were controlling the area in which their people lived . . . Now that the Jews were 
ready to proclaim the State of Israel I decided to move at once and give American 
recognition to the new nation. About thirty minutes later, exactly eleven minutes 
after Israel had been proclaimed a state, Charlie Ross, my press secretary, 
handed the press the announcement of the de facto recognition by the United 
States of the provisional government of Israel. I was told that to some of the 
career men of the State Department this announcement came as a surprise". 

Mr. Truman does not in his Memoirs recall his statement of 1948 that this was 
“the proudest moment of my life", or explain why he felt it to be so,'after many 
months of such “pressure" and “political threats" at the beleaguered White 
House that at one moment he was led to deny himself, if only for a short time, 
even to Dr. Weizmann! For the purposes of this narrative he now virtually passes 
from the story, having served his turn. He was elected president six months after 
his proudest moment and at the date of this book looks fit to live another twenty 
years, a dapper, hearty man on whom the consequences of the acts with which his 
name is identified apparently had as little effect as the fury of the ocean cyclone 
has on the bobbing cork. (In 1956 he joined the company of those who have been 
awarded an honorary degree by the ancient University of Oxford, a woman don 
there raising a lonely and unheeded voice against its bestowal on the Chief 
Executive whose name is best known from its association with the order to atom- 


452 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


bomb Nagasaki and Hiroshima). 

After President Truman’s proud recognition of what had been done in 
Palestine between November 1947 and May 1948 the debate at the “United 
Nations" lost importance and Dr. Weizmann (who in his letter to President 
Truman of November 27, 1947 had warmly denied the use of “undue pressure”) 
set to work to muster other recognitions, so that the issue should be put beyond 
doubt. He learned that Mr. Bevin, in London, “was bringing pressure to bear on 
the British Dominions ... to withhold recognition”, and he at once showed who 
was the greater expert in applying “pressure”. 

Historically regarded, this was a moment of the first importance, because it 
showed for the first time that Zionism, which had so deeply divided Jewry, had 
divided the nations of the British Empire, or Commonwealth; what no warlike 
menace or danger had ever achieved, “irresistible pressure on international 
politics” smoothly accomplished. Suddenly Zion was shown to be supreme in 
capitals as far from the central scene as Ottawa, Canberra, Cape Town and 
Wellington. 

This gave proof of superb staffwork and synchronization; miracles of secret 
organization must have been performed, in a few decades, to ensure the 
obedience, at the decisive moment, of the “top-line politicians” in Canada, 
Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. These countries were remote from 
Palestine; they had no interest in implanting the fuse of new world war in the 
Middle East; their Jewish populations were tiny. Yet submission was 
instantaneous. This was world power in operation. 

The great significance of what transpired may need explaining to npn-British 
readers. The bonds between the British island and the overseas nations sprung 
from it, though they were* intangible and rested on no compulsion, had in 
emergency repeatedly shown a strength, mysterious to outsiders. An anecdote 
may illustrate: 

The New Zealand Brigadier George Clifton relates that when he was captured 
in the Western Desert in 1941 he was brought before Field Marshal Rommel, 
who asked, “Why are you New Zealanders fighting? This is a European war, not 
yours! Are you here for the sport?” 

Brigadier Clifton was perplexed to explain something which to him was as 
natural as life itself: “Realizing he was quite serious and really meant this, and 
never having previously tried to put into words the, to us, self-evident fact that if 
Britain fought then we fought too, I held up my hand with the fingers together 
and said, 'We stand together. If you attack England, you attack New Zealand 
and Australia and Canada too. The British Commonwealth fights together’.” 

That was true, in respect of people, but it was no longer true in respect of “top¬ 
line politicians”. Through them, the conspiracy from Russia had found the chink 
in the armour. The “pressure” in Wellington (and the other capitals) was as 
powerful and effective as it was around the White House. In this particular case 


453 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


(New Zealand) a typical figure of that time and group of helots was a Mr. Peter 
Fraser, Pri ue Minister of New Zealand. None could have had less cause to hate, 
or even to know anything about Arabs, but he was their implacable enemy, 
because he had somehow become another captive of Zionism. This poor Scottish 
lad, who went to the other edge of the world and found fame and fortune there, 
apparently picked up the infection during impressionable youthful years in 
London (when it was spreading among ambitious young politicians there) and 
took it with him to the new country, so that decades later he applied all his 
energies and the power of his office to the destruction of harmless folk in 
Palestine! When he died in 1950 a Zionist newspaper wrote of him: 

“He was a convinced Zionist ... He was busy leading the United Nations 
delegation of his country at the Paris Assembly, but gave much time and 
attention to the Palestine issue . . . sitting day after day at the Political Committee 
when Palestine was discussed. He never left the room for one moment; no detail 
escaped his attention . . . He was the only Premier on the committee and left it as 
soon as Palestine was dealt with . . . Time and again Peter Fraser found himself 
voting against the United Kingdom, but he did not care . . . He remained a friend 
until his last day ”. 

A man with this alien ambition in his heart certainly thought quite differently 
from Brigadier Clifton and his kind, and had he known how his Prime Minister 
felt Brigadier Clifton might have been much more puzzled to know how to reply 
to Field Marshal Rommel. Being so much preoccupied with Zionism Mr. Fraser 
could not be expected to be wholehearted in his country’s interest and New 
Zealand went into the Second War all unready, so that when he met New Zealand 
survivors from Greece and Crete at Port Said in 1941 they were “haggard, 
unshaven, battle-stained, many of them wounded, all badly worn both physically 
and mentally, all worried by the loss of so many good ‘Cobbers’; Mr. Fraser was 
responsible, in part, for this” (Brigadier Clifton). With this man as prime 
minister, New Zealand’s quick recognition of what had been done in Palestine 
was assured, little though the New Zealanders knew it. 

In South Africa, Dr. Weizmann, in his moves to discomfort Mr. Bevin, turned 
at once to General Smuts, whom the reader met long ago. By chance I was in 
South Africa at that moment. A well-known Zionist emissary came speeding 
from New York by air and when I read of his arrival I foresaw what would 
follow. (This man appeared before a Zionist audience and told it that “the Jews 
need not feel themselves bound by any frontiers which the United Nations might 
lay down”; the only remonstrance against this, seen by me, came from a Jewish 
objector, who said such words boded ill for future peace). 

General Smuts received this airborne visitor and then announced 
“recognition” at once, being beaten in promptness only by President Truman 
and the Soviet dictator Stalin, (who in this one question were perfectly agreed). 
This was, I believe. General Smuts’s last political act, for he was defeated at an 


454 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


election two days later. His son strongly warned him against recognition, holding 
that it would lose him votes. General Smuts brushed the advice aside (rightly, 
from the electioneering point of view, for his opponents no doubt were ready to 
bid for the Zionist vote and South Africa contained no Arab voters). 

General Smuts’s renown throughout the British Commonwealth (and his 
unpopularity with most of his fellow Boers) rested entirely on the popular belief 
that he was the architect of “Anglo-Boer reconciliation” and a champion of the 
great-family concept. In this one question he deserted the hard-pressed 
government in London with the unquestioning obedience of long-instilled 
discipline. I achieved an old ambition to meet him at that time. His days were 
ending and he too now disappears from this tale, but before he died he, like Dr. 
Weizmann, had seen “the abyss” which he had helped dig: “in the problem of 
Palestine” (he told his son later in the same year, 1948) “there is tragedy at our 
doorstep ... No wonder Britain is getting sick and tired of it all. Failure in 
Palestine will not only be a British failure. Other nations have also taken a hand, 
including America, and they have also failed. Palestine ... is one of the great 
problems of the world and can have a great effect on the future of the world . . . 
We have thought to let the Arabs and Jews fight it out, but we cannot do that. 
Power is on the more, and Palestine lies on the road ”. 

So he spoke privately, but not publicly. Apparently politicians, like the clown 
in the opera, feel they must ever wear the mask in public. Like Mr. Truman, he 
did what Dr. Weizmann commanded without delay and even in 1949, for the 
benefit of a Zionist audience, said he was “happy to have been associated with at 
least one thing in my life which has been successful ”. 

The retreat from London became a rout. Dr. Weizmann records that the New 
Zealand representative, Sir Carl Berendsen, then “won support from Australia”, 
and soon the “top-line politicians” in Canada followed suit. When the British 
Dominions followed Mr. Truman and Generalissimo Stalin the smaller states 
thronged to give “recognition”; they could not refuse to tread where these great 
ones had rushed in, and thus “the Jewish state” took shape “de facto”, the fact 
being the massacre at Deir Yasin. 

Although he became its president, this is in truth the point at which Dr. Chaim 
Weizmann passes from the narrative, after fifty years of an activity, essentially 
conspiratorial, in which he encompassed the capitulation of all political leaders 
of the West and left “tragedy”, like a foundling, on its common doorstep. I would 
not know where to look for a more fascinating life and another writer might be 
able to depict it in heroic tones. To me it seems to have been given to a destructive 
purpose and Dr. Weizmann, whose years were nearly done when he reached his 
triumph, found triumph a bitter, perhaps a lethal cup. 

So I judge, at all events, from his book, the last part of which is of absorbing 
interest. It was published in 1949, so that he could have brought his account to 
the point now reached by this one, at least. He did not. He closed it in 1947. Now, 


455 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


why did he do that? 

I think the answer is obvious. In 1946 he had warned the World Zionist 
Organization against “terror" and depicted “the abyss" into which “the old evil" 
must lead, and had been deposed in consequence. Then he had become president 
of the new state set up by “terror". I think he wished to leave his warning to Jewry 
on record and could not bring himself to discuss the deeds of terror and 
assassination in which the new state was born, so that he pretended to have ended 
the manuscript before they occurred. 

He put the date of completion as November 30, 1947, the day after his triumph 
at Lake Success (when President Truman, at his prompting, telephoned the 
American delegation to vote for partition). Evidently he wished the book to end 
on that note. The reversal of American policy, and the deeds against which he 
had uttered warning, soon followed, and as the book was not to appear until 1949 
he had plenty of time to express his opinion of them. All he did was to add an 
epilogue in which he did not even mention the determining deed at Deir Yasin, 
the contemptuous answer to his warnings. Moreover, he again went out of his 
way to say that this epilogue was finished in August 1948; this saved him the need 
to make any reference to the next determining deed of terrorism, the 
assassination of Count Bernadotte, which occurred in September 1948. 
Obviously Dr. Weizmann quailed. He had identified himself with both massacre 
and murder by accepting and retaining the presidency of the new state. 

For that reason his earlier warnings are of the greatest significance; he could 
have deleted them before publication. For instance, he charged “the terrorists” 
(into whose hands he delivered the future of Palestine, and of much more than 
Palestine) with trying to “ force the hand of God”. This, obviously was the heresy 
of Zionism, and of all those who supported it, whether Jew or Gentile, from the 
very start, and of Dr. Weizmann more than most others. He added, ‘7 he terrorist 
groups in Palestine represented a grave danger to the whole future of the Jewish 
state; actually their behaviour has been next door to anarchy”. It was anarchy, not 
neighbour to anarchy, and Dr. Weizmann’s life’s effort was anarchic. Even in 
this argument he was not moved by moral recoil; his complaint was not against 
the destructive nature of anarchy itself, but merely that it was inexpedient, 
“because the Jews have hostages all over the world". 

On the very day after his triumph at Lake Success he returned to his new 
theme: “There must not be one law for the Jew and another for the Arabs. . . The 


Arabs must be given the feeling that the decision of the United Nations is final, 
and that the Jews will not trespass on any territory outside the boundaries 
assigned to them. There does exist such a fear in the hearts of many Arabs and 
this fear must be eliminated in every way . . . They must see from the outset that 
their brethren within the Jewish state are treated exactly like the Jewish citizens 
. . . We must not bend the knee to strange gods. The Prophets have always 
chastised the Jewish people with the utmost severity for this tendency, and 


456 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


whenever it slipped back into paganism, whenever it reverted, it was punished by 
the stern god of Israel ... I am certain that the world will judge the Jewish state 
by what it will do with the Arabs"’. 

Thou sayest! Here Dr. Weizmann put on the robes of an Israelite prophet, or 
perhaps the crown of Canute bidding the tide retreat. When these words were 
published the Arabs had already been driven from their native lands, the Jews 
had "trespassed” on territory outside the boundaries earlier "recommended”, 
the Arabs were not being treated "exactly like the Jewish citizens” but were 
homeless and destitute fugitives. Dr. Weizmann pretended not to know all that! 
He ignored all that had happened and said it must not happen. As an example of 
published hypocrisy this can hardly be excelled even in politics. The probable 
explanation is that he still could not bring himself to denounce what had been 
done but, as his death approached, felt he must point out its consequences; those 
consequences to which his life’s work from the start was bound to lead, if it were 
successful. At the last he cried "Back!”, and all in vain. 

A greater man than he cried out in horror and linked the consequences to the 
deeds, which he did not fear to name. Dr. Judah Magnes was in the direct line of 
the Israelite remonstrants of old. Born in America in 1877, like Dr. Weizmann he 
had given his life to Zionism, but in a different spirit. He was a religious Zionist, 
not a political one, and did not presume "to force God’s hand”. From the start he 
had worked for the establishment of an Arab-Jewish binational state and had 
attacked Zionist chauvinism from its first appearance. He became Chancellor of 
the Hebrew University at Jerusalem in 1925 (having strongly objected to Dr. 
Weizmann’s pompous foundation-stone ceremony in 1918), was its president 
from 1935, and in 1948 was in Jerusalem. He was appalled by the emergence of 
"the old evil in a new and horrible guise” and left a valedictory lament 
condemning the Zionists and the Western politicians alike: 

"Refugees should never be made use of as a trump in the hands of politicians. 
It is deplorable, incredible even, after all that the Jews in Europe have gone 
through, that an Arab problem of displaced persons should be created in the 
Holy Land”. 

He died immediately after saying this and I have not been able to discover the 
circumstances of his death; references to it in Jewish literature are often cryptic 
and resemble those concerning the breakdown and sudden death of Dr. Herzl. 
For instance, one such allusion (in the foreword to Rabbi Elmer Berger’s book of 
1951) says he "died of a broken heart”. 

In Dr. Magnes another Jewish peacemaker joined the group of responsible 
men who for fifty years had vainly sought to keep the West (and the Jews) out of 
the grip of a Talmudic conspiracy from Russia. He founded and left an 
organization, the Ihud Association, which still speaks with his voice, and even 
from Jerusalem. Its organ there, NER, in December 1955 said, "Ultimately we 
shall have to come out with the truth openly: We have no right whatever, on 


457 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


principle, to prevent the return of the Arab refugees to their soil. . . What should 
Ihud strive for? To transform the perennial powder keg (which is the State of 
Israel, according to Minister Pinhas Lavon) into a place of peaceful habitation. 
And what weapons is the Ihud to use? The weapons of truth . . . We had no right 
to occupy an Arab house without first paying its price; and the same is true of the 
fields and groves, the stores and factories. We have had no right whatever to 
colonize and materialize Zionism at the expense of others. This is robbery; this is 
banditry . . . We are once more among the very rich nations, but we are not 
ashamed to rob the property of the fellaheen”. 

This is a still small voice in Jewry at the present moment (incidentally, Dr. 
Albert Einstein spoke with the same voice: “My awareness of the essential nature 
of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army and a measure 
of temporal power, no matter how modest; I am afraid of the inner damage 
Judaism will sustain”, 1950), but it is the only one which gives Jewry the hope of 
ultimate salvation from the Zionism of the Chazars. Today the probability, if not 
the certainty, is that this salvation can only come after the final tribulation in 
which the wanton adventure in Palestine must involve the multitudes of the West, 
the Jews among them. 

One final point remains to be established about the creation, “de facto”, of the 
Zionist state; namely, that it was the child of the revolution. The revolution 
enabled the Jews “to become a majority in Palestine”, as the British authors of 
the Balfour Declaration of 1917 had desired, and this transformation in Palestine 
could not have been effected in any other way, for no large body of Jews 
anywhere else in the world could have been brought to go there. The mass- 
movement was only possible in the case of these Eastern Jews who for centuries 
had lived in close Talmudic regimentation, and the manner of their 
transportation to Palestine has been shown. In 1951 Israeli Government statistics 
showed that of the “majority” which had been achieved (about 1,400,000 Jews), 
1,061,000 were foreign-born, and 577,000 of these came from the communized 
countries behind the Iron Curtain, where non-Jews were not allowed to move 
even from one town to another without police and other permits. (Most of the 
remaining 484,000 were North African or Asiatic Jews who arrived after the 
establishment of the state and took no part in its violent acquisition). 

The invaders, therefore, were the Eastern Jews of Tartar-Mongol stock, but 
force of numbers alone would not have ensured their success. They needed arms 
for that. During the war General Wavell had informed Mr. Churchill that the 
Jews, if allowed to, could “beat the Arabs”, and he evidently based this judgment 
on the arms which, as he knew, the Zionists had then amassed. At that time these 
could only have been British or American arms, clandestinely obtained from the 
depots of the Allied armies operating in North Africa and the Middle East (a 
process at least winked at, if not officially approved, by the political leaders in 
London and Washington, as has been shown). General Wavell, though his 


458 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


opinion proved correct, may at the time have overestimated the Zionist strength 
or have underestimated Arab resistance, for the Zionists, after the event, did not 
attribute it to the Allied weapons obtained by them. On the contrary, they 
believed that they owed their victory in the six months of fighting (between the 
“partition” vote and Deir Yasin) to the arms they received from the revolution. 
The Iron Curtain, which had opened to let the invaders of Palestine leave, opened 
again to allow arms to reach them in decisive quantities. 

This was the first major consequence of General Eisenhower’s order, issued 
under President Roosevelt’s direction, to halt the Allied armies west of the 
Berlin-Vienna line and allow Czechoslovakia to fall to the Soviet; the arms came 
from that captive country, where the great Skoda arsenal, as a result of his order, 
had merely passed from Nazi into Communist hands. A few weeks after 
President Truman’s recognition of the Zionist state the New York Herald- 
Tribune published this report from Israel: 

“Russian prestige has soared enormously among all political factions . . . 
Through its consistent espousal of Israel’s cause in the United Nations, the 
Soviet Union has established a goodwill reservoir with leftists, moderates and 
right wing elements. Perhaps of more importance to a new nation fighting for its 
existence has been a fact less generally known: that Russia provided practical 
help when practical help was needed . . . Russia opened its military stores to 
Israel. From the Soviet satellite nation of Czechoslovakia, Jews made some of 


their most important and possibly their most sizable bulk purchases. Certain 
Czech arms shipments which reached Israel during critical junctures of the war 
played a vital role . . . When Jewish troops marched in review down Tel Aviv’s 
Allenby Street last week, new Czechoslovak rifles appeared on the shoulders of 
infantry soldiers” (August 5, 1948). 

At that time the Zionist and Zionist-controlled press throughout the West 
began explicitly to identify “anti-Semitism” with “anti-Communism” (the 
attribution of Jewish origins and leadership to Communism had long been 
denounced as the mark of the “anti-Semite”). The Jewish Sentinel of Chicago, 
for instance, in June 1946 had already declared, “We recognize anti-Sovietism 
for what it really is . . . Did you ever hear of any anti-Semites anywhere in the 
world who were not also anti-Soviet? . . . We recognize our foes. Let us also 
recognize our friends, the Soviet people”. In the schools of the new state itself the 
flag of the revolution was flown and its hymn sung on May Day, an ostentatious 
acknowledgement of affinity if not of parenthood. In January 1950 the Tel Aviv 
correspondent of the London Times reported that Czechoslovakia was still the 
source of arms supply for the Zionist state. 

So much for the birth of “Israel” and the pains it caused to others. No 
offspring of political illegitimacy was ever ushered into the world by so many 
sponsors; the “recognitions” poured in and the peacemakers were everywhere 
discomfited. Mr. Bevin continued in office for a few years and then resigned, soon 


459 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


to die; General Marshall and Mr. Forrestal were dropped at the first 
opportunity, obviously for the discouragement of others who might take their 
responsible duty seriously. 

Withing a few weeks the new state took another step towards “the abyss” of 
“the old evil”. The “United Nations”, having accepted the accomplished 
bisection of Europe and recommended the bisection of Palestine, showed a tardy 
concern for “peace” and appealed to Count Folke Bernadotte of Sweden to go to 
Palestine and mediate between the parties. Count Bernadotte had always given 
himself to the mitigation of human suffering, particularly to the relief and rescue 
of Jewish victims during the Second War. He worked in the sign of the Cross (the 
red one) and was killed at the very place where the Cross first became a symbol of 
faith and hope. No deed can be more atrocious than the murder of an accepted 
peacemaker and mediator by one of the combatant parties, and within four 
months of its creation the Zionist state added this second symbolic act to its 
calendar. 

Count Bernadotte (like Mr. Forrestal) kept a diary, published after his death. 
This records that, after accepting the mission of peace, he passed through 
London and was visited by Dr. Nahum Goldman, then vice-president of the 
Jewish Agency and the Zionist state’s representative, who told him that: “the 
state of Israel was now in a position to take full and complete responsibility for the 
acts committed by the Stern Gang and the members of Irgun \ 

These were the killer-groups whose deed at Deir Yasin effected the clearance of 
territory for the Zionists and was implicitly “recognized” by the West. They were 
the “activists” against whom Dr. Weizmann had uttered warning at the Zionist 
Congress of 1946. Deir Yasin had shown that they had the power, by calculated 
acts of terrorism, to change the whole course of world affairs, irrespective of 
anything said by Zionist leaders, by politicians in the West, or by the “United 
Nations”. 

They have this power in 1956, and will continue to have it. They can at any time 
precipitate the world into new war, for they have been placed in the most 
inflammable spot in the world, rightly described as “the powder keg” by an 
American Secretary of State, a British Foreign Secretary and the Zionist Premier 
himself. Up to the time when Dr. Nahum Goldman made the above-quoted 
statement to Count Bernadotte a pretence had been kept up that they were 
beyond the control of the “responsible” Zionist leaders, who deplored their acts. 
Dr. Goldman’s assurance was presumably meant to convince Count Bernadotte 
that his work of mediation would not be wantonly destroyed by any such act as 
that of Deir Yasin. The terrorists then murdered Count Bernadotte himself, and 
in the sequel (as will be shown) the Israeli government took responsibility for 
them and their deeds. 

Count Bernadotte, after hearing these reassuring words, set out to pacify. In 
Egypt he saw the Prime Minister, Nokrashi Pasha, who said he “recognized the 


460 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


extent of Jewish economic power, since it controlled the economic system of many 
countries, including the United States, England, France, Egypt itself and perhaps 
even Sweden' (Count Bernadotte did not demur to the last statement). Nokrashi 
Pasha said the Arabs did not expect to escape that domination. However, for the 
Jews to achieve economic domination of the whole of Palestine was one thing; 
what the Arabs would not accept, and would resist, was the attempt by force and 
terrorism, and with the assistance of international Zionism, to set up a Zionist 
state based on coercion. After this King Farouk told Count Bernadotte that if the 
war continued (it has not yet ended) it would develop into a third world war; 
Count Bernadotte agreed and said he had for that reason accepted the task of 
Mediator. 

He also mentioned that in the war he had had “the privilege of rescuing about 
20,000 persons, many of them Jews; I myself had been in charge of this work’’. He 
evidently thought this would qualify him for Zionist respect, and was wrong. 
Within a few days he had persuaded the Arabs (on June 9, 1948) to agree 
unconditionally to a cease-fire, but then read a fanatical Zionist attack on himself 
for “having forced the truce on the Jews”. “I began to realize what an exposed 
position I was in . . . the friendliness towards me would unquestionably turn to 
suspicion and illwill if, in my later activities as Mediator, I failed to study 
primarily the interest of the Jewish party but sought to find an impartial and just 
solution of the problem’'. 

Irgun (for which the Zionist government through Dr. Goldman in London 
had claimed “full and complete responsibility”) then broke the truce (June 18-30, 
1948) by landing men and arms. Count Bernadotte and his observers “were 
unable to judge the number of Irgun men landed or the quantity of war material 
unloaded” because the Zionist government refused to allow them near the spot. 
In the first week of July “the Jewish press made very violent attacks on me”. The 
defamationist method (used against Mr. Forrestal) was now employed and 
Count Bernadotte’s efforts to rescue Jewish victims during the war were turned 
against him; the insinuation was made that his negotiations with the Nazi 
Gestapo chief, Heinrich Himmler, towards the war’s end about the liberation of 
Jews had been of dubious character. “It was unjust to cast aspersions on me”, 
(the innuendo was that Count Bernadotte was “a Nazi”) “my work having been 
the means of saving the lives of about 10,000 Jews”. 

That meant as little to the Zionists as Alexander II’s and Count Stolypin’s 
efforts to “improve the lot of the Jews” forty years earlier; Count Bernadotte’s 
mortal offence was impartiality. Between July 19 and August 12 he had to tell Dr. 
Joseph, Zionist military governor of Jerusalem, that according to his observers’ 
reports “the Jews were the most aggressive party in Jerusalem”. On September 
16, on the historic peacemaker’s path “to Jerusalem” (the title of his book) Count 
Bernadotte in effect wrote his own death warrant; on that day he sent his 
“Progress Report” as Mediator from Rhodes to the United Nations, and within 


461 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 
twenty-four hours he was murdered. 

The reason lay in his proposals. He accepted the "de facto” establishment of 
the Zionist state but, building on that basis, sought to reconcile and pacify by 
impartial proposals, as just to each party as the accomplished fact would allow. 
His chief concern was for the civilian Arab population, driven by the pogrom at 
Deir Yasin from its native villages and huddled beyond the frontiers. Nothing 
like this had ever been done under the wing of the West, and Count Bernadotte 
was fresh from efforts to rescue Jews from Hitler. Thus he proposed: 

(1) that the boundaries of the Zionist state should be those envisaged in the 
"recommendation” of the United Nations on November 29, 1947, the Negev to 
remain Arab territory and the United Nations to ensure that these boundaries 
were "respected and maintained”; (2) that (as also "recommended”) Jerusalem 
be internationalized under United Nations control; (3) that the United Nations 
should affirm and give effect to ” the right of the Arab fugitives to return to their 
homes. 

Having despatched these proposals on September 16, 1948, Count Bernadotte, 
before they could reach New York, flew to Jerusalem (September 17). He and his 
party, unarmed and defenceless, drove towards Government House when their 
car was halted by a Zionist jeep pulled across the road. Their movements were 
clearly as well known as the contents of Count Bernadotte’s report; three men 
jumped from the jeep, ran to his car, and with sten guns killed him and his Chief 
Observer in Jerusalem, the French Colonel Serot. 

The survivors, in an appendix to his diary, describe the killing in detail. Their 
accounts show its efficient preparation and execution and plainly point to the 
identity of the chief organizer. The actual murderers escaped without hindrance, 
two in the jeep and one across country. None was arrested or charged (report, 
probably credible, says that a waiting aeroplane removed the murderers to 
communized Czechoslovakia). The subsequent Israeli enquiry stated that: 

"The murder as it was actually carried out and all the preparations that went 
with it are predicated on the following points: (a) a clear decision to assassinate 
Count Bernadotte and the elaboration of a detailed plan for its carrying out; (b) a 
complex spy network capable of keeping track of the Count’s movements during 
the time of his stay in Jerusalem so as to enable those responsible for the 
operation to fix its place and time; (c) men experienced in this kind of activities or 
who had received in good time training for it; (d) appropriate arms and methods 
of communication as well as safe refuge after the murder; (e) a commander well 
experienced and responsible for the actual perpetration”. 

For such men the new state had declared itself "fully responsible”. Three days 
later a French news agency received a letter expressing regret that Colonel Serot 
had been killed in mistake for the Mediator’s Chief-of-Staff, the Swedish General 
Fundstrom, he being "an anti-Semite” (General Fundstrom was in another seat 
of the car). This letter was signed "Hazit Moledeth”; the Israeli 


462 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


police report stated that this was the name of the secret terrorist group within the 
Stern Gang. 

General Lundstrom announced (September 18) that “These deliberate 
murders of two high international officials constitute a breach of the truce of the 
utmost gravity and a black page in Palestine’s history for which the United 
Nations will demand a full accounting”. No such demand was to be expected from 
the United Nations which (as this account has shown) responds only to the 
strongest pressure exerted behind the scenes. It has (or then had; none can say 
what wondrous transformation the future might bring) no morality of its own; it 
was an oracle, worked by a hidden mechanism, and it did not trouble itself about 
the murder of its Mediator any more than the Washington and London 
governments had troubled about the persecution of Mr. Forrestal and the 
murder of Lord Moyne. It ignored the Mediator’s proposals; the Zionists took 
and kept what territory they then wanted ( including the Negev), refused to let the 
Arabs return, and proclaimed that they would not allow Jerusalem to be 
internationalized (they are implacable in these points today, eight years later). 
The world-newspapers brought out the editorial which they seemed to keep in 
standing-type for such occasions (“Incalculable harm has been done to the 
Zionist cause . . . ”) and then resumed their daily denunciations of any who 
pleaded the Arab case as “anti-Semites’’. The Times of London even blamed 
Count Bernadotte for his own murder; it said the proposal to internationalize 
Jerusalem “undoubtedly incited certain Jews to kill Count Bernadotte”, and in 
the common understanding the word “incite” imputes blame. 

In Israel four months later two Stern Group leaders named Yellin and 
Shmuelevitz were sentenced to eight and five years imprisonment in this 
connection by a special court, the president of which, in reading the judgment, 
said there was “no proof that the order to kill Count Bernadotte had been given 
by the leadership”. The two men (according to the Jewish Telegraph Agency) 
“scarcely paid heed to the proceedings in view of the fact that the State Council 
was expected to approve a general amnesty”, and within a few hours of their 
sentencing they were released, then being escorted in triumph to a popular 
reception. The “Commander-in-Chief” of Irgun, a Mr. Menachem Begin, some 
years later made “a triumphal tour” of Western cities, being received in 
Montreal, for instance, by “a guard of honour of the Montreal police headed by 
Rabbis bearing Scrolls of the Law” (the South African Jewish Herald). Speaking 
at Tel Aviv during an election campaign in 1950 Mr. Begin claimed credit for the 
foundation of the Zionist state, through the deed at Deir Yasin. He said the Irgun 
had “occupied Jaffa”, which the government party “had been ready to hand over 
to the Arabs”, and added: 

“The other part of the Irgun’s contribution was Deir Yasin, which has caused 
the Arabs to leave the country and make room for the newcomers. Without Deir 
Yasin and the subsequent Arab rout, the present government could not absorb 


463 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


one-tenth of the immigrants”. 

Throughout the ensuing years, to this day, Mr. Begin continued to make 
sanguinary threats against the neighbouring Arab states*, to whom the presence 
of the Palestinean Arabs within their borders was a constant reminder of Deir 


Yasin and of the dire meaning of his menaces. For five years the public pretence 
was maintained that “the terrorists” had acted without authority at Deir Yasin 
and then, in April 1953, four Irgun men wounded at Deir Yasin claimed 
compensation. The Israeli government, through its Ministry of Security, denied 
the claim on the ground that the attack was “unauthorized”, whereon the Irgun 
commander produced a letter from the official Zionist military headquarters in 
Jerusalem authorizing the action. By that time the signatory was Israeli Minister 
in Brazil. 


In the city where the “United Nations” had their headquarters, a strong reason 
offered why no “accounting” for Count Bernadotte’s murder should be 
demanded. When it happened the American presidential election was close at 
hand. The campaign was at full heat and both candidates (Mr. Truman and Mr. 
Thomas Dewey) held the Zionist vote to be indispensable to success. They were 
vying for it and Palestine was a long way from New York. Mr. Truman was the 
better-qualified aspirant, for he had recognized the new state and proclaimed the 
act “the proudest” of his life. On another occasion he said it was one guided by 
“the highest humanitarian purpose”. A few weeks after the murder on the road to 
Jerusalem he was elected president; at the year's end he gave White House 
employees a bookmarker with the words, “I would rather have peace than be 
President”. 


By 1948 Colonel House's electoral strategy of 1910 had been developed into a 
high-precision instrument controlled by the Zionist international; the master- 
switch being in New York State. The machine and company-flotation era added 
a new verb to the English language: “to rig”, meaning to arrange or manipulate. 
Experts are able to “rig” machines. An example is the gambling-or slot-machine 
in America. John Doe inserts his coin in the vague belief that the machine is 
operated by the laws of chance, and that if he is chance's favourite its entire 
contents will pour into his hands; in fact the machine is expertly adjusted so that a 
precisely-calculated proportion of its receipts (probably between eighty and 
ninety percent) go to the gambling syndicate and the residue goes in small 
windfalls to John Doe. 


The “rigging” of the American electoral system is the determining factor in the 
events of the 20th Century. A mechanism originally designed to enable John Doe 


*“Begin Calls For War: Jerusalem. Attack the Arabs smash one weak spot after another, crush one front after 
another until victory is assured . . . this was the essence of the speech which Mr. Menahem Begin, leader of the Herut 
Party made last week in Jerusalem. He was speaking from the balcony of a hotel overlooking Zion Square filled with 
a few thousand persons. ‘Our losses in such an action will not be negligible but at any rate they will be much less than 
when we face the combined Arab armies in the field', he said, \ . . today the Defence Forces are stronger than all the 
Arab armies combined . . . Moses needed ten blows to take the Israelies out of Egypt; with one blow we can throw 
the Egyptians out of Israel’, he said, referring to the Gaza Strip." (Johannesburg Zionist Record, August 20, 1954). 


464 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 

to express his opinion about policies and parties has been adjusted to such a point 
of nicety, almost precluding error, that he is left without voice in his national 
affairs; no matter what coin he inserts in which slot, the governing syndicate 
wins. 

The electoral system itself might at the start have been designed to make easy 
the task of “a foreign group 11 bent on dictating the course of American state 
policy. An election always impends: a Congressional one every second, a 
presidential one every fourth year. No sooner is a Congress or President elected 
than the “pressure-groups 11 begin to work on the aspirants for the next election; 
the party-managers begin to worry about the next contest; and the would be 
Senators, Congressmen and Presidents start to feel, and respond to, “the 
pressure 11 . There is no breathing-space in which prudence might prevail and the 
stranglehold be broken (in 1953, as will be seen, even the struggle for the 
mayoralty of New York City produced an abrupt, major reversal of American 
state policy, the issue being “support for Israel 11 . The intensification of 
“pressure 11 at these recurrent moments, and the consequent warnings from the 
party-managers to incumbents in Congress or the White House, bring about 
these back-somersaults, which upset the whole edifice of policy laboriously 
erected by responsible ministers and competent permanent officials). 

In these circumstances the new “state 11 set up in Palestine in 1948 was never, 
and never can be, a “state 11 in any meaning of the word formerly used in recorded 
history. It was the outpost of a world organization with special access to every 
government, parliament and foreign office in the Western world (and most 
especially to the government, parliament and foreign office of the United States, 
which in the 1950’s was the most powerful country in the world), and its chief 
function was to exercise control over the American Republic, not to afford “a 
home 11 for the Jews of the world. The prospect opened by this state of affairs was 
that of increasing American involvement in an explosive situation in the Levant, 
artificially created and pregnant with the danger of world war. 

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 11 , 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 11 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 


465 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 1 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 LJnited 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. 

Far on the other side of the world the effect of the “rigged” electoral machine 
in New York was felt in its other manifestation: support of the revolution. 
Chiang Kai-shek, the Chinese leader, was driven by similar shifts in American 
state policy from the Chinese mainland (where Communism with American 
support established itself) to the island of Formosa, where for the time being he 
again received some measure of American support. A well-known American 
broadcaster, Mr. Tex McCrary, visited him there and reported back to the 
listening millions of New York State: “I squirmed with embarrassment when I 
was told, AVe have learned never to trust America for more than eighteen months 
at a time, between elections' ”. 

This control of American state policy, through control of the election machine, 
led in 1952 to a culminating act of the Talmudic vengeance, wreaked this time on 
the half of Germany which had been left “free” by the bisection. This half of 
Germany was forced to pay tribute to the Zionist state, set up three years after 
Germany’s defeat in the Second War! 

After the First War the Western victor powers tried to exact tribute 
(“reparations”) but failed; what was received was merely by book-entry, for it 
was cancelled out by American and British loans. After the Second War the 
revolution exacted tribute from captive East Germany by simply helping itself 
The Western victor powers made no demand for “reparations” on their own 
account, but extorted it for Zion. 

As the years passed the alarm of responsible men in the Middle East again 
made itself felt in the State Department. It was constantly reminded by its 
advisers on the spot that the seven Arab States had never accepted the deed of 


466 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


1948, that they held themselves still to be in a state of war with the interloping 
state, and held the United States to be paying for arms to be used against 
themselves. 

Thus the idea was born, several years after the war’s end, of making the “free” 
half of Germany pay “reparations" to a state which had not even existed during 
the Second War; the continued propping-up of the new state was to be ensured 
and the true source of its support obscured. The idea was long bruited behind the 
scenes and (like the judgment of Nuremberg) then was suddenly given symbolic 
realization on the eve of the Jewish High Holy days in 1952 (or, as Time magazine 
of New York put it, “In the last week of the Jewish year 5711 ”). It formed the 
dominant theme of the ensuing Judaic celebrations, one Jewish newspaper 
remarking that it was “The finest New Year present for Jewry we could think 
of”. 

The Chancellor of occupied West Germany, Dr. Adenauer (“waxy pale”) 
informed the Bundestag at Bonn of “the obligation to make moral and material 
amends”. His Minister for Justice, Dr. Dehler, spoke differently to an audience 
at Coburg: “The agreement with Israel was concluded at the wish of the 
Americans, because the United States, in view of the feeling in the Arab countries, 
cannot continue to support the state of Israel in the same way as heretofore ”. 

The American presidential election of 1952 was then immediately at hand. The 
West German government was constrained to pay, over a period of twelve to 
fourteen years, 822 million dollars to Israel, mostly in goods. The picture 
resulting from this transaction somewhat strikingly recalls Stehelin’s summary of 
passages from the Cabala depicting the Messianic consummation: “But let us see 
a little after what manner the Jews are to live in their ancient country under the 
Administration of the Messiah. In the first place, the strange nations, which they 
shall suffer to live, shall build them houses and cities, till them ground and plant 
them vineyards; and all this, without so much as looking for any reward of their 
labour”. This picture is not far different from that offered by the British, 
American and German taxpayers under the different forms of constraint (hidden 
in the first two cases, open in the third case) to which they have been subjected in 
the matter of tribute for Zionism. 

The Western masses were not informed about the manner in which this 
payment of tribute was extorted; it was presented to them as an independent act 
of the West German government, prompted by high moral feeling. Jewish 
readers, on the other hand, were as well informed as Dr. Dehler’s audience at 
Coburg. To quote two examples: the Jewish Telegraph Agency “revealed that the 
United States Government has played a very important role in pushing Western 
Germany to make a decent reparations offer to the Jews; the British government 
has also done its share, although to a smaller extent”; and the Johannesburg 
Zionist Herald said, “The agreement with Germany could not have been possible 
without the active and very effective support of the United States government in 


467 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


Washington and of the United States High Commissioner's office in Germany". 
The entire Arab press reported similarly, and an American newspaperman who 
sought to make his way into one of the Arab refugee camps was rebuffed with the 
words, “What is the use of talking with you? We Arabs know very well that in 
America no newspaper dares to tell the whole truth about the Palestine 
question". 

In England the official version was given to parliament by Lord Reading, 
Foreign Under Secretary and son of the Viceroy mentioned in the Maharajah of 
Kashmir’s question to Sir Arthur Lothian thirty years earlier. Lord Reading's 
statement was prompted by the usual expedient of a “question", on this occasion 
from a Socialist peer. Lord Henderson, who began by saying that “over six 
million Jews were done to death". Lord Reading's answer is of permanent 
interest; he said that the West German payments to the new state would be: “in 
the nature of some measure of reparation of moral, even more than material 
value", and that they would be “based upon the calculated cost of resettlement in 
Israel of Jews driven out of Europe by the Nazis''. 

This statement implicitly reasserts the principle that the only Nazi crime 
morally reparable was the treatment of Jews; none ever suggested that West 
Germany should pay the cost of resettling Poles, Czechs and all other victims. Its 
peculiar interest lies in the allusion to “reparation of moral value"; when it was 
made nearly a million Arabs had been “driven out" of Palestine by the Zionists 
and their claim to return to their homes had been repeatedly, even 
contemptuously rejected. 

Probably the most characteristic passage in this typical statement is that which 
refers to “resettling Jews driven out of Europe by the Nazis". Israel is the one 
place in the world where the numbers of the Jewish population may with 
accuracy be learned. According to Israeli government statistics, it was about 
1,400,000 in 1953, and among these were only 63,000 Jews (less than five percent) 
from Germany and Austria. These 63,000 were the only inhabitants of Israel who 
by any stretch of imagination might have been said to have been driven out of 
Europe and to resettle in Israel. The great mass came from Poland, Rumania, 
Hungary and Bulgaria some time after the war’s end (and certainly were not 
“driven out" as they were protected in those countries by special laws and 
preference in state employment) or from North Africa. 

No moral basis existed for the extortion of tribute from the West Germans for 


the Zionist state, and if any had ever existed, in respect of the 63,000, it had long 
been cancelled by the Zionists’ “driving out" of nearly a million Arabs. The affair 
is unique in Western history and proves only the extent of the American and 
British government’s submission to Zionism. 

West Germany was compelled to bear a large part of the cost of the new state’s 
armaments and development; therewith the likelihood of another great war was 
brought nearer and the outlook for the Arabs was made much worse. The Zionist 


468 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


state was at length propped up and the consequences at once began to flow. The 
exertion of “pressure” on the West German government in this matter was about 
the last major act of American state policy under President Truman, whose term 
was about to expire.* 


*As a footnote to the West German affair, the Western powers in Vienna, (on this occasion acting in perfect accord 
with the Soviet state) at the same bidding humbled little Austria (Hitler's first victim) by vetoing a law of amnesty 
and restitution which might have benefited some non-Jews. The Austrian government (at that time supposed to be 
“sovereign" again) protested in writing to the American High Commissioner, specifically accusing him of 
submitting to the orders of “emigrants from Austria" who were on his staff as “Jewish advisers". No intelligible 
account of this episode reached the British or American newspaper reader. 


469 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


THE WORLD INSTRUMENT 

The Second War produced a third result, additional to the advance of the 
revolution into Europe and the establishment by force of the Zionist state: 
namely, the second attempt to set up the structure of a “world government”, on 
the altar of which Western nationhood was to be sacrificed. This is the final 
consummation to which the parallel processes of Communism and Zionism are 
evidently intended to lead; the idea first emerged in the Weishaupt papers, began 
to take vigorous shape in the 19th Century, and was expounded in full detail in 
the Protocols of 1905. In the First War it was the master-idea of all the ideas 
which Mr. House and his associates “oozed into the mind” of President Wilson, 
and sought to make the president think were “his own”. It then took shape, first 
as “The League to Enforce Peace” and at the war’s end as “The League of 
Nations”. 

Thus it was given first and partial realization, like all the ideas auxiliary to it, 
during the confusion period of a great war, that is, the later period of the fighting 
and the early aftermath of it. It was never submitted before that war to the 
peoples who became embroiled, nor was any reasoned explanation of its nature 
and purpose given to them; during the “emergency” the “premier-dictators” 
took their assent for granted; the only expresseion of popular opinion ever given 
was the immediate refusal of the United States Congress, as the fog of the First 
War cleared, to have anything to do with it. 

The twenty years between the two wars showed that “the League of Nations” 
was unable to enforce or preserve peace and that nations would not of their own 
will surrender their sovereignty to it. Nevertheless, as the Second War 
approached the men who were to conduct it again were busy with this idea of 
setting up what they called a “world authority” of some kind and the one 
common thing in all their thought about it was that “nations” should give up 
“sovereignty”. Mr. Roosevelt (according to Mr. Baruch’s biographer, Mr. 
Morris V. Rosenbloom) as far back as 1923, after his paralysis, devoted his 
sickbed time to drafting “a plan to preserve peace” which, as president, he revised 
in the White House, then giving his blueprint the title, “The United Nations”. 

Similary in England, the champion of British nationhood, Mr. Winston 
Churchill, in 1936 became president of the British section of an international 
association called “The New Commonwealth Society” which advocated “a 
world police force to maintain peace” (the conjunction of the words “force” and 
“peace" occurs in all these programmes and pronouncements), and publicly 
declared (November 26, 1936) that it differed from “other peace societies” in the 
fact that it “advocated the use of force against an aggressor in support of law”. 
Mr. Churchill did not say what law, or whose law, but he did offer “force” as the 
path to “peace”. 

Thus it was logical that at the meeting of President Roosevelt and Mr. 

470 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


Churchill in August 1941, when the sterile “Atlantic Charter” was produced, Mr. 
Churchill (as he records) should tell the president that “opinion in England 
would be disappointed at the absence of any intention to establish an 
international organization for keeping peace after the war”. I was in England at 
that time and, for one, was disappointed at the inclusion of the reference which 
Mr. Churchill desired; as for “opinion in England” in general, there was none, 
for no informative basis for any opinion had been offered to the people. Mr. 
Churchill was pursuing the idea on his own authority, as was Mr. Roosevelt: 
“Roosevelt spoke and acted with complete freedom and authority in every 
sphere ... I represented Great Britain with almost equal latitude. Thus a very 
high degree of concert was obtained, and the saving in time and the reduction in 
the number of people informed were both invaluable” (Mr. Churchill, describing 
how “the chief business between our two countries was virtually conducted by 
personal interchanges” between himself and Mr. Roosevelt in “perfect 
understanding”). 

Consequently, in the concluding stages of the war and without any reference to 
the battling multitudes, “the questions of World Organization” (Mr. Churchill) 
dominated the private debate between these two. General Smuts in South Africa, 
and the premiers of the other British oversea countries. By that time (1944) Mr. 
Churchill was using the term “World Instrument” and (as in the earlier case of his 
allusion to “law”) the obvious question arose, whose instrument? “The 
prevention of future aggression” was stock language in all these interchanges. 
The difficulty of determining who is the aggressor has been shown in the cases of 
Havana harbour in 1898 and Pearl Harbour in 1941, and for that matter the co¬ 
aggressor at the start of the Second War, the Soviet state, was to be the party 
most lavishly rewarded at its end, so that all this talk about stopping 
“aggression” cannot have been seriously intended. Clearly the idea was to set up 
a “world instrument” for the use of whoever might gain control of it. Against 
whom would it be used? The answer is given by all the propagandists for this idea; 
the one thing they all attack is “the sovereignty of nations”. Ergo, it would be 
used to erase separate nationhood (in fact, only in the West). By whom would it 
be used? The results of the two great wars of this century supply the answer to 
that question. 

Against that background the “United Nations Organization” was set up in 
1945. Within two years (that is, while the confusion-period of the Second War 
still continued), the true nature of “world-government” and the “world 
instrument” was for an instant revealed. For the first time the peoples were 
shown what awaited them if this idea were ever fully realized. They did not 
understand what they were shown then and forgot it at once, but the disclosure is 
on record and is of permanent value to the student now and for as long as this 
idea of the super-national “authority”, so clearly foretold in the Protocols of 
1905, continues to be promoted by powerful men behind the scenes of 


471 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


international politics. At this point in the narrative the figure of Mr. Bernard 
Baruch first emerges from advisory shadows into full light, so that reasonable 
inferences may be drawn about his long part in the events of our century. 

As has been shown, he made a decisive intervention in favour of the Zionist 
state in 1947 by "changing a great deaf’ from his earlier hostility to Zionism (Dr. 
Weizmann) and by advising a responsible Cabinet officer, Mr. James Forrestal, 
to discontinue his opposition. That is the first point at which Mr. Baruch's 
influence on state policy may be clearly traced, and it is a significant one, 
discouraging to those who hope for Jewish "involvement in Mankind", for up to 
that time he seemed to be (and presumably wished to appear) a fully integrated 
American, a paragon of Jewish emancipation, tall, handsome, venerable and 
greatly successful in his affairs. 

If Mr. Baruch’s "change" was as sudden as Dr. Weizmann's narrative 
suggests, another incident of that period makes it appear also to have been 
radical, even violent. One of the most extreme Zionist chauvinists in America 
then was a Mr. Ben Hecht, who once published the following dictum: 

"One of the finest things ever done by the mob was the crucifixion of Christ. 
Intellectually it was a splendid gesture. But trust the mob to bungle. If I’d had 
charge of executing Christ Ed have handled it differently. You see, what Ed have 
done was had him shipped to Rome and fed to the lions. They never could have 
made a saviour out of mincemeat". 

During the period of violence in Palestine which culminated in the pogrom of 
Arabs at Deir Yasin, this Mr. Hecht inserted a full-page advertisement in many 
of the leading newspapers throughout America. It was addressed "To the 
Terrorists of Palestine” and included this message: 

"The Jews of America are for you. You are their champions . . . Every time 
you blow up a British arsenal, or wreck a British railroad train sky high, or rob a 
British bank, or let go with your guns and bombs at the British betrayers and 
invaders of your homeland, the Jews of America make a little holiday in their 
hearts". 

Tt was the author of this advertisement (according to his autobiography) 
whom Mr. Baruch chose to visit and inform of his affinity and support: 

"One day the door of my room opened and a tall white-haired man entered. It 
was Bernard Baruch, my first Jewish social visitor. He sat down, observed me for 
a moment and then spoke. T am on your side’, said Baruch, ‘the only way the 
Jews will ever get anything is by fighting for it. Ed like you to think of me as one of 
your Jewish fighters in the tall grass with a long gun. I’ve always done my best 
work that way, out of sight’.” 

This revelatory passage (added to Mr. Baruch’s intervention in the Forrestal 
affair) gives the student insight into the personality of Mr. Bernard Baruch. If 
this was the sense in which he had done his best work ("as a Jewish fighter in the 
tall grass with a long gun . . . out of sight”) during his thirty-five years of 


472 



THE CONTROVERSY OE ZION 


“advising six Presidents", the shape of American policy and of world events 
during the 20th Century is explained. The reader is entitled to take the quoted 
words at full value and to consider Mr. Baruch's influence on American and 
w orld affairs in the light they shed. They are equally relevant to Mr. Baruch’s one 
great public intervention in world affairs, w hich came about the same time. This 
was the “Baruch Plan" for a despotic world authority backed by annihilating 
force, and the words cited above justify the strongest misgivings about the 
purposes to which such a “world instrument" would be used. The “Baruch Plan" 
is of such importance to this narrative that a glance at Mr. Baruch’s entire 
background and life is appropriate. 

He was always generally assumed to be of the aristocratic Jewish type, that is to 
say, of Sephardic descent leading back, by way of the experience in Spain and 
Portugal, to a remote possibility of Palestinian origin. In fact, as he himself stated 
(February 7, 1947) his father was “a Polish Jew who came to this country a 
hundred years ago”. That places Mr. Baruch among the Slavic Ashkenazi, the 
non-semitie “Eastern Jew 7 s", w 7 ho are now’ said (by the Judaist statisticians) to 
comprize almost the whole of Jewry. 

He was born in 1870 at Camden in South Carolina. His familv seemed to have 
identified itself with the weal or woe of the new’ country, for his father served as a 
Confederate surgeon and Mr. Baruch himself was born during the evil days of 
“Reconstruction"; as a child he saw r the Negroes, inflamed by carpetbagger 
oratory and scallawag liquor, surge through the sleepy streets of this plantation- 
country town, and his eider brothers stand with shotguns on the upstairs porch; 
his father wore the hood and robe of the Ku Klux Klan. 

Thus in childhood he saw the destructive revolution at work (for it took charge 
during the final stages and aftermath of the Civil War and “Reconstruction” was 
recognizably its work) and later saw the enduring values of a free society. 
However, his family was not truly part of the South and soon the pull of New 
York drew it thither. There, before he was thirty, Bernard Baruch was a rich and 
rising man, and before he was forty he was already a power, though an unseen 
one, behind politics. He is probably the original of the master-financier, “Thor”, 
in Mr. House's novel. Against much opposition Mr. House included him in the 
group around Mr. Wilson. 

His life-story then was already full of great financial coups, “selling short”, 
“cashing in on the crash", “driving the price dow'n”, and the like. Gold, rubber, 
copper, sulphur, everything turned into dollars at his touch. In 1917, during an 
investigation into stock-market movements prompted in 1916 by the 
dissemination of “peace reports”, he informed the House Rules Committee of 
Congress that he had “made half a million dollars in one day by short selling”. 
He stated that his support of President Wilson (to w hose electoral campaigns he 
made lavish contributions) was first prompted by Professor Wilson's attack on 
exclusive “fraternities” at Princeton University (which in 1956 distinguished 


473 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


itself by allowing Mr. Alger Hiss to address one of its student clubs). The 
implication here is that he is of those who detest all “discrimination of race, class 
or creed’’; however few men can have suffered less than Mr. Baruch from 
“discrimination”. 

His first appearance in Wall Street was much disliked by the great men there on 
the ground that he was “a gambler” (a reproach apparently first made by Mr. J. 
Pierpont Morgan). He survived all such criticisms and described himself as “a 
speculator”. During the First World War President Wilson appointed Mr. 
Baruch head of the War Industries Board (Mr. Baruch having repeatedly urged 
President Wilson that the head of this dictatorial body should be “one man”) and 
he later described himself as having been, in that capacity, the most powerful 
man in the world. When President Wilson returned, completely incapacitated, 
from the Versailles Peace Conference Mr. Baruch “became one of the group that 
made decisions during the President’s illness . . . called ‘the Regency Council’ ”, 
and President Wilson rallied from his sickbed long enough to dismiss his 
Secretary of State, Mr. Robert Lansing, who had been calling Cabinet meetings 
in opposition to this “Regency Council”. 

Mr. Baruch’s biographer states that he continued to be “adviser” to the three 
Republican Presidents of the 1920’s, and Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt testifies to the 
fact that he was President Roosevelt’s adviser both before and during the twelve- 
year Democratic regime that followed. By March 1939 Mr. Winston Churchill 
felt able to inform Mr. Baruch (then in residence at his Barony in South Carolina) 
that “War is coming very soon ... You will be running the show over there”. 

By that time Mr. Baruch had been “advising” Presidents for nearly thirty years 
and in spite of that the zealous student can not definitely discover or state what 
Mr. Baruch’s motives were, nature of “advice” he gave, or what the effect of his 
counsel was on American policy and world events. This is natural, for he had 
worked always “in the long grass . . . out of sight”. He was never an elected or 
responsible officer of state, so that his work was beyond audit. He was the first of 
the “advisers”, the new type of potentate foreseen, at the century’s start, only in 
the much-abused “Protocols” of 1905. 


Deductions and inferences alone were possible in his case; fragments here and 
there might be pieced together to make the parts of a picture. First, his publicly 
recorded recommendations were always for measures of “control”. In the First 
and the Second War alike this was his panacea: “control”, “discipline” and the 
like. It amounted always to the demand for power over people, and for the 
centralization of authority in one man’s hands, and the demand was raised again 
long after the Second War, once more in the plea that it would prevent a third: 
“before the bullets have begun to fly . . . the country must accept cliseiplines such as 
rationing and price control” (May 28, 1952, before a Senate Committee). 

Each time this recommendation was made it was presented as a means for 
defeating a dictator (“the Kaiser”, “Hitler”, “Stalin”). The controlled and 


474 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


disciplined world which Mr. Baruch envisaged was depicted by him in testimony 
before a Congressional Committee in 1935: “had the 1914-1918 war gone on 
another year our whole population would have emerged in cheap but serviceable 
uniforms . . . types of shoes were to be reduced to two or three' 1 . This statement 
provoked strong protests at the time; Americans, having helped defeat the 
“regimented 11 Germans, did not like to think that they would have presented a 
spectacle of drab regimentation, had the war but lasted “another year 11 . At the 
time Mr. Baruch denied that he had intended “to goose-step the nation 11 , but his 
biographer records that he “revived his proposal for similar drab clothing in 
World War II 11 . In contemplating the picture thus conjured up the student 
cannot put out of his mind the similar picture, of a drab, enslaved mass 
inhabiting the former nation-states, which is given in the Protocols. 

Other fragments showed that Mr. Baruch’s thought culminated in a picture of 
a controlled and disciplined world. The folie de grandeur, the megalomania with 
which the Wilsons and Lloyd Georges, the Roosevelts and Winston Churchills 
reproached the Kaiser and Hitler, was in him. His biographer quotes: “Of course 
we can fix the world, Baruch has said on many occasions 11 . And then, 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 italicized words are the key ones: they relate to the confusion-period of a 
great war, when the “advisers 11 submit their plans, the ^premier-dictators 11 initial 
them (and later cannot understand how they could have done so), and the great 
coups are brought off. 

These are all fragments, significant but partial. Immediately after the Second 
War Mr. Baruch made his first great public appearance in world affairs as the 
author of a plan for world-dictatorship, and dictatorship (in my opinion) by 
terror. For the first time his mind and work lie open to audit, and it is in 
connection with this plan that (again in my opinion) his words to Mr. Ben Hecht 
are of such importance. 

According to his biographer, Mr. Baruch was 74 “when he began to prepare 
himself for the undertaking he considered the most vital of his life ... to shape a 
workable plan for international control of atomic energy and, as United States 
representatives to the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission, to promote 
adoption of that plan by the Commission 1 '. That would have been in 1944, a year 
before the first atom bomb was dropped and the United Nations was even 
established. 

If this is correct, Mr. Baruch knew what was to happen in the world about two 
years in advance of events; “the assignment 1 ' for which he was preparing himself 
in 1944 was first proposed by Secretary of State Byrnes (after a discussion with 
Mr. Baruch) to President Truman in Mar eh 1946 (seven months after the first 
atom bombs). President Truman duly made the appointment, whereon Mr. 


475 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


Baruch at last appeared publicly in an official capacity. He set to work on the 
“Baruch Plan'’. 

The law governing America's membership of the United Nations requires all 
American representatives in it to follow the policy determined by the President 
and transmit ted through the Secretary of State. According to his biographer Mr. 
Baruch enquired what "the policy" was to be. possibly as a matter of form, 
because he was told to draft it himself. Therefore the "Baruch Plan" was literally 
Mr. Baruch’s plan, if this account is correct (it was published with his approval). 
It was devised on a bench in Central Park in consultation with one Ferdinand 
Eberstadt, Mr. Baruch’s assistant in 1919 at Versailles and "an active disciple" of 
Mr. Baruch’s in the Second War. This might be described as the 20th Century 
method of formulating state policy, and apparently Mr. Baruch owes to it his 
popular title, "the park-bench statesman”. 

Mr. Baruch then presented his Plan to the United Nations Atomic Energy 
Commission at its opening session on June 14, 1946. He spoke with the voice of 
the Levites’ Jehovah offering "blessings or cursings”, alluded to the atom bomb 
as "the absolute weapon” (within a few years an even more pulverizing explosive 
was in competitive production), and used the familiar argument of false 
prophets, namely, that if his advice were followed “peace” would ensue and if it 
were ignored all would be "destroyed". The proposal he made seems to me to 
amount to a universal dictatorship supported by a reign of terror on the 
worldwide scale: the reader may judge for himself. 

"We must elect world peace or world destruction . . . We must provide the 
mechanism to assure that atomic energy is used for peaceful purposes and 
preclude its use in war. To that end, we must provide immediate, swift and sure 
punishment of those who violate the agreements that are reached by the nations. 
Penalization is essential if peace is to be more than a feverish interlude between 
wars. And, too, the United Nations can prescribe individual responsibility and 
punishment on the principles applied at Nuremberg by the Union of Soviet 
Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom, France and the United States — a 
formula certain to benefit the world's future. In this crisis, we represent not only our 
governments , but, in a larger way, we represent the peoples of the world . . . The 
peoples of these democracies gathered here are not afraid of an internationalism 
that protects; they are unwilling to be fobbed off by mouthings about narrow 
sovereignty, which is today’s phrase for yesterday’s isolation'’. 

Thus Mr. Baruch appeared, not as the representative of the United States, but 
as the spokesman of "the peoples of the world", and in that capacity 
recommended a permanent Nuremberg Tribunal as certain to benefit the world 
(presumably by judgments handed down on the Day of Atonement). 

On the basis thus laid down, he proposed “managerial control or ownership" 
of all atomic-energy activities potentially dangerous to world security and power 
to control, inspect and license all other atomic activities. As to "violations of this 


476 



THE CONTROVERSY OE ZION 


order”, he proposed that “penalties as immediate and certain in their execution 
as possible should be fixed for (1) illegal possession or use of an atomic bomb or 
atomic material or for wilful interference with the activities of the Authority”. He 
then reiterated his proposal for “punishment”: . . the matter of punishment 
lies at the very heart of our present security system . . . The Charter permits 
penalization only by concurrence of each of the five great powers . . . There must 
be no veto to protect those who violate their solemn agreements . . . The bomb 
does not wait upon delay. To delay may be to die. The time between violation and 
preventive action or punishment would be all too short for extended discussion 
as to the course to be followed . . . The solution will require apparent sacrifice in 
pride and in position, but better pain as the price of peace than death as the price 
of war”. 

The reader will see that Mr. Baruch contended that the world could only 
escape “destruction” by “precluding the use of atomic energy in war”, and 
proposed that “an Authority” with a monopoly of atomic energy be set up, which 
should be free from all check in its punitive use of atomic energy against any party 
deemed by it to be deserving of punishment. 

This is the proposal of which 1 earlier said that the w orld for the first time 
received a glimpse of what “world government” meant Mr. Baruch's biographer 
says that President Truman “endorsed the plan” and then records Mr. Baruch's 
efforts to “round up” votes for it on the Commission. After six months 
(December 5, 1946) he was impatient and begged the Commission to remember 
“that to delay may be to die”. The confusion-period was coming to an end and 
even a United Nations Commission could not be brought to sw ; allow this plan. 
On December 31, 1946 Mr. Baruch resigned and the plan was shelved by 
reference to the United Nations Disarmament Commission. 

In January 1947 Mr. Baruch announced that he was “retiring from public life” 
(in which he was only conspicuous on this one occasion). “Interested onlookers 
were not overly alarmed” (his biographer adds); “the betting odds were that 
Baruch w ould be back at the White House and on Capitol Hill before the month 
w r as over, and so he was”. Later in 1947 he intervened “decisively" (though not 
publicly) with Mr. Forrestal and had his significant meeting with Mr. Ben Hecht. 
Six years later his biographer (who was evidently aware that Mr. Eisenhower was 
then to be elected) summarized the recommendations which the new / President 
would receive from the permanent “adviser”. These related entirely to 
preparatory mobilization for war, “controls”, “global strategy'’ and the like. 

By that time Mr. Baruch had specified w hat particular new^ “aggression” these 
proposals were designed to meet, having told a Senate Committee in 1952 that to 
forestall “Soviet aggression” the President “should be given all the power he 
needed to carry through an armament and mobilization programme, including 
price and priority controls”. This was the programme, under “one-man” 
direction, urged by him during two world wars. However, his private view about 


477 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


the aggressor named apparently was not that of alarm and repugnance, depicted 
to the Senate Committee, for in 1956 he told an interviewer, “A few years ago I 
met Vyshinsky at a party and said to him, 'You’re a fool and Em a fool. You have 
the bomb and we have the bomb . . . Let’s control the thing while we can because 
while we are talking all nations will sooner or later get the bomb” (Daily 
Telegraph January 9, 1956). Nor did the Soviet regard Mr. Baruch with hostility; 
in 1948 (as he confirmed in 1951) he was invited to Moscow to confer with the 
dictators there and actually left America on that journey; only "a sudden illness 
in Paris” (he explained) caused him to break it off. 

The disclosure in 1946 of his plan "to fix the world” gave that world a glimpse 
of what it might expect to be attempted in the later stages and aftermath of any 
third war; the "global plan” was fully revealed. In 1947 Mr. Baruch stated that 
his father "came to this country a hundred years ago”. The case offers the most 
significant 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. 


478 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


THE JEWISH SOUL 

The first fifty years of “the Jewish century” have had their natural effect on the 
Jewish soul, which once again is in violent unrest. They have made chauvinists of 
a mass of Jews who, a hundred and fifty years ago, seemed committed to 
involvement in mankind. They are once more in captivity (the recurrent 
“captivities” of the Jews were always captivity by the elders and their creed of 
exclusion, not by alien taskmasters). In the Zionist captivity, and under the 
pressure of the elders, they have been made into the most explosive force in 
recorded history. The story of this century, of its wars and revolutions and the 
denouement yet to come, is that of Talmudic chauvinism, which has its roots in 
Deuteronomy. 

The very word, chauvinism, means an extravagant emotion; Nicolas Chauvin 
was the Napoleonic soldier whose bombastic and unbridled fervour for his 
Emperor brought patriotism into disrepute even at a period of patriotic ardour. 
Nevertheless, the word is inadequate to describe the effect of Talmudic Zionism 
on the Jewish soul; no word exists, other than “Talmudism”, for this unique and 
boundless frenzy. 

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 on false premises”. 
The premises are those of the Talmud-Torah; namely, that God promised a 
certain tribe imperial 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. 

Its effect on the Jewish soul is reflected in the changed tone of Jewish literature 
in our time. Before adducing examples of this, an illustration of its effect between 
one generation and the next may be given by briefly citing the cases of two Jews, 
father and son. 

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 mgiht 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 betrayal ... 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”. 


479 



THE CONTROVERSY OE ZION 


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 the revolution 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 
Germany) “shall be . . . eompletely destroyed . . . and the mines w reeked". 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. 

But for Zionist chauvinism and the Western politicos who served it in the office 
of “administrators”, the son might have been another such man as the father, 
and this particular illustration is valid for a great mass of Jews and the change 
which has been produced in the Jewish soul. When Jews of great name lent 
themselves to such undertakings, and proved able to command the support of 
American presidents and British prime ministers, the Jewish masses were bound 
to follow. This general trend is reflected in the growing literature of Talmudic 
chauvinism. 

Up to the middle of the last century distinctively “Jewish” literature w as small 
and was in the main produced for and read in the closed communities. In the 
general bookshops Jewish writers held a place roughly proportionate to their 
numbers in the population, which was the natural thing, and in their works did 
not in the rule write as ""Jews” or dwell on the exclusively Jewish theme. They 
addressed themselves to the general audience and avoided the chauvinist appeal 
to Jews, as well as anything that non-Jews might regard as blasphemy,.sedition, 
obscenity or slander. 

The transformation that has come about in the last fifty years reflects equally 
the spread of T almudic chauvinism and the enforced subordination of the non- 
Jewish masses to it. Today books by Jews and non-Jews about Jewish things, if 
they were counted, might be found to form the largest single body of Western 
literature, outside fiction, and the change in tone and standard is very great. 

As it has come about gradually, and critical comment today is in practice 
virtually forbidden as “anti-scmitic”, the change has not been consciously 
remarked by the mass of people. Its extent may be measured by this comparison; 


480 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


a good deal of what is contained in the literature of Talmudic chauvinism today 
(a few examples follow) would not have been published at all fifty years ago, as 
offensive to the standards then generally accepted. Fear of critical and public 
anathema would have kept publishers from issuing many of these works, or at all 
events from including in them the most flagrant passages. 

The starting-point of this process, which might be called one of degeneration in 
Jewry, was possibly the appearance in 1895 of Max Nordau's Degeneration, 
which struck the keynote for the chorus to come. This book was in effect an 
epistle to the Gentiles, informing them that they were degenerate, and it enjoyed 
great vogue with fin de siecle "Liberals", as the accumulating mass of kindred 
literature has enjoyed among their kind ever since. Jewish degeneracy was no 
part of its theme, and the author would have seen Jewish degeneracy only in 
opposition to Zionism, for he was Herzhs lieutenant, and the man who at the 
Zionist Congress after Herzhs death foretold the first World War and the part 
played in it by England in setting up the Zionist "homeland". Degeneration was 
significant both in time and theme; it appeared in the same year as Herzhs The 
Jewish State and this was also the year of the first revolutionary outbreak in 
Russia. The revolution and Zionism are both essential to the Deuteronomic 
Talmudic concept, and both movements, in my estimate, were developed under 
Talmudic direction. 

After Degeneration followed the full tide and spate of Talmudic-chauvinist 
literature. An example from our time is a book published in New York in the 
year. S 941, when Hitler and Stalin fell out and America entered the Second War. 

Germany Must Perish, by a Mr. Theodore N. Kaufmann, proposed the 
extermination of' the German people in the literal scn>e of the Law of the 
Talmud-1 orah. 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 offduring 
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. 

1 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-conirolled). 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". 

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 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 

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. 

The growth and open expression of this violent feeling, no longer held in 
bounds by the earlier need to take account of generally-accepted standards in the 
West, explains the misgivings expressed by Mr. Brown in 1933, by the Rabbi 
Elmer Berger in the 194Cfs, and by Mr. Alfred Lilienthal in the present decade. Its 
reflection in the Jewish published word justified their anxiety. In one book after 
another Jewish writers with introspective writings examined ""the Jewish soul” 
and at the end came up with expressions of contempt or hatred for some body or 
other of non-Jews, couched in chauvinist terms. 

Mr. Arthur Koestler, describing his scrutiny of Judaism, wrote, “Most 
bewildering of all was the discovery that the saga of the "Chosen Race’ seemed to 
be taken quite literally by traditionalist Jews. They protested against racial 
discrimination, and affirmed in the same breath their racial superiority based on 
Jacob’s covenant with God”. The effect of this ""bewildering discovery” on this 
particular Jewish soul was that ""the more I found out about Judaism the more 
distressed I became, and the more fervently Zionist ”. 

The presumable cause (""reason” cannot be used to describe so illogical a 
reaction) of this strange effect on Mr. Koestler is indicated by his two hundred 
pages of complaint about Jews being persecuted in and driven from Europe. He 
avoided this complaint of justice by his assumption that the Arabs, who were not 
to blame, should suffer, depicting an Arab family (persecuted in and driven from 
Palestine by the Zionists) in these words: ""The old woman will walk ahead 
leading the donkey by the rein and the old man will ride on it. . . sunk in solemn 
meditation about the lost opportunity of raping his youngest grandchild In this 
depictment the acts of persecution and driving-out are made to appear 
respectable, others than Jews being the sufferers, by the attribution of a revolting 
thought to the victim. 

The change in the tone and standards of Jewish literature in our time is again 
shown by the writings of Mr. Ben Hecht, some of which were earlier quoted, 
including his complaint that if Jesus had only been made into mincemeat, instead 
of being dignified by crucifixion, Christianity would never have taken shape. I 
doubt whether newspapers or publishers at any previous period would have 
given currency to words which patently had only the purpose of offending others. 

Mr. Hecht once wrote, ""I lived forty years in my country” (America) ""without 
encountering anti-semitism or concerning myself even remotely with its 
existence”. Therefore Mr. Hecht logically intended to live nowhere else. 
Nevertheless, when the Zionist state was being set up, he wrote that every time a 
British soldier was killed in Palestine ""the Jews of America make a little holiday 
in their hearts”. 


482 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 

Deep, if not enlightening insight into the development of the Jewish soul 
during this century is given by the books of a Mr. Meyer Levine; these also 
contain things which, in my estimation, would not have found print in earlier 
times. Mr. Levine's In Search shows what Mr. Sylvain Levi meant when, at the 
1919 Peace Conference, he gave warning against the “explosive tendencies" of 
the Eastern Jews. 

Mr. Levine, born in America of immigrant parents from Eastern Europe was 
reared to hatred of Russians and Poles. He seems to have found little to please 
him in “the new country" where he was born and when he grew to young 
manhood busied himself in agitation among the Chicago workers. 

He tells of half a lifetime of tortured efforts to escape from Jewishness and to 
immerse himself in Jewishness, alternately. If some Jews believe themselves 
unchangeably distinct from all other mankind, Mr. Levine gives two glimpses 
which make the reader feel that this belief is the product of a strained, almost 
mystic perversity. He says he finds himself constantly asking himself “What am 
I?" and “What am I doing here?", and asserts that “Jews everywhere are asking 
the same questions". Subsequently he related some of the discoveries to which 
this self-scrutiny led him. 

Describing the Leopold-Loeb murder in Chicago (when two young Jews, of 
wealthy parents, killed and mutilated a small boy, also a Jew, from motives of 
extreme morbidity) he says, “I believe that beneath the very real horror that the 
case inspired, the horror in realizing that human beings carried in them 
murderous motives beyond the simple motives of lust and greed and hatred, 
beneath all this was a suppressed sense of pride in the brilliance of these boys, a 
sympathy for them in being slaves of their intellectual curiosities, a pride that this 
particular new level of crime, even this should have been reached by Jews. In a 
confused and awed way, and in the momentary fashionableness of dust for 
experience', I felt that I understood them, that I, particularly, being a young 
intellectual Jew, had a kinship with them". 

On another occasion he describes his part (he calls it that of “a volunteer aid", 
but the term “agitator" might be fairly applicable) in the Chicago steelworkers 
strike of 1937, when strikers and police came into conflict and shots were fired, 
several persons being killed. Mr. Levine, as “a volunteer aid", had “fallen in 
alongside" the strikers' procession and he “ran with the others" when the firing 
began. He was not a steelworker or striker. Subsequently he and others, 
apparently also volunteer aids, organized a mass meeting. At this he showed 
slides made from newspaper-pictures from which he had removed the 
descriptions. He accompanied these pictures with a recital of his own, in words 
chosen to give the pictures an inflammatory interpretation, different from that of 
the original captions. He says: 

“So strange a roar arose that it seemed to me as though the vast auditorium 
was a cauldron of rage, overturning upon me ... I felt I could never control the 


483 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


crowd, that they would burst through the doors, rush out and burn the city hall 
— the impact of the pictures was so enraging ... In that instant I experienced the 
full sense of the danger of power, for I felt that a few words would have unleashed 
violence beyond what we had seen on Memorial Day . . . If 1 had sometimes felt 
unincluded as a stranger, artist and Jew, I knew that universal action exists ... I 
felt that perhaps one of the reasons for the social reformism of the Jew is the need 
to melt himself into these movements that engulf his own problem”. 

Once again, the words recall Mr. Maurice Samuel’s lament or menace 
(whichever was intended) of 1924, “We Jews, the destroyers, will remain the 
destroyers forever”. Only in the incitement of others, Mr. Levine appears to say, 
could he, the “stranger”, feel himself “included”, or “his problem" engulfed. The 
incitement of the unreasoning, stupid “mob" is the theme that runs through the 
“Protocols” of 1905. In the passage quoted Mr. Levine seemed to imply that he 
could only feel involvement in general mankind when so inciting a mob. 

H is later travels were made in the same spirit. In his youth Zionism was almost 
unknown and in 1925, when he was twenty, it was still “a question that had 
scarcely penetrated to Jews born in America ... It was something that occupied 
the bearded ones from the old countr y and if an American Jew happened to be 
dragged to a Zionist meeting he found that the speakers talked with Russian 
accents , or simply reverted to Yiddish. My own family, indeed, had no interest in 
the movement”. 

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 


484 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


man, was that the presence of the other embarrassed him). 

Mr. Eevine began his book of 1950, 'This is a book about being a Jew”. It and 
the many like it account for the anxiety expressed by the rare Jewish 
remonstrants about the development of the last fifty years, for they testify to the 
degeneration of the Jewish soul under the stress of Talmudic chauvinism. The 
only thing proved by the book is that at its end Mr. Eevine knew as little as at the 
start of his quest about what "being a Jew” meant (presumably he would not 
wish the above-quoted passages to be taken as supplying the answer). Hundreds 
of others on this same elusive and unproductive theme have appeared; so might 
an electric cel devour its own tail in search of the source of its peculiar sensation, 
and come to no enlightening conclusion. A book by a Jew on being a human 
being among other human beings was by the mid-century rare. 

The accumulating literature of incitement and hatred, of which a few' examples 
have been given, and the virtual suppression of objection to it as "anti-semitism”, 
give 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: 

"T1 le advent of Jewish imperialism, I am firmly convinced, is only a question of 
time . . . The empire of the w'orld belongs to the Jew s. . . 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 Jew's ... 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 
Jew ish 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, 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


for its complete fulfilment. As to that, Marr may have seen too darkly. The 
history of the world thus far knows no irrevocable decisions, decisive victories, 
permanent conquests or absolute weapons. The last word, so far, has always 
proved to lie with the New Testamentary dictum: “The end is not yet 1 ’. 

However, the last stage in Marr’s forecast, the third act in the 20th Century 
drama, is evidently at hand, whatever its outcome and whatever its subsequent 
aftermath, and in preparation for it the Jewish soul has been made captive by 
Talmudic chauvinism once again. Mr. George Sokolsky, the notable Jewish 
diarist of New York, observed in January 1956 that, “There was considerable 
opposition” (to Zionism) “inside world Jewry, but over the years the opposition 
died down and where it still exists it is so unpopular as generally to be hidden 
away; in the United States opposition to Israel among Jews is negligible” 

The few warning voices which are still being raised, like Jeremiah’s of old, are 
nearly all those of Jews. The reason is not that non-Jewish writers are worse 
informed, shorter sighted or less courageous; it has long been the unwritten rule 
that Jewish objectors may within limits be heard, as they are of “ourselves”, but 
that objection from non-Jews must not be tolerated.* In the condition of the 
Western press today, in the third quarter of the 20th century, this rule is enforced 
almost without exception. 

On this account the few warnings here quoted are Jewish ones. Mr. Frank 
Chodorov told the American Government (Human Events, March 10, 1956) that 
in the Middle East “in reality it is not dealing with the government of Israel but 
with American Jews . . . It is a certainty that many good, loyal Americans of the 
Jewish faith would welcome a showdown, not only to register their loyalty to this 
country and against world Zionism, but also to loosen the grip the Zionists have 
on them”. 

Similarly, Mr. Alfred Lilienthal (Human Events, September 10, 1955) echoed 
the despairing plea of the late Mr. James Forrestal eight years before; as the 
shadow of the 1956 presidential election fell across America he, too, begged the 


*A good example: during 1956, a presidential election year, criticism of Zionism or of “Israel'’ was an almost 
inconceivable thing in the United States, especially in the later months, as the actual vote approached. Israeli attacks 
on the neighbouring Arab countries were invariably reported in all leading newspapers as “reprisal” or 
“retaliation”. The President, his Cabinet members and State Department officials remained silent as one attack 
followed another, each of them resulting in an act of merciless destruction on the pattern of Deir Yasin in 1948. 
Indeed, leading candidates of the opposing parties, as in 1952 and 1948, vied with each other in demanding arms for 
Israel and in competing by this means for the Zionist-controlled vote which was supposed to be decisive. At the same 
time (11 September 1956) over two thousand Orthodox Jews met in Union Square, New York, to protest against 
“the persecution of religion in the state of Israel”. The name of the Israel Premier, Ben-Gurion, was jeered and 
several rabbis made violent attacks on him and his government. These in no way related to the case of the Arabs, 
who were not mentioned; the attack was solely on ground of religious orthodoxy, the Ben-Gurion government being 
assailed for its disregard of orthodox ritual in Sabbatarian and other questions. Nevertheless, the attack was public, 
whereas criticism on any ground whatever from non-Jewish quarters was in fact virtually forbidden at this time. At 
the same period (1 September 1956) recurrent Jewish riots in Israel itself culminated in an outbreak which was 
suppressed by police, one man being killed. The dead man belonged to a group which refused to recognize the Israel 
government, maintaining that “re-establishment of a Jewish state must await the divine will” (incidentally, this is 
one of the main theses of the present, non-Jewish writer’s book). The victim, on account of this belief, was described 
by New York newspapers as “a religious extremist”. 


486 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


two great political parties, when they joined conflict, “to take the Arab-Israeli 
issue out of domestic politics'’. Both these Jewish warnings appeared in a 
Washington newsletter of repute but small circulation; the mass-circulation 
newspapers were closed to them. 

Other latterday Jewish remonstrants raised the ancient cry of a coming 
“catastrophe”. In 1933 Mr. Bernard J. Brown had seen disaster coming: “Never 
in the history of the human race has there ever been a group of people who have 
enmeshed themselves into so many errors and persisted in refusing to see the 
truth, as our people have done during the last three hundred years” (the period 
which saw the emergence of the Talmudic “Eastern Jews” and the victorious 
Talmudist war against Jewish assimilation). 

Fifteen years after that warning Jewish remonstrants were pronouncing the 
word which it only implied: “catastrophe”. Rabbi Elmer Berger wrote in 1951, 
“Unless American of Jewish faith and a great many Americans of other faiths 
who have been misguided into supporting Zionism return to the fundamentals 
both of American life and of Judaism we are headed for something of a 
catastrophe ”. 

The foreword to Rabbi Berger’s book was written by a non-Jewish authority. 
Dr. Paul Hutchinson, editor of The Christian Century. He was more explicit: 
“This claim of the right of American Jews to refuse amalgamation is building 
towards a crisis which may have lamentable consequences. Already it is 
becoming clear that every time Israel gets in a jam (and many of its policies, 
especially with regard to economics and immigration, seem almost designed to 
produce jams) American Jews will be expected to high-pressure the United States 
government to step in and straighten matters out. Zionist leaders have not 
hesitated to carry this sort of thing to the extremes of political blackmail” (this 
was written many years before ex-President Truman in his memoirs confirmed 
the fact). “This can continue for a little while because of our peculiar electoral 
system . . . but New York is not the United States, and if this sort of strong-arm 
intervention in behalf of a foreign state keeps up, look out for an explosion ’. 

These warnings, though clear to Jews, might produce in non-Jewish minds the 
false impression that “the Jews” are headed towards “a catastrophe” of their 
own making; that in that event Talmudic chauvinism will recoil on their own 
heads; and, schliesslich, that they will then only have themselves to thank. The 
smug and the rancorous, especially, might fall into this delusion. 

Delusion it would be. That recurrent phenomenon of history-as-it-is-written, 
“the Jewish catastrophe”, is invariably the small Jewish share in a general 
catastrophe, the proportion being, say, around one percent of the total woe. The 
montrous prevarication of the Second War about the “six million Jews who 
perished” does not change that enduring truth. The catastrophe which has been 
brewed in these fifty years will be a general one, and the Jewish share of it will be 
fractional. It will be depicted as “a Jewish catastrophe”, as the Second War was 


487 



THE CONTROVERSY OE ZION 


so depicted, but that is the false picture shown on the lighted screen to "the mob” 
in its dark room. 

Jews often, and quite genuinely, cannot envisage a calamity involving Jews, 
and no matter how many more non-Jews, as anything but "a Jewish 
catastrophe”. This is a mental attitude deriving from the original teaching of the 
Talmud-Torah, wherein the chosen people alone have true existence and the 
others are shadows or cattle. Mr. Karl Stern’s book , Pillar of Fire, provides an 
illustration. 

Mr. Stern (a Jew who grew up in Germany between the wars, went to Canada 
and there was converted to the Catholic faith) says that there was in the Jewish 
Youth Movement in Germany in the 1920’s “a general mood which seemed to 
point at events which later came to pass. Latent in the situation were sorrows, 
questions and doubts pointing towards the great Jew ish eatastrophe •- or rather 
the great European catastrophe with which the fate of the Jews was interwoven in 
so mysterious a fashion”. 

In this passage the truth appears in an obvious, corrective afterthought, which 
w ould not occur to or be expressed by the run of Jewish writers. Mr. Stern’s is an 
exceptional case, and when he had written the words “the great Jewish 
catastrophe” he saw their untruth and qualified them; nevertheless, even he left 
the original statement to stand. The influenee of his heredity and upbringing were 
still strong enough in him, a Catholic in North America, to form his first thought 
in those terms: the ordeal of 350,000,000 souls in Europe, which has left nearly 
half of them enslaved, was “the great Jewish catastrophe”. 

In a different case Mr. Stern would be the first to object to such a presentation. 
Indeed, he relates that he was offended by reading in a Catholic paper the 
statement that so-many members of the crew of a sunken British submarine were 
“Catholics”. He was affronted because one group of the victims was singled out 
in this way; “I do not understand why anyone would care for such statistics”. 
And yet: “the great Jewish catastrophe . . .” 

The “catastrophe”, involving all, which has been prepared in these fifty years, 
w ill not be distinctively Jewish in the predominance of Jewish suffering, but in its 
domination, once again, by “the Jewish question”, by the effort to subordinate 
all the energy generated to aims represented to be Jewish, and in the use of the 
Jewish masses to help detonate it. The Jewnsh mass, or mob, is in one respect 
different from any other mob. or mass; it is more prone to surrender itself to 
chauvinist incitement, and more frenzied in this surrender. The Jewish 
Eneye/opaedia, in a small section devoted to the subject of hysteria among Jews, 
affirms that their tendency towards it is higher than average. As a layman, I 
would hazard the guess that this is the result of the centuries of close confinement 
in the ghettoes and of Talmudic absolutism in them (for today we have to do 
almost exclusively with the “Eastern Jews” w 7 ho but yesterday lived in those 
confines. 


488 




THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


1 have given some examples of this rising wave of chauvinist hysteria from 
literature accessible to the general reader. This shows the results, but not the root 
cause. To locate that the reader needs to do something more difficult; namely, 
attentively to follow the Yiddish and Hebrew press, in the original or in 
translation T hen he will receive the picture of an almost demoniac scourging of 
the Jewish soul so that it shall never find rest, and he might conclude that 
nowhere outside Jewry is anything so anti-Jew ish to be found as in some of these 
utterances, which show a scientific mastery of methods of implanting and 
fostering fear. 

Before studying the examples which follow the reader might consider that the 
great mass of “explosive Eastern Jews” is now in America. This fact, more 
pregnant with possible consequences than any other of our day, seems scarcely to 
have entered the consciousness of the Western world, or even of America. The 
extracts which now follow 7 show what is said in Hebrew and Yiddish (that is. 
outside the aural range of the non-Jew) among the Jewish masses, and the effect 
produced on them within the short space of five years. 

Mr. Willian Zukerman, one of the most notable Jewish diarists of America and 
of our time, in May 1950 published an article called “Raising the Hair of the 
Jewish People" {South African Jewish Times of May 19, 1950; I imagine it also 
appeared in Jewish publications in many countries). He began by saying, “A 
great debate is on in the Zionist world. As yet it has not reached the non-Jewish, 
or even English-Jewish press; but it is raging in the Hebrew newspapers in Israel 
and in the Yiddish press in America and in Europe ... it reveals, as nothing else 
has done in recent years, a cross-section of Jew ish thought and emotions in the 
period follow ing the emergence of Israel". The debate, he explained, was “on the 
question of Chalutziot: organized and prepared emigration of Jews to Israel from 
all over the world but particularly from the United Stales ", 

At that time (1950) Mr. Zukerman wrote with only an undertone of 
foreboding. He quoted Mr. Sholem Niger, “dean of Yiddish literary critics and 
essayists", as attacking, not “the campaign for emigration of American Jew's to 
Israel", but “the manner in which it is being presented to American Jew's ..." 
This, said Mr. Niger, wuts entirely negative, being anti-all others rather than pro- 
Israel: “the nationalists conduct a campaign of negation, vilification and 
destruction of everything Jewish outside Israel. Jewish life in the United States 
and everywhere else in the world is depicted as contemptible and hateful . . . 
Everything Jewish outside Israel is declared to be slavish, undignified, suppressed 
and dishonourable. No Jew with any self-respect can live fully as a Jew in the United 
States or anywhere else except in Israel is the major contention of the nationalists in 
this debate ". 

Another favourite technique in selling Chalutziot to American Jews (the article 
continued) “is to undermine Jewish morale, faith and hope in their American 
home; to keep Jews constantly on edge with the scare of antisemitism: not to let 


489 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


them forget the Hitler horrors and to spread doubts, fear and despair about the 
future of Jews in America. Every manifestation of anti-semitism is being seized 
upon and exaggerated to create an impression that American Jews, like the 
Germans under Hitler, stand on the brink of a catastrophe, and that sooner or later 
they, too, will have to run for safety'’. 

Mr. Niger quoted as example from an article by "a leading Israeli Zionist, 
Jonah Kossoi, in a highly literary Jerusalem Hebrew journal, IsroeE 

“Upon us, Zionists, now lies the old responsibility of constantly raising the hair 
of the Jewish people; not to let them rest; to keep them forever on the edge of a 
precipice and make them aware of the dangers facing them. We must not wait until 
after the 'catastrophe' because if we do, where will we take the hundreds of 
thousands of Jews needed to build up our State? . . . Not in the future, but right 
now is the time for Jews to save themselves . . .” 


The reader will see: the “catastrophe” is a political necessity, or an 
inevitability; and from these extracts he may begin to understand why the Jewish 
Encyclopaedia records a tendency towards hysteria among Jews. Mr. Zukerman 
said that this “extreme form of Chalutziot propaganda is the most prevalent one 
in Israel now”. He quoted a “more moderate form of the theory” expounded by 
Mr. L. Jefroikin, editor of the Zionist Kiyum in Paris. Mr. Jefroikin, said Mr. 
Zukerman, “while he subscribes to the truth of every word of the nationalistic 
theory that no Jew can live a full and dignified life anywhere else but in Israel, and 
while he too says that 'American Jews live in a fool's paradise’, nevertheless 
admits that in their present state of mind American Jews will never agree that the 
U.S. A. is to be placed in the same category as Germany and Poland and that they 
would not consent to regard their home as a place of transit for Israel. He 
concludes, therefore, that American Jews should be propagandized to become 
only 'Lovers of Israel’, not actual Israelis in body and soul”. 

The effect of this “propaganda” carried by Zionist emissaries from Israel into 
the United States, may next be studied in some remarks printed eighteen months 
later (December 1951) in the Intermountain Jewish News of Denver, Colorado. Its 
editor, Mr. Robert Gamzey, was critical of the action of the Jewish Agency and 
the World Zionist Congress for allocating $2,800,000 to promote Chalutziot in 
the United States. He said he knew “from personal experience in Israel of the 
widespread erroneous attitude there that America has no future for the Jews and 
that anti-semitism dooms U.S. Jewry to the fate of German Jews”. He added, “It 
is inconceivable therefore that the sending of Israel emissaries here to encourage 
American youth to settle in Israel would be conducted in any other way but to 
deride and deprecate the future of American Judaism ”. 

These forebodings of 1950 and 1951 were justified in the next five years, when 


“the campaign” and “the emissaries” from Israel succeeded in injecting “the 


nationalistic theory”, as above expounded, into the minds of the Jewish masses in 


America. Thus in 1955 Mr. William Zukerman, who in 1950 had been but faintly 


490 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


alarmed, was greatly so. He wrote ( Jewish Newsletter, November 1955, reprinted 
in Time Magazine of New York, November 28): 

'There cannot be the slightest doubt that a state of mind very much like that of 
Israel now prevails among American Jews. There is a fanatical certainty abroad 
that there is only one truth and that Israel is the sole custodian of it. No 
distinction is made between the Jews of the world and Israel, and not even 
between the Israeli government and Israel. Israeli statesmen and their policies are 
assumed to be inviolate and above criticism. There is a frightening intolerance of 
opinions differing from those of the majority, a complete disregard of reason, 
and a yielding to the emotions of a stampeding herd. 

"There is only one important difference between the Israeli and the American 
Jews. In Israel, the outburst of emotionalism, as far as one can judge from 
outside, has a basis in reality. It wells from the hidden springs of a disillusioned 
people who were promised security and peace and find themselves in a war trap. 
The American-Jewish brand of hysteria is entirely without roots in the realities of 
American-Jewish life. It is completely artificial, manufactured by the Zionist 
leaders, and foisted on a people who have no cause for hysteria by an army of paid 
propagandists as a means of advancing a policy of avowed political pressure and of 
stimulating fund raising. Never before has a propaganda campaign in behalf of a 
foreign government been planned and carried out more blatantly and cynically, in 
the blaze of limelight and to the fanfare of publicity, than the present wave of 
hysteria now being worked up among American Jews”. 

These two quotations, separated by live years, again portray the degeneration 
of the Jewish soul under the tutelage of Talmudic Zionism. They also bring this 
tale of three wars to the eve of the third one, if "eve" is the apt word. In fact the 
third war began when the fighting in the Second War ended and has been in 
unbroken progress, somewhere or other in the world, ever since. It needs only a 
puff from any bellows to ignite it into another general war. 

The process could have been, and possibly still could be halted by two 
responsible statesmen, one on either side of the Atlantic, speaking in unison, for 
it is in essense the biggest bluff in history. Today such mortal salvation seems too 
much to hope for and the writer probably does not exaggerate in opining that 
only God, who has done much bigger things, could avert the third general war. 
Unless that happens the concluding decades of this century foreseeably will see 
either the fiasco or the transient triumph of Talmudic chauvinism. Either way, in 
failure or success, the accompanying "catastrophe" would be that of the non- 
Jewish masses and Jewish suffering would be a minute fraction of it. 

Afterwards, as the world obviously will not accept the Talmud, the Jews would 
at last have to accept the world as it is. 


491 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


THE CLIMACTERIC 


This book, first written between 1949 and 1952, was rewritten in the years 
1953-1956, and its eoncluding chapter in October and November of 1956.This 
was a timely moment to sum up the impact of Talmudic Zionism on human 
affairs, for just fifty years, or one-half of “the Jew ish century”, then had passed 
from the day when it first broke the political surface, after submergence for some 
1800 years.* (The British Uganda offer, in 1903, was the first public revelation 
that Western politicians were privily negotiating with “the Jewish power” as an 
entity. Mr. Balfour’s hotel-room reception of Dr. Weizmann in 1906, after the 
Zionist rejection of Uganda, now may be seen as the second step, and the first 
step on the fateful road of full involvement in Palestinian Zionism.) 

In 1956, too, the revolution (w hich I hold to have been demonstrably Talmudic 
in our time) was also about fifty years old (from the revolutionary outbreaks 
following Japan’s defeat of Russia in 1905) as a permanent factor in our daily 
lives (its roots, of course, go back through 1848 to the revolution in France and to 
Weishaupt, and to the one in England and Cromwell). 

Finally, 1956 was the year of one more presidential election in America, and 
this, more openly than any previous one, was held under the paralyzing pressure 
of Zionism. 

Therefore if 1 could so have planned when I began the book in 1949 (I was in no 
position to make any such timetable) I could not have chosen a better moment 
than the autumn of 1956 to review the process depicted, its consequences up to 
this date, and the apparent denouement now near at hand: the climax to which it 
was all bound to lead. 

During the writing of the book I have had small expectation, for the reasons I 
have given, that it would be published when it was ready; at this stage of “the 
Jewish century” that seems unlikely. If it does not appear now, I believe it will still 
be valid in five, ten or more years, and I expect it to be published one day or 
another because I anticipate the collapse, sooner or later, of the virtual law of 
heresy which has prevented open discussion of “the Jewish question” during the 
past three decades. Some day the subject will be freely debated again and 
something of what this book records will then be relevant. 

Whatever the sequel in that respect, I end the book in October and November 
of 1956 and when I look around see that all is turning out just as was to be 
foreseen from the sequence of events related in it. The year has been full of 
rumours of war, louder and more insistent than any since the end of the Second 
War in 1945, and they come from the two places whence they were bound to 
come, given the arrangements made in 1945 by the “top-line politicians” of the 

* About 1952 a coelenterate fish, of a kind until then believed to have been extinct for millions of years, was brought 
to the surface of the Indian Ocean (seriously damaging the chain of the Darwinian theory bv its appearance, as did 
the discovery, a little later, that the Piltdown skull was a fake). The emergence of Levitical Zionism, when it broke 
the political surface of the 20th Century, was a somewhat similar surprise from the deep. 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


West. They come from Palestine, where the Zionists from Russia were installed 
by the West, and from Eastern Europe, where the Talmudic revolution was 
installed by the West. These two movements (I recall again) are the ones which 
Dr. Weizmann showed taking shape within the same Jewish households of 
Russia in the late 19th Century: revolutionary-Communism and revolutionary- 
Zionism. 

At two moments during recent years the war-noises made by the politicians of 
the West were louder than at any others. On each occasion the immediate cause 
of the outburst was soon lost to sight in the outcry about the particular case of 
“the Jews' 1 , so that, even before general war began (in both instances it receded) it 
was presented to the public masses as war which, if it came, would be fought 
primarily for, on behalf of or in defence of “the Jews 11 (or “Israel 11 ). 

I earlier opined that any third general war would be of that nature, because the 
events of 1917-1945 led inevitably to that conclusion, which has been greatly 
strengthened bv the events of 1953 and 1956. The wars which in 1953 and 1956 
seemed to threaten would evidently have been waged by the West in that 
understanding, this time much more explicitly avowed in advance than on the 
two previous occasions. By any time when this book may appear the short- 
memoried “public 11 , if it has not again been afflicted by general war, may have 
forgotten the war-crises, or near-war-crises, of 1953 and 1956, so that I will 
briefly put them on record. 

In 1953 some Jews appeared among the prisoners in one of the innumerable 
mock-trials announced (this one was never held) in Moscow. This caused violent 
uproar among the Western politicians, who again and with one voice cried that 
“the Jews 11 were being “exterminated 11 and “singled out 11 for “persecution 11 . The 
outcry had reached the pitch of warlike menace when Stalin died, the trial was 
cancelled and the clamour abruptly ceased. To my mind the episode plainly 
indicated that if the war “against Communism 11 came about (which Western 
politicians and newspapers in these years spoke of as an accepted probability) it 
would be fought, and this time even avowedly, for “the Jews 11 . The general 
multitude of enslaved humanity would be left unsuccoured, as in 1945. 

In July 1956 threats of war again were uttered when Egypt nationalized the 
Suez Canal. For the first few days of this war-crisis the British Prime Minister 
justified the menaces, to the British people, by the argument that Egypt's action 
imperilled “the vital British lifeline 11 . Very soon he switched to the argument 
(presumably held to be more effective) that “Egypt’s next act, if this is allowed to 
succeed, will be to attack Israel ". The Zionist state then began to figure in the 
news as the worst sufferer from Egyptian control of the Suez Canal. Ergo, war in 
the Middle East too, if it came, was to be a war “for the Jews". 

Thirdly, 1956 saw a presidential election held, for the seventh time under the 
direct, and for the third time under the open pressure of the Zionists in New York. 
The election campaign became a public contest for “the Jewish vote", with the 


493 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


rival parties outbidding each other in the promise of arms, money and guarantees 
to the Zionist state. Both parties, on the brink of war in that part of the world, 
publicly pledged themselves to the support of “Israel” in any circumstances 
whatever. 

These results of the process which I have described from its start were to be 
expected. The conclusion to be drawn for the future seems inescapable: the 
millions of the West, through their politicians and their own indifference, are 
chained to a powder-keg with a sputtering, shortening fuse. The West 
approaches the climax of its relationship with Zion, publicly begun fifty years 
ago, and the climax is precisely what was to be foreseen when that servience 
started. 

In our century each of the two great wars was followed by numerous books of 
revelation, in which the origins of the war were scrutinized and found to be 
different from what the mass, or mob, had been told, and the responsibility 
elsewhere located. These books have found general acceptance among those who 
read them, for a mood of enquiry always follows the credulity of wartime. 
However, they produce no lasting effect and the general mass may be expected to 
prove no less responsive to high-pressure incitement at the start of another war, 
for mass-resistance to mass-propaganda is negligible, and the power of 
propaganda is intoxicating as well as toxic. 

Whether full public information about the causes of wars would avail against 
this continuing human instinct (“By a divine instinct, men’s minds mistrust 
ensuing danger”) if it were given before war’s outbreak, I cannot surmise; I 
believe this has never been tried. One modest ambition of this book is to establish 
that the origins and nature of and responsibility for a war can be shown before it 
begins, not merely when it has run its course. I believe the body of the book has 
demonstrated this and that its argument has already been borne out by events. 

I believe also that the particular events of the years 1953-1956 in the West 
greatly strengthen its argument and the conclusion drawn, and for that reason 
devote the remainder of its concluding chapter to a resume of the relevant events 
of those years; (1) in the area enslaved by the revolution; (2) in and around the 
Zionist state; and (3) in “the free world” of the West, respectively. They appear to 
me to add the last word to the tale thus told: Climax, near or at hand. 

*1* vU v|# 

/p 1 ^ 

Author’s interpolation: The preceding part of this concluding chapter, up to the 
words, “Climax, near or at hand”, was written on Friday, October 26, 1956.1 then 
went away for the weekend, intending to resume and complete the chapter on 
Tuesday, October 30,1956; it was already in rough draft. When I resumed it on that 
day Israel had invaded Egypt, on Monday, October 29, 1956. Therefore the rest of 
the chapter is written in the light of the events which followed; these made it much 
longer than I expected. 


494 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


E The Revolution 

In the area of the revolution, swollen to enslave half of Europe, the death of 
Stalin in 1953 was followed by a series of popular uprisings in 1953 and 1956. 

Both events rejoiced the watching world, for they revived the almost forgotten 
hope that one day the destructive revolution would destroy itself and that men 
and nations would again be free. This clear meaning was then confused by the 
forced intrusion into each of “the Jewish question 1 ’. In “the Jewish century” the 
public masses were prevented from receiving or considering tidings of any great 
event save in terms of what its effect would be “for the Jews”. 

Stalin’s death (March 6, 1953) startled the world because the life of this man, 
who probably caused the death and enslavement of more human beings than any 
other in history, had come to seem endless, like the uncoiling of the serpent.* The 
circumstances of his death remain unclear, but the timetable of the events 
attending it may be sifnificant: 

On January 15, 1953 the Moscow newspapers announced that nine men were 
to be tried on charges of conspiring to assassinate seven high Communist 
notables. Either six or seven of these nine men were Jews (the accounts disagree). 
The other two or three might never have been born for all the world heard of 
them, for in the uproar which immediately arose in the West the affair was 
dubbed that of “the Jewish doctors”.** 

In February, while the clamour in the West continued, diplomats who saw 
Stalin remarked on his healthy look and good spirits. 

On March 6 Stalin died. A month later the “Jewish doctors” were released. Six 
months later Stalin’s terrorist chief, Lavrenti Beria, was shot for having arrested 
them and the charges were denounced as false. Of Stalin’s death, a notable 
American correspondent in Moscow, Mr. Harrison Salisbury, wrote that after it 
Russia was ruled by a group or junta “more dangerous than Stalin”, consisting of 
Messrs. Malenkov, Molotov, Bulganin and Kaganovich. To acquire power, he 
said, the junta might have murdered Stalin, everything pointed to it; “if Stalin 
just happened to be struck down by a ruptured artery in his brain on March 2, it 
must be recorded as one of the most fortuitous occurrences in history”. 

For the West these attendant circumstances and possibilities of Stalin’s end 

*His leading place was briefly taken by one Grigori Malenkov, who yielded it to duumvirs, Nikita Kruschev (party- 
leader) and Nikolai Bulganin (Premier). The world could not tell to what extent they inherited Stalin’s personal 
power or were dominated by others. A survivor of all changes and purges, Mr. Lazar Kaganovich, a Jew, remained a 
First Deputy Premier throughout and on the Bolshevik anniversary in November 1955 was chosen to tell the world, 
“Revolutionary ideas know no frontiers”. When the duumvirs visited India in that month the New York Times, 
asking who ruled the Soviet Union in their absence, answered “Lazar M. Kaganovich, veteran Communist leader”. 
Mr. Kaganovich was among Stalin’s oldest and closest intimates, but neither this nor any other relevant fact 
deterred the Western press from attacking Stalin, in his last months, as the new, anti-semitic “Hitler”. 

**This outcry in the West had begun ten weeks earlier, on the eve of the Presidential election in America, on the 
strength of a trial in Prague, when eleven of fourteeen defendants were hanged, after the usual “confessions”, on 
charges of Zionist conspiracy . Three of the victims were not Jews, but they too might not have been born or hanged 
for all the notice they received in the press of the West. 


495 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 

had no interest. The entire period of some nine months, between the Prague trial 
(and presidential election) and the liquidation of Beria was tilled with the uproar 
in the West about “anti-semitism in Russia". While the clamour continued (it 
ceased after “the Jewish doctors" were released and vindicated) things were said 
which seemed plainly to signify that any Western war against the Communist 
union would be waged, like the one against Germany, solely on behalf of “the 
Jews", or of those who claimed to represent the Jews. In 1953 Sovietized Russia 
w as held up as the new 7 anti-semitic monster, as Germany w as held up in 1939 and 
Czarist Russia in 1914. This all-obscuring issue, to judge by the propagandist 
hubbub of that period, would again have befogged the battle and deceived the 
nations. 

The timing of this campaign is significant and can no longer be explained by 
the theory of coincidence. In order to give maximum effect to the “pressure- 
machine" in America, the “Jewish question" has to become acute at the period of 
any presidential election there. Nowadays it always becomes acute at that precise 
period in one of its two forms: “anti-semitism" somewhere (this happened in 
1912, 1932, 1936, 1940 and 1952) or a peril to “Israel" (this happened in 1948 and 
1956). The prediction that, in one of the two forms, it will dominate the 
Presidential election of I960 may be made without much risk. 

Nothing changed in the situation of the Jews in Russia at that time.* Some 
Jews had been included among the defendants in a show-trial at Prague and in 
one announced, but never held, in Moscow. The thirty-five Communist years had 
seen innumerable show-trials; the world had become indifferent through 
familiarity with them. As the terrorist state was based on imprisonment without 
any trial, the show-trials obviously were only held in order to produce some 
effect, either on the Sovietized masses or on the outer world. Even the charge of 
“Zionist conspiracy" was not new; it had been made in some trials of the 1920’s, 
and Communism from the start (as Lenin and Stalin testify) formally outlawed 
Zionism, just as it provided the Zionists from Russia with the arms to establish 
“Israel" in 1948. 

If Stalin went further than was allowed in attacking “Zionism" on this 
occasion, his death quickly followed. To the end he was obviously not anti- 
Jcwish. Mr. Kaganovich remained at his right hand. A few 7 days before he died 
Stalm ordered one of the most pompous funerals ever seen in Soviet Moscow to 
be given to Lev Mechbs, one of the most feared and hated Jewish Commissars of 
the thirty-five years. Mechlis’s coffin was carried by all the surviving grandees of 
the Bolshevik revolution, who also shared the watch at his lying in state, so that 
this was plainly a warning to the captive Russian masses, if any still were needed, 
that “the law against anti-semitism" was still in full force. Immediately after 


*Of whom, according to the current Jewish “estimates" there were some two millions, or about one percent of the 
total Soviet population, (stated by the Soviet Government’s Statistical Manual of the Soviet Economy in June 1956 
to be 200,000.000). 


496 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


Mechlis's funeral (Jan. 27, 1953) the “Stalin Peace Prize' 1 was with great public 
ostentation presented to the apostle of Talmudic vengeance, Mr. Ilya Ehrenburg, 
whose broadcasts to the Red Armies as they advanced into Europe incited them 
not to spare “even unhorn Fascists' 1 . A few clays before he died Stalin prompted 
the Red Star to state that the struggle against Zionism “had nothing to do with 
anti-semitism; Zionism is the enemy of the working people all over the world, of 
Jews no less than Gentiles". 

The plight of the Jews, in their fractional minority in Russia, thus had not 
changed for the better or for worse. They still had “a higher degree of equality in 
the Soviet Union than any other part of the world" (to quote the derisive answer 
given, at this period, by a Jewish witness to a Republican Congressman, Mr. Kit 
Clardy, before a Congressional Committee, Mr. Clardy having asked “Do you 
not shrink in horror from what Soviet Russia is doing to the Jews?"). They 
remained a privileged class. 

The uproar in the West therefore was artificial and had no factual basis, yet it 
reached a pitch just short of actual warlike threat and might have risen to that 
note had not Stalin died and “the Jewish doctors’ 1 been released (l was never able 
to discover whether the non-Jewish ones also were liberated). There could only 
be one reason for it: that Zionism had been attacked, and by 1952-3 opposition to 
Zionism was deemed by the frontal politicians of the West to be “Hitlerism" and 
provocation of war, The episode showed that this propaganda of incitement can 
be unleashed at the touch of a button and be “beamed" in any direction at 
changing need (not excluding America, in the long run). When this propaganda 
has been brought to white heat, it is used to extort the “commitments" which are 
later invoked. 

The six month period, between nomination-and-election, election-and- 
inauguration is that in which American presidents now come under this pressure. 
President Eisenhower in 1952-3 was under the same pressure as President 
Woodrow Wilson in 1912-3, Mr. Roosevelt in 1938-9, and President Truman in 
1947-8. the whole period of his canvass, nomination, election and inauguration 
was dominated by “the Jewish question" in its two forms, “anti-semitism" here, 
there or everywhere, and the adventure in Palestine. Immediately after 
nomination he told a Mr. Maxwell Abbell, President of the United Synagogue of 
America, “The Jewish people could not have a better friend than me ... I grew 7 
up believing that Jews were the chosen people and that they gave us the high 
ethical and moral principles of our civilization" (all Jewish newspapers, 
September 1952).* 

This was the basic commitment, familiar in our century and always taken to 
mean much more than the givers comprehend. Immediately after it came the 


*Mr. Eisenhower “added that his mother had reared him and his brothers in teachings of the Old Testament". This 
somewhat eryptie allusion is to the Christian sect of Jehovah’s Witnesses, in which Mr. Eisenhower and his brothers 
were brought up in their parental home. 


497 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


Prague trial and President Eisenhower, just elected, was evidently pressed for 
something more specific. In a message to a Jewish Labour Committee in 
Manhattan (Dec. 21, 1952) he said the Prague trial “was designed to unloose a 
campaign of rabid anti-semitism throughout Soviet Europe and the satellite 
nations of Eastern Europe. Iam honoured to take my stand with American Jewry 
. . . to show the world the indignation all America feels at the outrages 
perpetrated by the Soviets against the sacred principles of our civilization 1 ’. 

The “outrages” at that moment consisted in the hanging of eleven men, three 
of them Gentiles, among the millions done to death in the thirty-five Bolshevik 
years; their fate was not included in these “outrages”. The new president could 
not have known what “campaign” the trial was “designed to unloose”, and 
innumerable other trials had received no presidential denunciation. The words 
implicitly tarred the captives of Communism, too, with the “anti-semitic” brush, 
for they were termed “satellite nations” and the primary meaning of “satellite” is 
“An attendant attached to a prince or other powerful person; hence, an 
obsequious dependent or follower” (Webster’s Dictionary). As the commander 
whose military order, issued in agreement with the Soviet dictator, had ensured 
their captivity, President Eisenhower’s choice of word was strange. It reflected 
the attitude of those who were able to put “pressure” on all American presidents 
and governments. To them the enslavement of millions meant nothing; indeed, 
their power was used to perpetuate it. 

This state of affairs was reflected, again, in two of the new President’s first acts. 
In seeking election, he had appealed to the strong American aversion to the deed 
of 1945 by pledging to repudiate the Yalta agreements (the political charter of his 
own military order halting the Allied advance west of Berlin and thus 
abandoning Eastern Europe to Communism) in these explicit words: 

“The Government of the United States, under Republican leadership, will 
repudiate all commitments contained in secret understandings such as those of 
Yalta which aid Communist enslavement ”. Elected, the new president sent to 
Congress (20 February 1953) a resolution merely proposing that Congress join 
him “in rejecting any interpretations or applications ... of secret agreements 
which have been perverted to bring about the subjugation of free people”. By 
that time he had publicly referred to the enslaved peoples as “satellites”. As the 
resolution neither “repudiated” nor even referred to “Yalta”, it was 
disappointing to the party led by President Eisenhower and in the end it was 
dropped altogether. 

In its place, the new President transmitted to Congress a resolution 
condemning “the vicious and inhuman campaigns against the Jews' in the Soviet 
area. Thus “the enslaved” were deleted altogether and “the Jews” put in their 
place, an amendment typical of our time. The perspiring State Department 
succeeded in having this resolution amended to include “other minorities”. The 
present Jewish “estimates” are that there are in all “about 2,500,000 Jews behind 


498 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


the Iron Curtain”, where the non-Jewish captives amount to between 300 and 
350 millions; these masses, which included whole nations like the Poles, 
Hungarians, Bulgars and Ukrainians, to say nothing of the smaller ones or even 
of the Russians themselves, were lumped together in two words “other 
minorities”. The Senate adopted this resolution (Feb. 27, 1953) by unanimous 
consent, but this was not deemed enough for proper discipline, so that every 
American Senator (like the Members of the British House of Commons, at Mr. 
Eden's behest, during the war) stood up to be counted. A few who were absent 
hurriedly asked in writing to have their names added to the roll-call. 

Had the peoples behind “the Iron Curtain” understood the story of these two 
resolutions, or been allowed to learn of it, they would not have hoped (as they did 
hope) for any American succour in their national uprisings against the terror in 
1956. 


The President having spoken and acted thus, the uproar waxed. One of the 
most powerful Zionist leaders of that period (in the line of Justice Brandeis and 
Rabbi Stephen Wise) was Rabbi Hillel Silver, who during the election had 
defended Mr. Eisenhower against ex-President Truman's charge of “anti¬ 
semitism” (now invariably used in presidential elections), and later was invited 
by the new president to pronounce the “prayer for grace and guidance” at his 
inauguration. Thus Rabbi Silver may be seen as a man speaking with authority 
when he announced that //'Russia were destroyed , it would be on behalf of the 
Jews: he “warned Russia that it will be destroyed if it makes a spiritual pact with 
Hitlerism '. This method of giving the “Hitler” label to any individual threatened 
with “destruction” later was generally adopted (President Nasser of Egypt being 
a case in point). 

The menace was always implicitly the same: “Persecute men if you will, but 
you will be destroyed if you oppose the Jews”. Mr. Thomas E. Dewey (twice a 
presidential aspirant and the architect of Mr. Eisenhower's nomination in 1952) 
outdid Rabbi Silver at the same meeting (Jan. 15, 1953): “Now all are beginning 
to see it” (“anti-semitism” in Russia) “as the newest and most terrible 
programme of genocide yet launched . . . Zionism, as such, has now become a 
crime and merely being born a Jew is now cause for hanging. Stalin has 
swallowed the last drop of Hitler's poison, becoming the newest and most 
vituperative persecutor of Jewry ... It seems that Stalin is willing to admit to the 
whole world that he would like to accomplish for Hitler what Hitler could not do 
in life”. 


The extravagance of this campaign astonishes even the experienced observer, 
in retrospect. For instance, the Montreal Gazette, which by chance I saw in the 
summer of 1953, editorially stated that “thousands of Jews are being murdered in 
East Germany”; the Johannesburg Zionist Record three years earlier (July 7, 
1950) had stated that the entire Jewish population of Eastern Germany was 4,200 
souls, most of whom enjoyed preference for government employ. 


499 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


The new president’s “commitments” became ever firmer, at all events in the 
minds of those to whom they were addressed. In March 1953, either just before or 
after Stalin’s death, he sent a letter to the Jewish Labour Committee above-cited 
pledging (the word used in the New York Times / I have not the lull text of his 
message) that America would be “forever vigilant against any resurgence of anti¬ 
semitism”. When the recipient committee held its congress at Atlantic City the 
“Jewish doctors” had been released and the whole rumpus was dying down, so 
that it was no longer eager to make the letter public and returned it to the sender. 
The president was insistent on publication and sent it back “with a very tough 
note bitterly condemning Soviet anti-semitism”. 

In this world of propagandist fictions the masses of the West were led by their 
governors from disappointment to disappointment. Who knows whither they 
would have been led on this occasion, had Stalin not died, the “Jewish doctors” 
not been released, the finger not been removed from the button of mass- 
incitement? 

Stalin died and the machine-made outcry (on both sides of the Atlantic) died 
with him. What if he had lived and “the Jewish doctors” been tried? When he died 
the propaganda had already reached eve-of-war pitch; the “new Hitler” had 
begun “the newest and most terrible programme of genocide yet launched”; 
“thousands of Jews” were being “murdered” in a place where only hundreds 
lived: soon these thousands would have become millions, one . . . two . . . six 
millions. The entire holocaust of Lenin's and Stalin’s thirty-five years, with its 
myriads of unknown victims and graves, would have been transformed, by the 
witchcraft of this propaganda, into one more “anti-Jewish persecution”; indeed, 
this was done by the shelving of President Eisenhower's “repudiation of Yalta 
and Communist enslavement” pledge and the substitution for it of a resolution 
which singled out for “condemnation” the “vicious and inhuman treatment of 
the Jews” (who continued, behind the Iron Curtain, to wield the terror over those 
enslaved bv Communism). In that cause alone, had war come, another 
generation of Western youth would have gone to war, thinking their mission was 
to “destroy Communism”. 

Stalin died. The West was spared war at that time and stumbled on, behind its 
Zionised leaders, towards the next disappointment, which was of a different 
kind. During the ten years that had passed since the ending of the Second War 
their leaders had made them accustomed to the thought that one day they would 
have to crush Communism and thus amend the deed of 1945. The sincerity of the 
Western leaders in this matter was again to be tested in the years 1953 and 1956. 

In those years the enslaved people themselves began to destroy Communism 
and to strike for that liberation which the American president, the military 
architect of their enslavement, promised them but counselled them not militantly 
to effect.* Stalin's death seemed to have the effect of a thaw on the rigid fear 

See footnote on page 50! 


500 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


which gripped these peoples and it set this process of self-liberation in motion. 
The writer of this book was confounded, in this case, in his expectations. 1 
believed, from observation and experience, that any national uprising was 
impossible against tanks and automatic weapons, and against the day-to-day 
methods of the terror (arrest, imprisonment, deportation or death without 
charge or trial), which seemed to have been perfected during three centuries (that 
is, through the revolutions in England, France and Russia) to a point where, I 
thought, only outside succour could make any uprising possible. I had forgotten 
the infinite resources of the human spirit. 

The first of these revolts occurred in Sovietized East Berlin on June 17, 1953. 
when unarmed men and youths attacked Soviet tanks with hands and stones.** 
This example produced an unprecedented result deep inside the Soviet Union 
itself: a rising at the Vorkuta slave camp in the Arctic Circle, where the prisoners 
chased the terrorist guards from the camp and held it for a week until secret 
police troops from Moscow arrived and broke them with machine-gun fire. 

These two uprisings occurred while the clamour in the West about “anti¬ 
semitism behind the Iron Curtain 1 ' was still loud. No similar outcry was raised on 
behalf of the legion of human beings, a hundred times as numerous, whose plight 
was once more revealed. No threats of war or “destruction 11 were uttered against 
the Soviet Union on their account. On the contrary, the politicians and the press 
of the West urged them to remain quiet and simply to hope for “the liberation' 1 
which, by some untold means, one day would come to them from America, which 
had abandoned them in 1945. 

Nevertheless, the anguished longing for liberation continued to work in the 
souls of the peoples and in the sequence to the East Berlin and Vorkuta outbursts 
came the risings in Poland and Hungary in October, 1956, after I began this 
concluding chapter. The first was a spontaneous national uprising. The second, 
ignited by the first, became something which history can scarcely match: a 
national war of a whole, captive people against the captor's overwhelming might. 
I believe the passage of time will show this event either to have marked the rebirth 
of “the West 11 and the revival of Europe, or the end of Europe as it has been 
known to mankind for the past thousand years and therewith the end of anything 
the words, “the West’ 1 , have stood for. 

Whatever the future, one thing was achieved by the October uprisings, and 

*“While once agam proclaiming the policy of liberlaion, Mr. Dulles, the Secretary of State, disclaimed any United 
States responsibility for the dilated uprising in Hungary. He said that beginning in 1952 he and the President 
consistently had declared that liberation must be achieved by peaceful. o\ olutionary means”. Statement at Augusta. 
Georgia. Dec. 2, 1956. 


**This was crushed and ruthless vengeance taken by “the dreaded Frau Hilde Benjamin” (The Times, July 17, 1953) 
who was promoted Minister of Justice for the purpose and became notorious for her death sentences (one on a boy 
in his teens w ho distributed anti-Communist leaflets) and for her especial persecution of the sect of Jehovah’s 
Witnesses, in which President Eisenhower was brought up. In the popular thought and in New York newspaper 
descriptions she was described as “a Jewess”. As far as my research can discover, though married to a Jew. she was 
not b\ birth Jewish. 


501 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


more especially by the Hungarian uprisings. Never again could the revolution 
pretend to have even the passive acceptance of its captives. These showed that, 
under Karl Marx's Communism, they found they had nothing to lose but their 
chains and would face death rather than endure them. 

The causes for which both nations rose were the same and were made 
completely clear. They wanted, in each case, the liberation of the nation through 
the withdrawal of the Red Army; the liberation of individual men from the terror 
through the abolition of the secret police and the punishment of the chief 
terrorists; the restoration of their faith through the release of the head of their 
church (who in both cases was imprisoned); the release of their political system 
from the one-party thrall through the return of contending parties and elections. 

Thus the issue at stake was completely plain: through a little nation on its 
eastern borders “the West" rose against Asiatic despotism; here was God against 
godlessness, liberty against slavery, human dignity against human degradation. 
The issue at the moment turned, and the hnal decision will turn, on the measure 
of support which these outpost-nations of the West found in the remainder of the 
West, which professed kinship and fellowship with them but in the hour of need 
had abandoned them before. 

In that quarter, vision of the clear issue at stake was obscured by the intrusion 
of the all-obscuring side-issue of our century: “the Jewish question". The tale of 
the October events in Poland and Hungary is as clear, in itself, as crystal, but was 
not allowed to become clear to the masses of America and England because of 
this one aspect, concerning which information has consistently been denied to 
them since the Bolshevik overthrow of the legitimate regime in Russia in 1917. 

Three months before the Polish and Hungarian uprisings an article by Mr. 
C.L. Sulzberger published in the New York Times revived the cry of “Anti¬ 
semitism behind the Iron Curtain" which had been raised in 1953. As an instance 


of this “anti-semitism" the article cited the dismissal of Jakub Berman, “detested 


party theorist and a Jew", who was the chief Moscovite terrorist in Poland. 
In this article lurked the secret of which the Western masses have never been 


allowed to become aware; Mr. Robert Wilton, who “lost the confidence" of The 


Times for trying to impart it to that newspaper’s readers in 1917-1918, was the 
first of a long line of correspondents who tried, and failed, during the next thirty- 
nine years. The masses in Russia, and later in the other countries which were 
abandoned to Communism, could not rise against the terror without being 
accused of “anti-semitism", because the terror was always a Jewish and 
Talmudic terror, thus identifiable by its acts, and not a Russian, Communist or 
Soviet terror. 


In this one thing the ruling power in Moscow, whatever it truly was and is, 
never departed from the original pattern, and that is the basic fact from which all 
research into the events of our century must start. The theory of coincidence 
might conceivably be applied to the 90 percent-Jewish governments which 


502 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


appeared in Russia, Hungary and Bavaria in 1917-1919. (Even at that time, as I 
have shown earlier, a Jewish writer described the national abhorrence of the 
Jewish Bolshevik government in Hungary as “anti-semitism”, an epithet which 
could only have been escaped by submission to it). But when the Moscow 
Government installed Jewish governments in the countries abandoned to it in 
1945 no doubt remained that this was set and calculated policy, with a considered 


purpose. 

I repeat here information, from unchallengeable sources, about the 
composition of these governments at the very moment in 1952-1953 when Stalin 


was being called “the new Hitler 1 ' and 


“Russia 




was being threatened with 


“destruction” from New York and Washington if it permitted “any resurgence 


of anti-semitism”: “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; the man in the street, therefore, has been inclined to 
equate the party cares with the Jews and to blame the ‘Jewish Communists’ for all 
his troubles” ( New Statesman, 1952); “. . . The strongly Jewish (90 percent in the 
top echelons) Goverment of Communist Hungary under Communist Premier 
Matyas Rakosi, who is himself a Jew” (Time, New York, 1953). “Rumania, 
together with Hungary, probably has the greatest number of Jews in the 
administration” (New York Herald-Tribune, 1953). All these, and many similar 
reports in my files, come from articles reprobating “anti-semitism” in “the 
satellite countries”, and at this period, when these countries were known to be 
Jewish-ruled, President Eisenhower made his statement about “a wave of rabid 


anti-semitism in . . . the satellite countries of Eastern Europe”. 

What could these menaces from Washington mean to the captive peoples, 
other than a warning not to murmur against the wielders of the knout; yet at the 
same time they were promised “liberation”, and “The Voice of America” and 
“Radio Free Europe” daily and nightly tormented them with descriptions of 
their own plight. 

This was the confusing background to the Polish and Hungarian national 
uprisings of October 1956, the first sign of which, again, was given by the riots at 
Poznan, in Poland, in June 1956. Immediately after that Mr. Sulzberger’s article 
about “Anti-semitism behind the Iron Curtain” appeared, complaining that Mr. 
Jakub Berman had been dismissed and that Marshal Rokossovsky, commander 
of the Polish army, had dismissed “several hundred Jewish officers”. In August 
one of the two Deputy Premiers, Mr. Zenon Nowak (the other was a Jew, Mr. 
Hilary Mine) said the campaign for “democratization” or “liberalization” which 
was being conducted in the Polish press was being distorted by the introduction 
of, and the especial prominence given to the case of “the Jews”. He said the 
nation believed there was “a disproportionate number of Jews in leading party 
and government positions” and in evidence read a list of their representation in 
the various ministries. A Professor Kotarbinski, replying to and attacking 


503 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


Mr. Nowak, said the Jews "“had become almost a majority in key positions, and 
preference for their own people m giving out jobs has not been avoided” (New 
York Times, Oct. 1 1, 1956). 

By that time Poland had been for eleven years under Soviet rule and Jewish 
terror. Little had changed in the picture given by the American Ambassador, Mr. 
Arthur Bliss Lane, of the years 1945-1947: “"Many an arrest by the Security Police 
was witnessed by members of the American Embassy . . . terrifying methods, 
such as arrests in the middle of the night, and the person arrested generally was 
not permitted to communicate with the outside world, perhaps for months, 
perhaps for all time . . . Even our Jewish sources admitted . . . the great 
unpopularity of the Jews in key government positions. These men included Mine, 
Berman, Olczewski, Radkiewic and Spychalski. . . there was bitter feeling within 
the militia against the Jews because the Security Police, controlled by 
Radkiewiez, dominated the militia and the army . . . Furthermore, both the 
Security Police and Internal Security Police had among their members many 
Jews of Russian origin”. 

Only after eleven years did this Jewish control of the terror begin to weaken. In 
May 1956 Mr. Jakub Berman ("'thought to be Moscow’s No. 1 man in the Polish 
Party”, Mur York Times, Oct. 21, 1956) resigned as one deputy Premier and early 
in October 1956 Mr. Hilary Mine (‘“thought to be Moscow’s No. 2 man”) also 
resigned. (Mr. Nowak, one of the new' Deputy Premiers, from the start was 
assailed as ""anli-semitic”). 

This was the significant background to the national uprising of October 20. 
Poland, at its first experience of Communist rule, like Russia. Hungary and 
Bavaria in 1917-1919, had found the terror, on which that rule rested, to be 
Jewish and was already being attacked for "anti-semitism” in America and 
England because it tried to throw off the terror. Like all other countries, it was 
caught in the dilemma caused by ""the Jewish question”. The actual situation of 
such Jews as were not in high position in Poland appears to have been better than 
that of other sections of the population, to judge from various reports made at 
this period by visiting rabbis and journalists from America. Incidentally, the 
total number of Jews in Poland at that time ranges, in published Jewish 
“estimates”, from “‘thirty thousand” (New York Times, July 13, 1956) to "“about 
fifty thousand” (New York Times, Aug. 31, 1956), the total population of Poland 
being given in current reference works as approximately 25.000,000. Their 
proportion, therefore, is a small fraction of one percent, and never before this 
century has a minority of this minuteness, anywhere, claimed to become “almost 
a majority in key positions” and in showing “preference for their own people in 
giving out jobs”. 

The case of Hungary was more significant, for this country after 1945 endured 
its second experience of Communist rule. It not only found the terror to be Jewish 
again, but it w as w ielded by the same men. This deliberate reinstalment of Jewish 


504 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 

terrorists detested by a nation for their deeds of twenty-six years before (the 
details are given later in this chapter) is the strongest evidence yet provided of the 
existence in Moscow of a power, controlling the revolution, which deliberately 
gives its savageries the Talmudic signature, not the Soviet, Communist or 
Russian one. 

Against this background, which was not comprehended in “the free world”, 
the forces of national regeneration gradually worked to throw off the terror. In 
April 1956 Mr. Vladislav Gomulka (imprisoned from 1951 to 1956 under the 
Berman-Minc regime as a “deviationist”) was released and became the symbol of 
the national hope at this instant, for although he was a Communist he was a Pole. 
He was restored to the Central Committee of the Polish Communist Party on 
October 19, 1956 and on October 20 did something which might have changed 
the whole shape of our century, but for the shadow which soon fell across the 
ensuing events (this time from the other centre of “the Jewish question”, 
Palestine). He presented the Polish nation with a virtual declaration of 
independence, attacked “the misrule of the last twelve years"’, promised elections 
and declared that “the Polish people will defend themselves with all means so that 
we may not be pushed off the road to democratization”. 

He did this in face of a flying visit from the Moscovite chiefs themselves. Mr. 
Kruschev was accompanied by generals and threatened the use of the Red Army. 
He seems to have been utterly discomfited by the bold front offered to him by Mr. 
Gomulka and, in particular by Mr. Edward Ochab (also an “anti-semite” in Mr. 
Sulzberger’s article) who said, according to report, “If you do not halt your 
troops immediately, we will walk out of here and break off ail contact”. The 
Polish army was evidently ready to defend the national cause and Mr. Kruschev 
capitulated. Marshal Rokossovsky disappeared to Moscow* and, as the symbol 
of the nation’s rebirth. Cardinal Wyszynski (deprived of his office under the 
Berman-Minc regime in 1953) was released. 

Jubilation spread over Poland. The revolution had suffered its first major 
defeat; the faith had been restored (this was the meaning of the Cardinal’s 
liberation); the nation, abandoned by the outer world, had taken a great first step 
towards its self-liberation. 

At once the bush-fire spread to Hungary. The great event in Poland was 
forgotten in the excitement caused by a greater one. All the processes of human 
nature, time and providence seemed at last to be converging to a good end. 

In Hungary on October 22, 1956, two days after the Polish declaration of 
independence, the people gathered in the streets to demand that Mr. Imre Nagy 
return to the premiership and the Soviet occupation troops be withdrawn. None 

*A good instance of the confusion introduced into this event by the “Jewish question”. Rokossovsky, Polish-born 
and a Soviet marshal, halted the advancing troops at the gates of Warsaw in 1944 to give the SS. and Gestapo troops 
time and freedom to massacre the Polish resistance army. He was thus the most hated man in Poland. At the same 
time he was held to be “anti-semitic” by the New York newspapers. Which current of feeling counted most heavily 
against him, one cannot at this stage determine. 


505 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


of them realized at that moment that they were beginning a national uprising 
which was to turn into a national war of liberation. 

The spark came from Poland and the background was the same, with the 
difference that Hungary was undergoing its second ordeal at the hands of Jewish 
commissars. The chief object of its fear and detestation at that instant was one 
Erno Geroe, head of the Hungarian Communist Party and the third of the Jewish 
terrorists of 1919 sent to Hungary by Moscow to wield the terror there. Thus in 
this event, not only the accumulated bitterness of the years 1945-1956 exploded, 
but also the memories of the terror in 1918-1919. 

Mr. Imre Nagy, like Mr. Gomulka in Poland, became the symbol of the 
nation’s hopes at that moment because he was a “national” Communist. That is 
to say, he was a Magyar, as Gomulka was a Pole, and not an alien. His part in the 
historical process, had he been allowed to fulfil it, would probably have been to 
take the first steps towards the restoration of Hungarian national sovereignty 
and individual liberty, after which he would have given way to an elected 
successor. His symbolic popularity at the moment of the national uprising was 
chiefly due to the fact that he had been forced out of the premiership in 1953, and 
expelled from the Communist party in 1955, by the hated Matyas Rakosi and 
Erno Geroe. 

In Hungary, as in Poland, the nation wanted distinct things, all made clear by 
the words and deeds of the ensuing days: the restoration of the national faith 
(symbolized by the release of the Cardinal, imprisoned by the Jewish terrorists), 
the liberation of the nation (through the withdrawal of the Soviet troops), the 
abolition of the terrorist secret police and the punishment of the terrorist chiefs. 
The initial demand for these things, however, was expressed by peaceful 
demonstration, not by riot or uprising.* They became noisy after a violently 
abusive speech by Geroe, the party leader, who retained that post when the 
party’s central committee installed Mr. Nagy as premier. Geroe then instructed 
the Soviet troops to enter Budapest and restore order. Encountering 
demonstrators in Parliament Square, who were gathered to demand Geroe’s 
dismissal, the Soviet tanks and Geroe’s terrorist police opened fire, leaving the 
streets littered with dead and dying men and women (Oct. 24, 1956). This was the 

*The best authentic account of the original event was given, for reasons of his own, by the Communist dictator of 
Yugoslavia, Tito, in a national broadcast on Nov. 15, 1956. He said, among much else, “When we were in Moscow 
we declared that Rakosi’s regime and Rakosi himself did not have the necessary qualifications to lead the 
Hungarian state or to lead it to internal unity . . . Unfortunately, the Soviet comrades did not believe us . . . When 
Hungarian Communists themselves demanded that Rakosi should go, the Soviet leaders realized that it was 
impossible to continue in this way and agreed that he should be removed. Rut they committed a mistake by not also 
allowing the removal of Geroe and other Rakosi followers . . . They agreed to the removal of Rakosi on the 
condition that Geroe would obligatorily remain ... He followed the same policy and was as guilty as Rakosi. . . He 
called those hundreds of thousands of demonstrators, who were still demonstrators at the time, a mob" (a 
participant stated that Geroe's words were “filthy Fascist bandits and other words too dirty to repeat") “. . . This 
was enough to ignite the barrel of gunpowder and cause it to explode . . . Geroe called in the army. It was a fatal 
mistake to call in the Soviet Army at a time when the demonstrations were still going on . . . This angered these 
people even more and thus a spontaneous revolt ensued . . . Nagy called the people to arms against the Soviet Army 
and appealed to the Western countries to intervene ..." 


506 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


start of the true uprising; the nation unitedly rose against the Soviet troops and 
the hated terrorist police and within a few days the Communist revolution 
suffered a defeat which made the one in Poland look like a mere rebuff. 

The Cardinal was released, Mr. Nagy established himself as premier, the hated 
Geroe disappeared (to the Crimean Riviera, in company with Rakosi, said one 
report), the terrorist police were hunted down and their barracks wrecked. The 
statue of Stalin was thrown down and smashed to pieces; the Hungarian troops 
everywhere helped the uprising or remained passive; the Soviet troops (who at 
that moment were mainly Russian) often showed sympathy with the Hungarians 
and many of their tanks were destroyed. This was the most hopeful moment in 
Europe’s story since 1917, but far away Zionism was moving to rescue the 
revolution from its discomfiture and in a few days, even hours, all that was gained 
was to be undone. 

The background should be briefly sketched here, before the second stage of the 
Hungarian people’s war is described, because the case of Hungary is probably the 
most significant of all. For some reason the Moscovite power was more 
determined in this case than any other to identify Jews with the terror, so that the 
Hungarian experience, more strongly than any, points to continuing Jewish, or 
Talmudic, control of the revolution itself at its seat of power in Moscow. 

The 1919 regime in Hungary, which the Magyars themselves threw out after a 
brief but merciless terror, was Jewish. The presence of one or two non-Jews in the 
regime did not qualify this, its essential nature. It was the terror of four chief 
Jewish leaders, supported by a mass of subordinate Jews, namely Bela Kun, 
Matyas Rakosi, Tibor Szamuely and Erno Geroe, none of whom could be called 
Hungarians and all of whom were trained for their task in Moscow. 

After the Second War free elections, for some reason of political expediency, 
were permitted in Hungary (Nov. 1945). These produced the natural result: a 
huge majority for the Smallholders Party; the Communists, despite the presence 
of the Red Army, made a poor showing. Then Matyas Rakosi was sent again to 
Hungary (Szamuely had committed suicide in 1919; Bela Kun disappeared in 
some nameless Soviet purge of the 1930’s, but in February 1956 his memory was 
pompously “rehabilitated’' at the Twentieth Soviet Congress in Moscow, and 
this may now be seen as an intimation to the Hungarians of what they had to 
expect in October 1956). 

With the help of the terrorist police and the Red Army Rakosi began to destroy 
other parties and opponents, five of whom (including the renowned Mr. Laszlo 
Rajk) he and Geroe had hanged in 1949 after the familiar “confessions” of 
conspiracy with “the imperialist powers” (an allegation which left the imperialist 
powers as unmoved as they were infuriated by the allegation of “Zionist 
conspiracy” in 1952). By 1948 Hungary, under Rakosi, was completely 
Sovietized and terrorized. The chief terrorist this time, under Rakosi himself, was 
Erno Geroe, also returned to Hungary from Moscow after twenty years; he 


507 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 

staged the trial and ordered the incarceration of Hungary’s religious leader, 
Cardinal Mindszenty* (who before he disappeared into durance instructed the 
nation not to believe any confession imputed to him by his jailers). After that 
Hungary for several years lay under the terror of two of the men who had 
crucified it in 1919, and the entire government became “90 percent Jewish in the 
top echelons”. To Hungarians also, then, the terror was Jewish and Talmudic, 
not Communist, Soviet or Russian, and it was most deliberately given that 
nature; the intent of the return of Rakosi and Geroe after the Second War is 
unmistakable, and their acts were equally unmistakable. 

In July 1953 Rakosi resigned the premiership and The Times announced that 
u Mr. Geroe is the only Jew left in the Cabinet, which under Mr. Rakosi was 
predominantly Jewish”. As Rakosi remained party leader and Geroe was 
Deputy-Premier, nothing very much changed, and in July 1956, when Rakosi 
also resigned his party-leadership, he was succeeded in that post by Geroe, with 
the consequences which were seen in October. 

Even Geroe seemed to have done his worst at that moment, for after the 
Hungarian people’s victory the Red Army troops were withdrawn (Oct. 28) and 
two days later (Oct. 30) the Soviet Government broadcast to the world a 
statement admitting “violations and mistakes which infringed the principles of 
equality in relations between Socialist states”, offering to discuss “measures . . . 
to remove any possibilities of violating the principle of national sovereignty”, 
and undertaking “to examine the question of the Soviet troops stationed on the 
territory of Hungary, Rumania and Poland”. 

Was it a ruse, intended only to lull the peoples while the assassin took respite, 
or was it a true retreat and enforced admission of error, opening great vistas of 
conciliation and hope to the peoples? 

7/Tsrael had not attacked Egypt . . . if Britain and France had not joined in 
that attack ... if these things had not happened the world would now know the 
answer to that question. Now it will never know, for the Zionist attack on Egypt, 
and the British and French participation in it, released the revolution from its 
dilemma; as if by magic, the eyes of the watching world turned from Hungary to 
the Middle East and Hungary was forgotten. Vainly did Mr. Nagy broadcast his 
appeal to the world the very next day, saying that 200,000 men with five thousand 
tanks were moving into Hungary. 

Budapest was pulverized. On November 7 the voice of the last free Hungarian 
radio faded from the air (Radio Rakoczy at Dunapentele), as the voices of the 
Poles had faded in 1944 and of the Czechs in 1939, bequeathing their sorrows to 

*The invariable and deliberate anti -Christian trait appeared again in the treatment given to Cardinal Mindszenty, 
the details of which were published by him after his liberation. In summary, he said he was tortured by his captors 
for twenty-nine days and nights between his arrest and trial, being stripped nude, beaten for days on end with a 
rubber hose, kept in a cold, damp cell to irritate his weak lung, forced to watch obscene performances and 
questioned without sleep throughout the period (interview published in many newspapers and periodicals, 
December 1956). 


508 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 

“the West 1 ’. 

“This is our last broadcast. We are being inundated with Soviet tanks and 
planes”. These words, the Vienna correspondent of the New- York Times 
recorded, “were followed by a loud crashing sound. Then there was silence”. 

Mr. Nagy took refuge in the Yugoslav Legation, and on leaving it under Soviet 
safe-conduct was deported some-whither, none knows where. The Cardinal took 
refuge in the American Embassy. At the end of November the Cuban delegate to 
the United Nations, a well-informed authority, stated that 65,000 people had 
been killed in Hungary. More than 100,000 by that time had fled across the 
frontier into Austria, a small country which upheld the tattered standard of “the 
West” by taking in all who came, without question. A few thousand of these 
reached America, where they were received by the U.S. Secretary of the Army, a 
Mr. Wilbur M. Rrucker, who ordered them “to applaud the American flag” and 
then “to applaud President Eisenhower ’. 

These truly were ten days that shocked the world, and will shock it ever more if 
the true tale is ever told. They showed that the values which once were 
symbolized by the two words, “The West”, now 7 were embodied in the captive 
peoples of Eastern Europe, not in America or England or France.- 

Those countries had their backs turned to the scene in Hungary. They were 
intent on events in the Middle East. “The Jewish question” in the Middle East 
intervened to blot out the dawn of hope in Europe again. Once more 
revolutionary-Communism and revolutionary-Ziomsm worked as in perfect 
synchronization, as in October 1917; the acts of each directly benefited the other. 
The United Nations could not find time to discuss the Hungarian appeal for help 
before the new terror crushed the appellants and restored approved agents of the 
revolution to the delegates’ places. 

In Hungary itself the place of the vanished Geroe was taken by yet another 
commissar of 1919. Mr. Ference Munnich, w r ho had taken prominent part in the 
Bela Kun regime then, also had returned to Hungary after the Second War with 
the Red Army. From 1946 to 1949, when Rakosi was clamping down the second 
terror, Mr. Munnich was Budapest chief of police. Now he became “Deputy 
Premier, Minister of National Defence and of Public Security” in the 
government of one Janos Kadar, set up by Moscow. Mr. Kadar also had a record 
of some independence, and therefore was not likely to be allowed to wield any 
power. Mr. Munnich. (said the New York Times) was “Moscow’s ace in the hole, 
controlling Mr. Kadar”. 

In this way the night came down again on Hungary and it had to find what 
consolation it might in the President’s words that his heart went out to it. The 
time bomb in the Middle East, originally planted there in the very week of the 
Bolshevik revolution’s triumph in Moscow, blew up at the moment of the 
revolution’s fiasco and defeat. This diversion changed the brightest situation for 
many years into the darkest one. The Soviet Union was left undisturbed in its 


509 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


work of massacre in Hungary while the great powers of the West began to dispute 
among themselves about Israel, Egypt and the Suez Canal; all the world turned to 
watch them, and the Soviet state, with the blood of a European nation on its 
hands, was able to join in the general anathema of Britain and France when they 
joined in the Israeli attack. 

The creation of the Zionist state proved to be even more ill-omened than the 
other creation of the Talmudic Jews in Russia, the Communist revolution. The 
second section of this record of the years of climax therefore has to do with events 
in the Zionist state in the eight years between its creation by terror in 1948 and its 
attack on Egypt in October 1956. 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


work of massacre in Hungary while the great powers of the West began to dispute 
among themselves about Israel, Egypt and the Suez Canal; all the world turned to 
watch them, and the Soviet state, with the blood of a European nation on its 
hands, was able to join in the general anathema of Britain and France when they 
joined in the Israeli attack. 

The creation of the Zionist state proved to be even more ill-omened than the 
other creation of the Talmudic Jews in Russia, the Communist revolution. The 
second section of this record of the years of climax therefore has to do with events 
in the Zionist state in the eight years between its creation by terror in 1948 and its 
attack on Egypt in October 1956. 


2. The Zionist State 

In those years the little state misnamed “Israel” proved to be something 
unique in history. It was governed, as it was devised, set up and largely peopled, 
by non-semitic Jews from Russia, of the Chazar breed. Founded on a tribal 
tradition of antiquity, with which these folk could have no conceivable tie of 
blood, it developed a savage chauvinism based on the literal application of the 
Law of the Levites in ancient Judah. Tiny, it had no true life of its own and from 
the start lived only by the wealth and weapons its powerful supporters in the 
great Western countries could extort from these. During these years it outdid the 
most bellicose warlords of history in warlike words and deeds. Ruled by men of 
the same stock as those who wielded the terror in Poland and Hungary, it daily 
threatened the seven neighbouring Semitic peoples with the destruction and 
enslavement prescribed for them in Deuteronomy of the Levites. 

It did this in the open belief that its power in the Western capitals was sufficient 
to deter the governments there from ever gainsaying its will, and to command 
their support in any circumstances. It behaved as if America, in particular, was its 
colony, and that country’s deeds conformed with that idea. Within its borders its 
laws against conversion and intermarriage were those of the much-cited Hitler; 
beyond its borders lay a destitute horde of Arabs, driven into the wilderness by it, 
whose numbers rose through childbirth to nearly a million as the eight years went 
by. These, and their involuntary hosts, were by repeated raid and massacre 
reminded that the fate of Deir Yasin yet hung over them too: “utterly destroy, 
man, woman and child . . . leave nothing alive that breatheth”. The Western 
countries, its creators, murmured reproof while they sent it money and the 
wherewithal of the war which they claimed to fear; thus, like Frankenstein, they 
created the destructive agency which they could not control. 

Based on fantasy, the little state had no real existence, only the power to spread 
unease throughout the world, which from the moment of its creation had no 
moment’s true respite from fear. It began to fulfil the words of the ancient 


510 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


Promise: “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 be in anguish because 
of thee”. 

Left to its own resources, it would have collapsed, as the “Jewish Homeland’ 1 
of the inter-war years would have collapsed. The urge to leave it once more began 
to master the urge to enter it, and this despite the power of chauvinism, which for 
a time will overcome almost any other impulse in those who yield to it. In 1951, 
already, departures would have out-numbered arrivals save that the “amazing 
crack” earlier mentioned {New York Herald-Tribune, April 1953) then opened 
“in the Iron Curtain” (where cracks do not occur unless they are intended; the 
Communist-revolutionary state evidently had a calculated purpose in 
replenishing the Zionist-revolutionary state with inhabitants at that time). 
Nevertheless, in 1952, 13,000 emigrants left and only 24,470 entered, and in 1953 
(the last year for which I have figures) emigration exceeded immigration, 
according to the Jewish Agency. A Dr. Benjamin Avniel, speaking in Jerusalem, 
said in June that in the first five months 8,500 immigrants had arrived and 25,000 
persons had departed. 

This was the natural development, if “Israel” were left alone, for it had nothing 
to offer but chauvinism. The picture of conditions in the land is given by Jewish 
authorities. Mr. Moshe Smilanski (of sixty years experience in Palestine) wrote in 
the Jewish Review of February, 1952: 

“When the British mandate came to an end the country was well off. Food 
warehouses, private and governmental, were full and there were good stocks of 
raw materials. The country had thirty million pounds in the Bank of England, 
besides British and American securities to a large amount. The currency in 
circulation was about thirty million pounds, which had the same value as sterling 
. . . The Mandatory Government left us a valuable legacy, the deep harbour in 
Haifa, two moles in Jaffa and Tel Aviv, railways, many good roads and 
goverment buildings, large equipped military and civil airfields, good army 
barracks and the Haifa refineries. The Arabs who fled left behind about five 
million dunams of cultivable land, containing orchards, orange groves, olives, 
grape vines and fruit trees, about 75,000 dwelling houses in the towns, some of 
them very elegant, about 75,000 shops and factories and much movable 
property, furniture, carpets, jewellery, etc. All this is wealth, and if we in Israel 
are sunk in poverty we blame the excessive bureaucratic centralization, the 
restriction of private enterprise and the promise of a Socialistic regime in our 
day”. 

In April 1953 Mr. Hurwitz of the Revisionist Party in Israel told a Jewish 
audience in Johannesburg of the “degeneration” of the Zionist state. He said he 
could not blind himself to the alarming position: “Economically the country is on 
the verge of bankruptcy. Immigration has diminished and in the past few months 
more people have left the country than have come in. In addition, there are 


511 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


50,000 unemployed and thousands more working on short time”. 

These two quotations (I have many others of similar tenor) by Jewish residents 
may be compared with the picture of life in Israel which the Western masses 
received from their politicians. A Mr. Clement Davies (leader of that British 
Liberal Party which had 401 seats in the 1906 House of Commons and six, under 
his leadership, in that of 1956) before a Jewisii audience in Tel Aviv '‘hailed the 
progress being made in the Jewish state, which to him seemed to be a miracle of 
progress along the road to restoring the country to a land flowing with milk and 
honey” (printed in the same Jewish newspaper as Mr. Hurwitz’s remarks). At the 
same period, the younger Mr. Franklin D. Roosevelt, electioneering in New 
York (where "the Jewish vote” is held to be decisive) said, "Israel is a pocket of 
life and hope in the sea of seething Arab peoples. It ‘sells freedom 1 for the free 
world more successfully than all the propaganda we could send out from the 
U.S.A.”. 

Mr. Adlai Stevenson, campaigning for the presidency in 1952, told the Zionist 
audience that "Israel has welcomed into her midst with open arms and a warm 
heart all her people seeking refuge from tribulation . . . America would do well to 
model her own immigration policies after the generosity of the nation of Israel 
and we must work to that end” (the only conceivable meaning of this is that the 
American people should be driven from the United States and the North 
American Indians be restored to their lands). Another presidential aspirant, a 
Mr. Stuart Symington, said "Israel is an example of how firmness, courage and 
constructive action can win through for democratic ideals, instead of 
abandoning the field to Soviet imperialism” (about that time Israeli state 
scholars were by governmental decree singing the Red Flag on May Day, while 
the politicians of Washington and London inveighed against "anti-semitism 
behind the Iron Curtain”). 


Against this sustained inversion of iruth by the frontal politicians of all parties 
in America and England, only Jewisn protests, as in the preceding decades, were 
heard (for the reason 1 previously gave, that non-Jewish writers were effectively 
prevented from publishing any) Mr. William Zukerman wrote: 

"The generally accepted theory that the emergence of the state of Israel would 
serve to unify and cement the Jewish people has turned out to be wrong. On the 
contrary, the Congress” (the Zionist Congress in Jerusalem, 1951) "has 
dramatically demonstrated that the creation of a Jewish political state after two 
thousand years has introduced a new and potent distinction which Jews as a 
group have not known in centuries and that Israel : s likely to separate rather than 
unite Jews in the future ... In some mystical manner Israel is supposed to have a 
unique jurisdiction over the ten to twelve million Jews who live in every country 
of the world outside it. . . It must continue to grow by bringing in Jews from all 
over the world, no matter how happily they live in their present homes . . . Jews 
who have lived there for generations and centuries, must according to this theory 


512 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


be ‘redeemed’ from 'exile’ and brought to Israel through a process of mass 
immigration . . Israeli leaders of all parties, from the extreme Right to the 
extreme Left, including Premier Ben-Gurion, have begun to demand that 
American Jews, and particularly Zionists, redeem their pledges to the ancient 
homeland, leave their American 'exile’, and settle in Israel, or at least send their 
children there . . . The Jerusalem Congress marked officially the end of the glory 
of American Zionism and the ushering in of a period of intense Middle Eastern 
nationalism . . . fashioned after the pattern of the late Vladimir Jabotinsky, who 
dreamed of a big Jewish state on both sides of the Jordan to take in all the Jews 
and to become the largest military power in the Near East.” 

Mr. Lessing J. Rosenwald similarly protested: 

"We declare our unalterable opposition to all programmes designed to 
transform Jews into a nationalist bloc with special interests m the foreign state of 
Israel. The policy laid down by Mr. Ben-Gurion for American Zionism 
encourages Zionists to intensify their efforts to organize American Jews as a 
separate political pressure-block in the United States. This programme is 
designed to transform American Jews into a spiritual and cultural dependency of 
a foreign state . . . We believe that 'Jewish’ nationalism is a distortion of bur 
faith, reducing it from universal proportions to the dimensions of a nationalistic 
cult.” 

These Jewish protests, as was natural, were prompted bv fear of the divisive 
effect of Zionism on Jews. That was but a fractional aspect of the matter. The real 
danger of Zionism lay in its power to divide the nations of the world against each 
other and to bring them into c llision, in which catastrophe the great masses of 
mankind would be involved in the proportion of a hundred or a thousand to 
every Jew. 

To depict this obvious possibility was heresy in the 1950's, and the non-Jewish 
protests remained unpublished while the Jewish ones were ineffective. In 1953 the 
New York Jewish journal, Commentary, thus was able to announce that the 
foreseeable catastrophe had been brought another step nearer in the following 
terms: "Israel’s survival and strengthening have become a firm element of United 
States foreign policy and no electoral result or change will affect this ”. 

Here, once more, is the cryptic reference to a power superior to all presidents, 
prime ministers and parties to which I earlier drew attention. It is what Mr. 
Leopold Amery. one of the British Ministers responsible for Palestine in the 
inter-war period once said: The policy is set and cannot change. The inner secret 
of the whole affair is contained in these menacing statements, in which the note of 
authority and superior knowledge is clear. They are cryptic, but specific and 
categorical, and express certainty that the West cannot and will not withdraw its 
hand from the Zionist ambition in any circumstances. Certainty must rest on 
something firmer than threats, or even the ability, to sway "the Jewish vote” and 
the public press this way or that. The tone is that of taskmasters who know the 


513 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


galleyslaves must do their bidding because they are chained and cannot 
escape.The New York Times, which I judge to speak with authority for “the 
Jewish power'’ in the world, has often alluded to this secret compact,or 
capitulation, or whatever its nature is: for instance, “In essence, the political 
support the state of Israel has in the United States makes any settlement 
antagonistic to Israeli interests impossible for a United States administration to 
contemplate” (1956). If this merely alludes to control of the election-machine, it 
means that the process of parliamentary government through “free elections” 
has been completely falsified. In my opinion, that is the case in the West in this 
century. 

This state of affairs in 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. The Jerusalem representative of President Truman's 
“technical aid” programme stated (October, 1952) that Israel received the largest 
share of any country in the world, in proportion to its population, and more than 
all the other Middle East states together. The New York Her aid-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. I have not been able to find official figures for the 
cumulative total up to 1956; the Syrian delegate to the United Nations, after one 
of the Zionist attacks during the year, said that “since 1948 a stream of 
$1,500,000,000 has been flowing from the United States to Israel in the form of 
contributions, grants in aid, bonds and loans” (even this figure excluded the 
German payments and other forms of Western tribute). 

Nothing like this was ever seen in the world before. A state so financed from 
abroad can well afford (in the monetary sense) to be belligerent, and the 
menacing behaviour of the new state was only made possible by this huge inflow 7 
of Western, chiefly American money. 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. 

With a purse thus filled, the little state began to pursue the fantasy of entire and 
literal “fulfilment”, which in the miraculous end is to see all the great ones of the 


514 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


earth humbled, Zion all-powerful and all the Jews “gathered”. It drew up the 
charter of this “gathering”: the “nationatlity law”, which made all Jewish 
residents in the Zionist state Israelis, and the “law of the return”, which claimed 
all Jews anywhere in the world for Israel, in both cases whether they wished or 
not.* 


These were the laws which, like ghosts from vanished ghettoes, alarmed Mr. 
Zukerman and Mr. Rosenwald. They express the greatest ambition ever 
proclaimed by any state in history, and the Premier, a Mr. Ben-Gurion from 
Russia, was explicit about it on many occasions, for instance in his message of 
June 16, 1951 to the Zionists of America: “A rare opportunity has been given to 
your organization to pave a way for a unifying and united Zionist movement 
which will stand at the head of American Jewry in the great era opened to the 
Jewish people with the establishment of the state and beginning of ingathering of 
exiles” . Rabbi Hillel Silver, President Eisenhower’s close associate, expressed 
particular gratification that “Mr. Ben-Gurion now accepts the view that main 
tasks of the Zionist movement, as heretofore, include the full and undiminished 
programme of Zionism ’. In New York in June, 1952 Mr. Ben-Gurion was more 
explicit: “The Jewish state is not the fulfilment of Zionism . . . Zionism embraces 
all Jews everywhere” . Israel’s second president, Mr. Ben Zvi, at his inauguration 
in December 1952, said, “The ingathering of the exiles still remains our central 
task and we will not retreat . . . Our historic task will not be accomplished 
without the assistance of the entire nation in the West and East”. 


The world would have raised a pandemonium of protest if a Kaiser or a Hitler 
had said such things. The ambition expressed by such words as “the full and 
undiminished programme of Zionism” is in fact boundless, for it is the political 
programme contained, in the guise of a compact with Jehovah, in the Torah; 
world dominion over “the heathen”, wielded from an empire stretching from the 
Nile to the Euphrates. The support of Western governments gave reality to what 
otherwise would be the most absurd pretension in all history. 

That the politicians of the West comprehended this full meaning of what they 
did seemed impossible until 1953, when a statement was made that implied full 
understanding. In May, 1953, Mr. Winston Churchill, then British Prime 
Minister, was in dispute with the Egyptian premier about the Suez Canal and 
threatened him, not with British but with Jewish retribution. He spoke, in 


Parliament, of the Israeli army as “the best in the Levant” and said that “nothing 


we shall do in the supply of aircraft to this part of the world will be allowed to 


place Israel at a disadvantage”. Then he added, in words closely akin to those of 


* The Law of the Return, 1953, says among other things, “The ingathering of the exiles requires constant efforts 
from the Jewish nation in dispersion and the state of Israel therefore expects the participation of all Jews , either 
privately or in organizations, in the upbuilding of the state and in assisting mass immigration and sees the necessity 
of all Jewish communities uniting for this purpose”. A permanent state of “anti-semitism” in the world is obviously 
the pre-requisite for the realization of this law, and as the largest single body of Jews in the world is now in America, 
an "anti-semitic” situation there would evidently have to be declared at some stage in the process. 


515 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


Mr. Ben-Gurion and Rabbi Hillei Silver, that he “looked forward to the 
fulfilment of Zionist aspirations ”. 

Here, in an aside, is probably the largest commitment ever undertaken by a 
head of government on behalf of an unsuspecting nation. The Israeli parliament 
at once recorded its gratification at “Mr. Churchilfs friendly attitude towards 
the Israeli government now and towards the Zionist movement throughout its 
existence”. The public masses in England read the loaded words 
uncomprehendingly, if at all. They startled many Jews, among them even Mr. A. 
Abrahams, who as a veteran Revisionist might logically have been pleased (the 
Revisionists openly pursue the late Mr. Jabotinsky's ambition for “a big Jewish 
state on both sides of the Jordan to take in all the Jews and to become the largest 
military power in the Near East”; Mr. William Zukerman). 

Mr. Abrahams asked wonderingly, with an undernote even of alarm, if Mr. 
Churchilfs words could be genuinely intended, saying, “The Prime Minister is an 
old student of the Bible; he knows very well that the Zionist aspirations remain 
unfulfilled until Israel is fully restored within the historic boundaries, the land of 
the Ten Tribes”. 

This “aspiration”, of course, cannot be “fulfilled” without universal war, and 
that is evidently why Mr. Abrahams was taken aback, and made almost aghast. 
Mr. Churchilfs w'ords, if they were considered and deliberately intended, 
signified support for the grandiose ambition in all its literalness, and the final 
price of that could only be the extinction of “the West” as it has always been 
known. * 

The event of October 30, 1956 (though it was ordered by Sir Winston’s 
political heir-designate) seems to show that Mr. Churchilfs words of May, 1953, 
with all they boded for his country, were seriously meant. 

If the West, as these words implied, was sec.etly harnessed to 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. What that might mean may be seen from an 
article published in the Johannesburg Jewish Herald of Nov. 10, 1950, about a 
secret episode of the Second War. It stated that when the production of atomic 
weapons began “a proposal was put forward to Dr. Weizmann to bring together 
some of the most noted Jewish scientists in order to establish a team which w ould 
bargain with the allies in the interest of Jewry ... I saw the project as originally 
outlined and submitted to Dr. Weizmann by a scientist who had himself achieved 
some renown in the sphere of military invention". 

*See footnote on page 517 


516 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


The threat is plain, in such words. As to “the fulfilment of Zionist aspirations”, 
by these or other means, Dr. Nahum Goldman, leader of the World Zionist 
Organization, made a significant statement to a Jewish audience at Johannesburg 
in August, 1950. Describing an interview with Mr. Ernest Bevin, then British 
Foreign Minister, Dr Goldman said, “This tiny country (Israel) is a very unique 
country, it is in a unique geographical position. In the days when trying to get the 
Jewish state with the consent of the British Government, and at one of the private 
talks I had with Mr. Bevin, he said, 'Do you know what you are asking me to do? 
You are asking me to deliver the key to one of the most vital and strategic areas in 
the world? And I said, Tt is not written in either the New or Old Testament that 
Great Britain must have this key’.” 

Mr. Churchill, if his words were fully intented, apparently was ready to hand 

*An event of a month earlier, April 1953, had already shown that Mr. Churchill was prepared to go further, in his 
tributes to Zionism, than any would have thought possible who judged him by his public record and legend. In that 
month he ostentatiously associated himself with the Zionist canonization of an English officer called Orde Wingate, 
and in so doing humiliated the English people in general and in particular all those British officials, officers and 
soldiers who for thirty years loyally did their duty in Palestine. Wingate, an officer of the British intelligence in 
Palestine during the inter-war years, so far deviated from the honourable impartiality, between Arabs and Jews, 
which was the pride and duty of his comrades as to become, not simply an enemy of the Arabs but a renegade to his 
country and calling. Elis perfidy first became public knowledge on this occasion when Mr. Ben-Gurion, dedicating a 
children's village on Mount Carmel to Wingate’s memory (he was killed during the Second War) said “He was ready 
to fight with the Jews against his own government” and at the time of the British White Paper in 1939 “he came to me 
with plans to combat the British policy”. One proposal of Wingate’s was to blow up a British oil pipeline. Mr. 
Churchill in his message read at the dedication ceremony described the village named after Wingate as “a 
monument to the friendship which should always unite Great Britain and Israel”, and the British Minister was 
required to attend in official token of the British Government’s approval. 

Thus the one Britisher so honoured in the Zionist state was a traitor to his duty and the British Prime Minister of 
the day joined in honouring him. The significant history of Wingate’s army service is given in Dr. Chaim 
Weizmann’s book. Dr. Weizmann, who speaks indulgently of Wingate’s efforts to ingratiate himself with Zionist 
settlers by trying to speak Hebrew, says he was “a fanatical Zionist”. In fact Wingate was a very similar man to the 
Prophet Monk in the preceding century, but in the circumstances of this one was able to do much more harm. He 
copied Monk in trying to look like a Judahite prophet by letting his beard grow, and significantly found his true 
calling in the land of Judas. He was either demented or hopelessly unstable and was adjudged by the British Army 
“too unbalanced to command men in a responsible capacity”. He then turned to Dr. Weizmann, who asked a 
leading London physician (Lord Horder, an ardent Zionist sympathizer) to testify to the Army Medical Council “as 
to Wingate’s reliability and sense of responsibility”. As a result of this sponsorship Wingate “received an 
appointment as captain in the Palestine intelligence service”, with the foreseeable result above recorded. During the 
Second War this man, of all men, was singled out for especial honour by Mr. Churchill, being recalled to London at 
the time of the Quebec Conference to receive promotion to Major General. Dr. Weizmann says his “consuming 
desire” was to lead a British army into Berlin. The context of Dr. Weizmann’s account suggests that this would have 
been headed by a Jewish brigade, led by Wingate, so that the event would have been given the visible nature of a 
Talmudic triumph, shorn of pretence of a “British victory”. "The generals”. Dr. Weizmann concludes, averted this 
humiliation; their refusal “was final and complete”. 

The episode again throws into relief the uneven and enigmatic nature of Mr. Churchill, who preached honour, 
duty and loyalty more eloquently than any before him and bluntly asked a nation at bay to give its “blood and 
sweat, toil and tears” for those eternal principles. He had seen one of his own Ministers murdered and British 
sergeants symbolically hanged “on a tree” and yet gave especial patronage to this man, alive, and singled him out for 
honour when he was dead. Mr. Churchill, at an earlier period, once abandoned the task of writing the life of his great 
ancestor because of a letter which appeared to prove that John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough, betrayed an 
impending attack by the British fleet to its enemy of that day, the French. “The betrayal of the expedition against 
Brest”, he then wrote, “was an obstacle I could not face”; and he refused from shame to write the biography, only 
reconsidering when he convinced himself that the letter was a forgery. Yet even in that book his conception of 
loyalty is not clear to fellow, for in his preface he accepts as natural and even right Marlborough’s first and proved 
act of treachery, when he rode out from London as King James’s commander to meet the invading German and 
Dutch armies of William of Orange and w'ent over to the enemy, so that the invasion of England succeeded without 
an English shot fired. 


517 



THE CONTROVERSY OE ZION 


over the key, and after Mr. Bevin died all others in Washington and London 
seemed equally ready. The effects are already plain to see and foresee, and these 
effects can no longer be dismissed as chance. Here a great plan is plainly moving 
to its fulfilment or fiasco, with the great nations of the West acting as its armed 
escort and themselves assured of humiliation if it succeeds; they are like a man 
who takes employment under the condition that his wage shall fall as the firm 
prospers. 

At all its ill-omened stages this adventure has been discussed among the 
initiates as a plan. I earlier quoted the words of Max Nordau at the sixth Zionist 
Congress in 1903: "Let me show you the rungs of a ladder leading upward and 
upward . . . the future world war, the peace conference where, with the help of 
England, a free and Jewish Palestine will be erected/’ 

Twenty-five years later a leading Zionist in England, Lord Melchett, spoke in 
the same tone of secret knowledge to Zionists in New York: 'if I had stood here 
in 1913 and said to you 'Come to a conference to discuss the reconstruction of a 
national home in Palestine’, you would have looked upon me as an idle dreamer, 
even if I had told you in 1913 that the Austrian archduke would be killed and that 
out of all that followed would come the chance, the opportunity, the occasion for 
establishing a national home for the Jews in Palestine. Has it ever occurecl to you 
how remarkable it is that out of the welter of world blood there has arisen this 
opportunity? Do you really believe that we have been led back to Israel by 
nothing but a fluke 9 ” ( Jewish Chronicle , Nov. 9, 1928). 

Today the third world war, if it comes, will obviously not be a “fluke”; the 
sequence of cause leading to consequence, and the identity of the controlling 
power, has been made visible by the developing fluid of time. Thirty-one years 
after Lord Melchett’s imperial pronoucement I was by chance (February, 1956) 
in South Carolina , and only by that chance, and the local newspaper, learned of a 
comment in similar vein, apparently inspired from a similar, Olympian source, 
about the third war. Mr. Randolph Churchill, Sir Winston’s son, was at that time 
visiting his family’s friend Mr. Bernard Baruch, whose residence is the Barony of 
Little Hobcaw in South Carolina. On emerging from his interview with this 
authority Mr. Randolph Churchill stated (Associated Press, Feb. 8, 1956) that 
"the tense Middle East situation could explode into armed conflict at any 
moment. But I don’t think civilization is going to stumble into the next war . . . 
World War III, if it comes, will be coldly calculated and planned rather than 
accidental”. 

Against the background of "fulfilment” (the payment of tribute by the great 
nations of the world and the declaration that all Jews of the world were its 
subjects) the new state gave earnest of its intention to restore the "historic 
frontiers’’ by word and deed. No Western "warmonger” ever used such words. 
Mr. Ben-Gurion proclaimed (Johannesburg Jewish Herald , Dec. 24, 1952) that 
Israel "would not under any conditions permit the return of the Arab emigrants” 


518 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


(the native inhabitants). As to Jerusalem (partitioned between Zionists and 
Jordanians pending “internationalization” under United Nations 
administration), “for us that city’s future is as settled as that of London, despite 
its ridiculous boundaries; this cannot be an issue for negotiations”. The “exiles” 
abroad were to be “ingathered” at the rate of “four million immigrants in the 
next ten years” (the Foreign Minister, Mr. Moshe Sharett, June 1952) or “the 
next ten to fifteen years” (on another occasion). 

Two world wars had been needed to set up the “homeland” and “state”, 
successively, and to get some 1,500,000 Jews into it. These intimations meant 
another world war within fifteen years at the latest, for by no other means could 
so many Jews be extracted from the countries where they were. As to the cost of 
their transportation, Mr. Ben-Gurion said this would be between 7,000 and 8,000 
million dollars (at present rates, equal to the entire national debt of Italy, and 
about five times the British national debt in 1914) and he “looked to American 
Jewry to provide this money”. Obviously, even American Jewry could not find 
such sums; they could only be obtained from the taxpayers of the West. 

Everything that was said was thus a plain threat of war to the neighbouring 
Arabs, and it had an especial meaning when it was said (which was often) by Mr. 
Menachem Beigin, chief of the “activist”, or killer, group which had carried out 
the massacre at Deir Yasin. Formally disowned at that time, they had been 
honoured in the new state and formed a major political party, Herut, in its 
parliament. Therefore the Arabs knew exactly with what they were menaced 
when Mr. Beigin spoke to them. 

I give a typical instance. In May 1953 he threatened the 18-year old King of 
Jordan, at the moment of his coronation, with death under the Law of 
Deuteronomy (which governed the deed of Deir Yasin). Speaking to a mass 
meeting in the Zionist part of Jerusalem, a stone’s throw from the Jordan lines, 
Mr. Beigin said, “At this hour a coronation is taking place of a young Arab as 
King of Gilead, Bashan, Nablus, Jericho and Jerusalem. This is the proper time 
to declare in his and his masters’ ears: ‘We shall be back, and David’s city shall be 
free . 

The allusion, obscure to Western readers and explicit to any Arab or Jew, is to 
a verse in the third chapter of Deuteronomy'. “The King of Bashan came out 
against us . . . And the Lord said unto me, Fear him not: for I will deliver him, 
and all his people, and his land into thy hand ... So the Lord our God delivered 
into our hands Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people and we smote him, 
until none was left to him remaining ... And we utterly destroyed them . . . 
utterly destroying the men, women and children ’. 

These threats had a lethal meaning for the hordes of Arab fugitives huddled 
beyond the frontiers. According to the report of Mr. Henry R. Labouisse, 
Director of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine, made in April 1956 
there were of these more than 900,000: 499,000 in Jordan, 88,000 in Syria, 


519 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


103,000 in Lebanon and 215,000 in Egypt (the Gaza area). Mr. Beigin’s threats 
kept them in constant prospect of new flight, or attempted flight, into some 
deeper, even more inhospitable desert. Then the words were made real by deeds; a 
long series of symbolic local raids and massacres was perpetrated, to show them 
that the fate of Deir Yasin hung actually over them. 

These began on October 14, 1953 when a strong force suddenly crossed the 
Jordan frontier, murdered every living soul found in Qibya and destroyed that 
village, sixty-six victims, most of them women and children, being found 
slaughtered. The 499,000 Arab refugees in Jordan drew the natural conclusion. 
The Archbishop of York said the civilized world was “horrified'’, that “the 
Jewish vote in New York had a paralyzing effect on the United Nations in 
dealing with Palestine”, and that unless strong action were taken “the Middle 
East will be ablaze”. The Board of Deputies of British Jews called this statement 
“provocative and one-sided”; the Mayor of New York (a Mr. Robert Wagner) 
said it “shocked” him, and “the good Archbishop is evidently unfamiliar with the 
American scene”. The United Nations mildly censured Israel. 

On February 28, 1955 a strong Israeli force drove into the Gaza area 
(“awarded” to the Arabs by the United Nations in 1949, and under Egyptian 
military occupation) where the 215,000 Arab refugees repined “in abject poverty 
along a narrow strip of barren coastline, two-thirds of it sand-dunes” (Sir 
Thomas Rapp, The Listener , March 6, 1955). 39 Egyptians were killed and an 
unspecified number of the Arab refugees, who then in hopeless protest against 
their lot burned five United Nations relief centres, and therewith their own 
meagre rations. The Mixed Armistice Commission condemned Israel for “brutal 
aggression” in “a prearranged and planned attack”. * 

The case then went to the United Nations Security Council itself, which by 
unanimous vote of eleven countries censured Israel. The United States delegate 
said this was the fourth similar case and “the most serious because of its obvious 
premeditation”; the French delegate said the resolution should serve as “a last 
warning” to Israel, (an admonition which received a footnote in the shape of 
French collusion in the Israeli attack on Egypt twenty months later). 

On June 8, 1955 the U.N.M.A.C. censured Israel for another “flagrant 
armistice violation” when Israeli troops crossed into Gaza and killed some 
Egyptians. The only apparent effect of this censure was that the Israelis promptly 
arrested six United Nations military observers and three other members of the 


* These United Nations Mixed Armistice Commissions, which will henceforth be denoted by U.N.M.A.C. 
comprized in each case a representative of Israel and of the neighbour Arab state, and a United Nations 
representative whose finding and vote thus decided the source of blame. The findings were invariably against Israel 
until, as in the case of the British administrators between 1917 and 1948, “pressure'’ began to be put on the home 
governments of the officials concerned to withdraw any who impartially upheld the Arab case. At least two 
American officials who found against Israel in such incidents were withdrawn. All these officials, of whatever 
nationality, of course worked with the memory of Count Bernadotle’s fate, and that of many others, ever in their 
minds. In the general rule they, like the British administrators earlier, proved impossible to intimidate or suborn, 
and thus the striking contrast between the conduct of the men on the spot and the governments in the distant 
Western capitals was continued. 


520 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


staff of the United Nations Truce Supervisor (Major General E.L.M. Burns, of 
Canada) before they again attacked into Gaza, killing 35 Egyptians (Time, 
September 1955). Jn this same month of September 1955 Mr. Ben-Gurion in an 


interview said that he would attack Egypt “within a year 1 " (the attack came in 


October, 1956) if the blockade of the Israeli port of Elath on the Gulf of Aqaba 


were not lifted. 


The United Nations Security Council seemed nervous about “censuring'’ this 
new attack (the American presidential election campaign was beginning) and 
merely proposed that the Israelis and Egyptians withdraw 500 metres from each 
other, leaving a demilitarized zone, a proposal which the Egyptians had already 
vainly made. Then on October 23, 1955 General Burns “condemned Israel” for a 
“well planned attack” into Syria, when several Syrians were kidnapped and 
General Burns’s observers were again prevented by detention from observing 
what happened. On October 27, 1955 Mr. Moshe Sharett, the Israeli Foreign 
Minister, told newspaper correspondents at Geneva that Israel would wage a 
"'preventive war” against the Arabs if necessary. On November 28, 1955 the 
Zionist Organization of America announced in leading newspapers (by paid 


advertisement) that “Britain, too, has joined the camp of Israel’s enemies”; Sir 


Anthony Eden, who within the year was to join in the Israeli attack, at that 


moment had some idea about minor frontier rectifications. 


On December 1 1, 1955 the Israelis attacked into Syria in strength and killed 56 
persons. This produced the strongest United Nations “censure”, wfifich is of 
some historic interest because the presidential-election year had opened and 
“censure” on any account at all soon became unfashionable. The Syrian delegate 
pointed out that repeated condemnations “have not deterred Israel from 
committing the criminal attack we are now considering”. The Security Council 
(Jan. 12, 1956) recalled four earlier resolutions of censure and condemned the 
attack as “a flagrant violation of. . . the terms of the general armistice agreement 
between Israel and Syria and of Israel’s obligations under the Charter” and 
undertook “to consider what further measures” it should take if Israel continued 


so to behave. 


The response to this was imperious Israeli demands for more arms. Mr. Ben- 
Gurion (at Tel Aviv, Mar. 18, 1956) said that only early delivery of arms could 
prevent “an Arab attack” and added that “the aggressors would be the Egyptian 
dictator, Nasser” (seven months earlier Mr. Ben-Gurion had undertaken to 
attack Egypt “within a year”) “together with his allies, Syria and Saudi Arabia”. 
On April 5, 1956, as the UN Security Council was about to send its Secretary 
General, Mr. Dag Hammarskjold, on a “peace mission” to the Middle East, 
Israeli artillery bombarded the Gaza area, killing 42 and wounding 103 Arab 
civilians, nearly half of them women and children. 

On June 19 Mr. Ben-Gurion dismissed Mr. Sharett from the Foreign Ministry 
in favour of Mrs. Golda Myerson (now Meier, and also from Russia) and the 


521 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


New York Times significantly reported that this might denote a change from 
'‘moderation” to "activism” (Mr. Sharett, like Dr. Weizmann and Dr. Herzl 
earlier, having incurred the reproach of moderation). The issue was that which 
led to Dr. Weizmann’s discomfiture at the Zionist Congress of 1946, when 
"activism” won and Dr. Weizmann saw the resurgence of "the old evil, in a new 
and even more horrible guise”. "Activism” was always, from the old days in 
Russia, an euphemism for violence in the forms of terror and assassination. 
From the moment when this word reappeared in the news the student of Zionism 
knew what to expect before the year’s end. 

On June 24, 1956 the Israelis opened fire across the Jordan border and the 
U.N.M.A.C. censured Israel. Thereon Israel pressed for the removal of the UN 
member of the Commission, whose casting vote had decided the issue, and 
General Burns yielded, supplanting him (an American naval officer, 
Commander Terrill) by a Canadian officer. The UN observers were being put in 
the same position as the British administrators in the inter-war years; they could 
not count on support by their home governments. They had a constant reminder 
before their eyes (the Wingate Village in Israel) that preferment and promotion, 
in Palestine, were the rewards of treachery, not of duty. Two years earlier another 
American observer. Commander E.H. Hutchison, had voted against censure of 
Jordan and been removed when the Israelis then boycotted the Commission. 
Returned to America, he wrote a book about this period in the Middle East 
which is of permanent historical value. Like all good men before him, he reported 
that the only way out of the tangle was to establish the right of the expelled Arabs 
to return to their homes, to admit that the armistice lines of 1949 were only 
temporary (and not "frontiers”), and to internationalize the city of Jerusalem so 
that it might not become the scene of world battle. 

On July 24, 1956 two U.N. military observers and a Jordanian officer of the 
M.A.C. were blown up by mines on Mount Scopus which, the Zionists blandly 
explained, were part of "an old Israeli minefield”. Two Egyptian colonels, said by 
the Zionists to belong to the Egyptian intelligence service, were killed by "letter 
bombs” delivered to them through the post (this method was used a decade 
earlier against a British officer in England, Captain Roy Farran, who had served 
in intelligence in Palestine and incurred Zionist enmity; his brother, whose initial 
was also R., opened the package and was killed). On July 29, 1956 a U.N. truce 
observer, a Dane, was killed by a mine or bomb near the Gaza strip and two 
others were wounded by rifle fire. "Activism” was taking its toll by the method of 
assassination, as in earlier times. 

On August 28, 1956 Israel was again censured by the M.A.C. for "a serious 
breach of the armistice”. The censure was followed by another Israeli attack 
(Sept. 12) when a strong military force drove into Jordan, killed some twenty 
Jordanians and blew up a police post at Rahaw. General Burns protested that 
such deeds “have been repeatedly condemned by the U.N. Security Council”, 


522 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


whereon another strong force at once (Sept. 14) attacked Jordan, killing between 
twenty and thirty Jordanians at Gharandai. The British Foreign Office (Britain 
had an alliance with Jordan) expressed “strong disapproval”, whereon the Board 
of Deputies of British Jews attacked it for this “biassed statement”. On 
September 19 the M.A.C. again “condemned” Israel for “hostile and warlike 
acts” (these two attacks apparently were made with symbolic intent, the moment 
chosen for them being during the Jewish New Year period), and on September 26 
the Commission “censured” Israel specifically for the September 12 attack. 

The immediate answer to this particular censure was an official announcement 
in Jerusalem on the same day (Sept. 26) that the biggest attack up to that time had 
been made by the Israeli regular army, in strength, on a Jordanian post at Husan, 
when some 25 Jordanians were killed, among them a child of twelve. The M.A.C. 
responded (Oct. 4) with its severest “censure”, for “planned and unprovoked 
aggression”. The retort was another, larger attack (Oct. 10) with artillery, 
mortars, bazookas. Bangalore torpedoes and grenades. The U.N. observers 
afterwards found the bodies of 48 Arabs, including a woman and a child. An 
armoured battalion and ten jet aeroplanes appear to have taken part in this 
massacre, which produced a British statement that if Jordan, its ally, were 
attacked, Britain would fulfil its undertakings. The Israeli Government said it 
received this warning “with alarm and amazement”. * 

The September 26 attack was the last of the series which filled the years 1953- 
1956; the next one was to be full-scale war. I have summarized the list of raids and 
massacres to give the later reader the true picture of the Middle East in the 
autumn of 1956, when Mr. Ben-Gurion declared that Israel was “defenceless” 


and the politicians of Washington and London were competing with each other 
in the demand that Israel receive arms to ward off “Arab aggression”. If the 
accumulated pile of resolutions which at that time lay on the United Nations 
table, “condemning” Israel’s “unprovoked aggression”, “flagrant violation” 
and the like, had meant anything at all, this last attack, openly announced while it 
occurred and flung contemptuously in the teeth of the latest “censure”, must 
have produced some action against Israel by the United Nations, or the implicit 
admission that Israel was its master. 


The matter was never tested because, before Jordan’s appeal** to the United 
Nations Security Council had even been considered the attack on Egypt came. It 


* From the start of the presidential-election year all leading American newspapers, and many British ones, reported 
these Israeli attacks as “reprisals" or “retaliations", so that the victims were by the propaganda-machine converted 
into the aggressors in each case. General Burns, in his report on the last attack, told the U.N. that Israel “paralyzed 
the investigating machinery" by boycotting the Mixed Armistice Commissions whenever these voted against it, and 
added: “At present the situation is that one of the parties to the general armistice agreement makes its own 
investigations, which are not subject to check or confirmation by any disinterested observers, publishes the results of 
such investigations, draws its own conclusions from them and undertakes actions by its military forces on that 
basis". The British and American press, by adopting the Israeli word “reprisal" in its reports, throughout this 
period gave the public masses in the two countries the false picture of what went on which was desired by the 
Zionists. 


**See footnote on page 524. 


523 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


had been announced, to any who cared to heed, at the very moment of the attack 
on Jordan, for Mr. Menachem Beigin at Tel Aviv “urged an immediate Israeli 
attack on Egypt’ 1 {Daily Telegraph , Sept. 26, 1956). Mr. Beigin was the voice of 
“activism” and from the moment he said that all who had watched the 


developing situation knew what would come next: a full-scale Zionist invasion of 
Egypt. 

The story I have related shows that, at the moment of the Israeli invasion, no 
attentive observer could hope that the United Nations would do much more than 
reprobate it. The Zionists obviously had chosen a moment when, they calculated, 
the imminence of the vote in the American presidential election would paralyze 
all means of effective action against them. I believed I was prepared for Western 
submission to Zionism once again, in some form or other. What even I would not 
have believed, until it happened, was that my own country, Britian, would join in 
the attack. This, the latest and greatest of the series of errors into which the 
people of England were led by their rulers in the sequence to the original 
involvement in Zionism, in 1903, darkened the prospect for England and the 
West during the remainder of this century, just when it was brightening; it was 
like a sudden eclipse of the sun, confounding all the calculations of astronomers. 

In this event, “irresistible pressure” of “international politics” in the capitals 
of the West produced a result, the full consequences of which will be calculable 
only when many years have passed. Therefore the last section of this chapter and 
book must survey again the workings of “irresistible pressure” behind the 
Western scene, this time in the phase of the approaching climacteric, the years 
1952-1956. At the end of this phase revolutionary-Communism and 
revolutionary-Zionism, the twin destructive forces released from the Talmudic 
areas of Russia in the last century, were in extremis. By the act of the West, in the 
autumn of 1956, both were reprieved for further destruction. 



3. The Years of Climax 


The years 1952-1956 brought the peoples of the West ever nearer to the 
reckoning for the support which their leaders, through two generations and two 
world wars, had given to the revolution and to Zionism. They were being drawn 
towards two wars which foreseeably would merge into one war serving one 
dominant purpose. On the one hand, they were committed by their politicians 
and parties to the preservation of the Zionist state, the declared policy of which 
was to enlarge its population by "three or four million people” in “ten to fifteen 
years”; that meant war. On the other hand, they were daily made accustomed to 

**Even my research has failed to discover, at the time of concluding this book, what happened to the Jordanian 
appeal. It was lost to sight in the events which immediately followed; for all I know, the United Nations may have 
“condemned” the attack on Jordan while the invasion of Egypt was in progress. 


524 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


the idea that it was their destiny and duty to destroy Communism, which had 
overflowed into half of Europe when the West opened the sluice-gates; that 
meant war. 

These two wars inevitably would become one war. The calculation is simple. 
The territory for the expansion of the Zionist state could only be taken from the 
neighbouring Arab peoples; the people for the expansion of the Zionist state 
could only be taken from the area occupied by the revolution, because “three or 
four million” Jews could not be found anywhere else save in the United States.* 


For this purpose the West, in the phase that began in 1952, will have to be 
persuaded that ‘'anti-Semitism’ 1 is rife in the Soviet area, just as it was persuaded 
in the four following years that Zionist attacks on Arab countries were Arab 
attacks on Israel. Mr. Ben-Gurion (Dec. 8, 1951) officially informed the Soviet 
Government that '‘the return of the Jews to their historic homeland is the pivotal 
mission of the state of Israel . . . the Government of Israel appeals to the Soviet 
Union to enable those Jews in the Soviet Union who wish to emigrate to do so”. 
The New York Times two years later, reporting declining immigration to Israel, 
said Mr. Ben-Gurion’s aim “seems very remote” and added that “the present 
pattern of immigration” would only change radically if there were "an upsurge of 
anti-semitism” somewhere (at that period, June 26, 1953, the denunciation of 
“anti-semitism behind the Iron Curtain” had begun). The New York Herald- 
Tribune at the same period (Apr. 12, 1953) said “anti-semitism” had become 
virulent in the Soviet Union and “the most crucial rescue job” facing Israel in its 
sixth year was that of the “2,500,000 Jews sealed in Russia and the satellite 
countries”. 

Therefore it was clear, in the light of the two world wars and their outcome in 
each case, that any war undertaken by "the West” against "Communism” would 
in fact be fought for the primary purpose of supplying the Zionist state with new 
inhabitants from Russia; that any Middle East war in which the West engaged 
would be waged for the primary purpose of enlarging the territory of the Zionist 
state, to accommodate this larger population; and that the two wars would 
effectively merge into one, in the course of which this dominant purpose would 
remain hidden from the embroiled masses until it was achieved, and confirmed by 
some new “world instrument”, at the fighting’s end. 


* The extraction of the Jews from the United States, although essential to the “ingathering of the exiles”, obviously 
belongs to a later stage of the process and would depend on the success of the next phase, the “'ingathering” of the 
Jews from the Soviet area and from the African Arab countries. After that, strange though the idea will seem to 
Americans and Britishers today, there would have to be a '“Jewish persecution” in America and this would be 
produced by the propagandist method used in the past and applied impartially to one country after another, 
including Russia. Poland. Germany. France, Spain and Britain. Dr. Nahum Goldman, leader of the World Zionist 
Organization, in October 1952 told an Israeli audience that there was one problem Zionism must solve if it was to 
succeed: “How to get the Jews of the countries where they are not persecuted to emigrate to Israel". He said this 
problem was "especially difficult in the United States because the United States is less a country of Jewish 
persecution or any prospect of Jewish persecution than any other” (Johannesburg Zionist Record , Oct. 24, 1952). 
The reader will note that there are no countries without ““Jewish persecution”; there are only degrees of ““Jewish 
persecution” in various countries. 


525 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


Such was the position of “the West 11 fifty years after Mr. Balfour’s and Mr. 
Woodrow Wilson’s first ensnarement by Zionism. I have a reason for enclosing 
the words, “The West”, in quotation marks, namely, that they no longer mean 
what The West meant. Earlier the term signified the Christian area, from the 
eastern borders of Europe across the Atlantic to the western seaboard of America 
and including the outlying English-speaking countries in North America, Africa 
and the Antipodes. After the Second War, when half of Europe was abandoned 
to the Talmudic revolution, the two words received a more limited application. In 
the popular mind “the West” meant England and America, ranked against the 
new barbarism which one day it would extirpate in Europe and thrust back into 
its barbaric, Asiatic homeland. America and England, first and foremost, still 
represented “the free world” which one day would be restored throughout its 
former area and with it, as in earlier times, the hopes of men outside it who 
wanted to be free; so the mass mind understood. 

Militarily, this was a proper assumption; the physical strength of “the West”, 
supported by the longing of the captive peoples, was more than equal to the task. 
Actually the great countries to which the enslaved peoples looked were 
themselves captive of the power which had brought about this enslavement; and 
twice had shown that their arms, if used, would not be employed to liberate and 
redress, but to prolong the 20th Century’s ordeal. 

What moral and spiritual values were earlier contained in those two words, 
The West, were strongest in the countries abandoned to Communism and ihose 
menaced by Zionism, where suffering and peril were rekindling them in the souls 
of men. In the once great citadels of the West, London and Washington, they 
were repressed and dormant. 

For this reason America was not truly qualified to take over from England the 
leading part in the world in the second half of the 20th Century and to perform 
the task of liberation which the public masses were led to expect from it. 
Materially, the Republic founded nearly two hundred years before was 
prodigious. The riches of the world had poured into it during two world wars; its 
population rapidly increased two hundred millions; its navy and air force were 
the greatest in the world and, like its army, were built on that order of compulsion 
which its people long had held to be the curse of Europe. In industry and 
technical skill it was so formidable as to be a nightmare to itself. Its production 
was so vast that it could not be absorbed and the dread memory of the 1929 
slump caused its leaders to devise many ways of distributing goods about the 
world in the form of gifts and paying the producer for them out of revenues, so 
that, for a while, manufacturer and workmen should be paid for an output for 
which, in peace, no natural market offered. Its military bases, on the territory of 
once sovereign peoples, were strewn over the globe, so that at any instant it could 
strike in overwhelming force ... at what, and for what? 

At “Communism”, its people were told, and for the liberation of the enslaved, 


526 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


the relief of the world in thrall, the rectification of the deed of 1945. If that was 
true, the end of the century’s ordeal was at least in prospect, some day, for the 
hearts of men everywhere were in that cause. But every major act of the 
government in Washington in the years 1952-1956 belied these professions. It 
seemed more in thrall to “the Jewish power” than even the British governments 
of the preceding fifty years. It appeared to be unable to handle any leading 
question of American foreign or domestic affairs save in terms of its bearing on 
the lot of “the Jews”, as the case of the Jews was presented to it by the imperious 
Zionists. No small, puppet government looked much more vassal in its acts than 
this, which the general masses held to be the most powerful government in the 
world: that of the United States under its chief executive, President Eisenhower, 
in the years 1953 to 1956. 

Like that of a chancellor at a royal birth, the shadow of Zionism fell over the 
selection, nomination and election of General Eisenhower. His meteoric 
promotion during the 1939-1945 war, from the rank of a colonel, unversed in 
combat, to that of Supreme Commander of all the Allied armies invading 
Europe, seems to indicate that he was marked down for advancement long 
before, and research supports that inference. In the 1920’s young Lieutenant 
Eisenhower attended the National War College in Washington, where a Mr. 
Bernard Baruch (who had played so important a part in the selection, 
nomination and election of President Woodrow Wilson in 1911-1912) gave 
instruction. Mr. Baruch at that early period decided that Lieutenant Eisenhower 
was a star pupil, and when General Eisenhower was elected president thirty years 
later he told American veterans that he had for a quarter-century “had the 
privilege of sitting at Bernard’s feet and listening to his words”. Early in his 
presidency Mr. Eisenhower intervened to resolve, in Mr. Baruch’s favour, a small 
dispute at the National War College, where some opposed acceptance of a bust of 
Mr. Baruch, presented by admirers (no living civilian’s bust was ever displayed 
there before). 

The support of “the adviser to six Presidents” obviously may have helped 
bring about Lieutenant Eisenhower’s rapid rise to the command of the greatest 
army in history. On public record is the support which Mr. Baruch gave when 
General Eisenhower (who had no party affiliations or history) in 1952 offered 
himself as Republican Party candidate for the presidency. Up to that time Mr. 
Baruch had been “a staunch member of the Democratic Party, not just a regular 
Democrat, but a passionate approver of the party label and an almost fanatical 
hater of the Republican label ” (his approved biography). In 1952 Mr. Baruch 
suddenly became a passionate approver of the Republican label, provided that 
Mr. Eisenhower wore it. Evidently strong reasons must have caused this sudden 
change in a lifetime’s allegiance, and they are worth seeking. 

In 1952 the Republican Party had been out of office for twenty years. Under 
the pendulum theory alone, therefore, it was due to return and thus to oust the 


527 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


Democratic Party, of which Mr. Baruch for fifty years had been “a passionate 
approver”. Apart from the normal turn of the tide against a party overlong in 
office, which was to be anticipated, the American elector in 1952 had especial 
reasons to vote against the Democrats; the chief of these was the exposure of 
Communist infestation of government under the Roosevelt and Truman regimes 
and the public desire for a drastic cleansing of the stables. 

In these circumstances it was reasonably clear, in 1952, that the Republican 
Party and its candidate .vould wan the election and the presidency. The natural 
candidate was the party's leader, Senator Robert E. Taft, whose lifetime had 
been given to it. At that very moment, and after his own lifetime of “passionate” 
support of the Democratic Party (his cash contributions were very large, and Mr. 
Forrestal’s diary records the part played by such contributions, in general, in 
determining the course of American elections and state policy) Mr. Baruch, the 
“fanatical hater” of the Republican laoel, produced an alternative candidate for 
the Republican nomination. That is to say, the officer so long admired by him 
suddenly appeared in the ring, and Mr. Baruch’s warm commendation of him 
indicated the source of his strongest support. 

The prospect which ‘hen opened was that if Mr. Eisenhower, instead of 
Senator 1 aft, could obtain tne party’s nomination, the Republican Party would 
through him be committed to pursue the Democratic policy of “interna¬ 
tionalism” begun by Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Roosevelt and Truman. That, 
in turn, meant that if the party-leader could be ousted the American elector 
w ould be deprived of any genuine choice, for the only man who offered him an 
alternative, different policy was Senator Taft. 

Th is had been made plain, to the initiated, more than a year before the election 
by the Republican leader next in importance to Senator Taft, Governor Thomas 
E. Dew ey of New York State Mr. Dewey (who had astonished himself and the 
country by losing the 1948 presidential election to Mr. Truman, a classic example 
of the foredoomed failure of the "me too” method) stated, “I am an 
inter nationalist. That’s why I am for Eisenhower. Eisenhower is a Republican at 
heart, but more important than that, he is an internationalist” ( Look , Sept. 11, 
1951). Among initiates “internationalist” (like “activist” in Zionism) is a key¬ 
word, signifying many unavowed things; thus far in our century no avowed 
“internationalist” in a frontal post has genuinely opposed the advance of 
Communism, the advance of Zionism, and the world-government project 
towards which these two forces convergingly lead. Senator Taft, on the other 
hand, was violently attacked at this time as an “isolationist” (another key-word; 
it means only that the person attacked believes in national sovereignty and 
national interest, but it is made to sound bad in the ear of the masses). 

Thus Mr. Eisenhower offered himself at the Republican Party convention at 
Chicago in 1952 in opposition to Senator Taft. 1 was an eye-witness, through 
television, and, although no novice, w 7 as astonished by the smoothness with 


528 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 

which Senator Taft’s defeat was achieved. This event showed, long before the 
actual election, that the nomination-mechanism had been so mastered that 
neither party could even nominate any but a candidate approved by powerful 
selectors behind the scene. The outcome of the presidential election itself is in 
these circumstances of relatively little account in America today, nor can the 
observer picture how the Republic might escape from this occult control It is not 
possible for either party to nominate its party-leader, or any other man, unless he 
has been passed as acceptable to “the internationalists” beforehand. 

The supplanting of the veteran party-leader, on the eve of his party’s return to 
office, was achieved through control of the block votes of the “key states”. 
Population-strength governs the number of votes cast by the state-delegations, 
and at least two of these preponderant states (New York and California) are 
those to which the Jewish immigration of the last seventy years had evidently 
been directed for this purpose.* In 1952, when I watched, the voting for the two 
men was running fairly even when Mr. L>ewey smilingly delivered the large 
package-vote of New York State against his party’s leader and for Mr. 
Eisenhower. Other "'key states” followed suit and he received the nomination, 
which in the circumstances of that moment also meant the presidency. 

It also meant, in effect, the end of any genuine two-party system in America for 
the present; the system of elected representatives which is known as “democracy’ * 
sinks to the level of the one-party system in non-democracies if the two parties do 
not offer a true choice of policy. The situation was so depicted to Jewish readers 
by the Jerusalem Post on the eve of the election (N ov. 5, 1952), which instructed 
them that there was “not much to choose between the two” (Mr. Eisenhower, 
Republican; Mr. Stevenson, Democrat) “from the point of view of the Jewish 
elector” and that Jewish interest should be concentrated on “the fate” of those 
Congressmen and Senators held to be “hostile to the Jewish cause”. 

Immediately after the new President’s inauguration (January, 1953) the British 
Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill hastened to America to confer with him, 
though not to Washington, where Presidents reside; Mr. Eisenhower suggested 
that they meet “at Bernie’s place”, Mr. Baruch’s Fifth Avenue mansion 
(Associated Press, Feb. 7, 1953). Mr. Baruch at that time had been urgently 
recommending the adoption of his “atom bomb plan” as the only effective 
deterrent to “Soviet aggression” (his remarks to the Senate Committee were 
quoted in an earlier chapter). Apparently he was not so suspicious of or hostile to 
the Soviet as he then seemed, for some years later he disclosed that the notion of a 

* This is essential to the electoral strategy laid down, though presumably not originally devised by Colonel House. 
The spanner-in-the-works problem posed by it is the subject of many allusions earlier quoted, i.e.; “. . . Our failure 
to go along with the Zionists might lose the states of New York, Pennsylvania and California; 1 thought it was about 
time that somebody should pay some consideration to whether we might not lose the United States” (Mr. James J. 
Forrestal); “Niles had told the President that Dewey was about to come out with a statement favouring the Zionist 
position and unless the President anticipated this New York State would be lost to the Democrats” (Secretary of 
State James J. Byrnes); “The Democratic Party would not be willing to relinquish the advantages of the Jewish 
Vote” (Governor Thomas E. Dewey). 


529 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


joint American-Soviet atomic dictatorship of the world had also appealed to 
him: “A few years ago I met Vyshinsky at a party and said to him . . . 'You have 
the bomb and we have the bomb . . . Let’s control the thing while we can because 
while we are talking all the nations will sooner or later get the bomb' ” ( Daily 
Telegraph , June 9, 1956). 

General Eisenhower’s election as the Republican candidate deprived America 
of its last means of dissociating itself, through electoral repudiation, from the 
Wilson-Roosevelt-Truman policy of "internationalism”. Senator Taft was the 
only leading politician who, in the public mind, clearly stood for the clean break 
with that policy, and evidently for this reason the powers which have effectively 
governed America in the last forty years attached major importance to 
preventing his nomination. Some extracts from his book of 1952 have enduring 
historic value, if only as a picture of what might have been if the Republican voter 
had been allowed to vote for the Republican party leader: 

"The result of the" (Roosevelt-Truman) “Administration policy has been to 
build up the strength of Soviet Russia so that it is, in fact, a threat to the security 
of the United States . . . Russia is far more a threat to the security of the United 
States than Hitler in Germany ever was. . . There is no question that we have the 
largest navy in the world, and certainly, while the British are our allies, complete 
control of the sea throughout the world . . . We should be willing to assist with 
our own sea and air forces any island nations which desire our help. Among them 
are Japan, Formosa, the Philippines, Indonesia, Australia and New Zealand; on 
the Atlantic side, Great Britain of course ... I believe that an alliance with 
England and a defence of the British Isles are far more important than an alliance 
with any continental nation . . . With the British there can be little doubt of our 
complete control of sea and air throughout the world . . . If we really mean our 
anti-Communist policy ... we should definitely eliminate from the government 
all those who are directly or indirectly connected with the Communist 
organization . . . Fundamentally I believe the ultimate purpose of our foreign 
policy must be to protect the liberty of the people of America ... I feel that the 
last two presidents have put all kinds of political and policy considerations ahead 
of their interest in liberty and peace ... It seems to me that the sending of troops 
without authorization of Congress to a country under attack, as was done in 
Korea, is clearly prohibited” (by the American Constitution). . . "The European 
Army project, however, goes further ... It involves the sending of troops to an 
international army similar to that which was contemplated under the United 
Nations Charter ... I was never satisfied with the United Nations Charter . . .it 
is not based on an underlying law and an administration of justice under that law 
. . . I see no choice except to develop our own military policy and our own policy 
of alliances, without substantial regard to the non-existent power of the United 
Nations to prevent aggression . . . The other form of international organization 
which is being urged strenuously upon the people of the United States, namely, a 


530 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


world state with an international legislature to make the laws and an 
international executive to direct the army of the organization . . . appeares to me, 
at least in this century, to be fantastic, dangerous and impractical. Such a state, in 
my opinion, would fall to pieces in ten years . . . The difficulties of holding 
together such a Tower of Babel under one direct government would be 
insuperable . . . But above all, anyone who suggests such a plan is proposing an 
end to that liberty which has produced in this country the greatest happiness . . . 
the world has ever seen. It would subject the American people to the government 
of a majority who do not understand what American principles are, and have 
little sympathy with them. Any international organization which is worth the 
paper it is written on must be based on retaining the sovereignty of all states. 
Peace must be sought, not by destroying and consolidating nations, but by 
developing a rule of law in the relations between nations . . .” 

These extracts show that Senator Taft saw through today’s “deception of 
nations”; they explain also why his name was anathema to the powers which 
control “the vote of the key states” and why he was not allowed even to run for 
president.* The entire period of Mr. Eisenhower’s canvass, nomination, election 
and early presidency was dominated by “the Jewish question”; he might have 
been elected president only of the Zionists, so constantly were his words and 
deeds directed towards the furtherance of their ambition. 

Immediately after the nomination he told a Mr. Maxwell Abbell, president of 
the United Synagogue of America, “The Jewish people could not have a better 
friend than me” and added that he and his brothers had been reared by their 
mother in “the teachings of the Old Testament” (Mrs. Eisenhower was a fervent 
adherent of the sect of Jehovah’s Witnesses), and “I grew up believing that Jews 
were the chosen people and that they gave us the high ethical and moral 
principles of our civilization” (many Jewish newspapers, September 1952). 

This was followed by ardent professions of sympathy for “the Jews” and for 
“Israel” from both candidates on the occasion of the Jewish New Year (Sept., 
1952); during this festival, also, American pressure on the “free” Germans in 
West Germany succeeded in extorting their signature to the agreement to pay 
“reparations” to Israel. In October came the Prague trial, with the charge of 
“Zionist conspiracy”, and Mr. Eisenhower began to make his menacing 


^Whether Senator Taft, had he become president, would have found himself able to carry out the clear, alternative 
policy here outlined is a quest ion now never to be answered. In the particular case of Zionism, which is an essential 
part of the entire proposition here denounced by him, he was as submissive as all other leading politicians and 
presumably did not discern the inseparable relationship between it and the “world state” ambition which he 
scarified. A leading Zionist of Philadelphia, a Mr. Jack Martin, was asked to become Senator Taft’s “executive 
secretary” in 1945 and records that his first question to Mr. Taft was, “Senator, what can I tell you about the 
aspirations of Zionism?” Taft is quoted as answering, in Balfourean or Wilsonian vein, “What is there to explain? 
The Jews are being persecuted. They need a land, a government of their own. We have to help them to get Palestine. 
This will also contribute incidentally to world peace . . .” The contrast between this, the typical talk of a vote¬ 
seeking ward politician, and the enlightened exposition given above is obvious. Mr. Martin, who is described in the 
article now quoted (Jewish Sentinel, June 10, 1954) as Senator Taft’s “alter ego” and “heir”, after Taft’s death was 
invited by President Eisenhower to become his “assistant, advisor and liaison with Congress”. Mr. Martin’s 
comment: "President Eisenhower is ready to listen freely to your opinion and it is easy to advise him”. 


531 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


statements about “anti-semitism in the Soviet Union and the satellite countries”. 

The charge of “anti-semitism” was deemed to be a vote-getter in the election 
itself and was brought by the outgoing president, Mr. Truman, against Mr. 
Eisenhower, who told an audience that he was overcome by the insinuation: “I 
just choke up and leave it to you”. Rabbi Hillel Silver of Cleveland (who 
threatened the Soviet Union with war on the count of “anti-semitism”) was 
called into conclave with Mr. Eisenhower and on emerging from it exonerated 
the aspirant from all anti-semitic taint (Rabbi Silver had offered a prayer at the 
Republican Convention which nominated Mr. Eisenhower; at the new 
President’s inauguration, and at Mr. Eisenhower’s request, he offered the prayer 
“for grace and guidance”.) Among the rival campaigners the outgoing Vice- 
President, a Mr. Alben Barkley, excelled all others. Of a typical statement by Mr. 
Barkley (“I predict a glorious future for Israel as a model on which most of the 
Middle East might pattern itself”) Time magazine said; “The star of the speech 
circuit is Vice President Alben Barkley, who for years has drawn up to $1 000 for 
each appearance. Barkley is a paid platform favourite for Israel bond-selling 
drives. Many Arabs think . . . that this fact has had an influence on United States 
policy in the Middle East; but not many Arabs vote in U.S. elections”. 

A few weeks after the inauguration the West German tribute agreement was 
ratified, a German Minister then announcing that the Bonn Government had 
yielded to pressure from America, which did not wish to appear openly as the 
financier of the Zionist state. In the same month (April 1953) Jewish newspapers, 
under the heading ‘Israel Shows Its Might”, reported that “The whole 
diplomatic corps and the foreign military attaches who watched the Israel 
Army’s biggest parade in Haifa, with the Navy drawn up offshore and units of 
the Air Force flying overhead, were duly impressed and the parade’s aim, to 
demonstrate that Israel was ready to meet a decision in the field, was achieved”. 

In these circumstances, with various new “pledges” and undertakings given 
and noted for the future, with Stalin dead, Israel ready for “a decision in the 
field” and the “free” half of Germany toiling to pay tribute, one more 
presidential term began in 1953. A curious incident marked the great 
Inauguration Day parade in Washington. At the tail of the procession rode a 
mounted man in cowboy dress who reined in as he reached the presidential stand 
and asked if he might try his lariat. Obediently Mr. Eisenhower stood up and 
bowed his head; the noose fell around him and was pulled taut; the moving 
pictures showed a man, with bared head, at the end of a rope. 

The new president many have thought to utter simple platitudes when he said, 
“The state of Israel is democracy's outpost in the Middle East and every American 
who loves liberty must join in an effort to make secure forever the future of this 
newest member of the family of nations”. In fact, this was a commitment, or so 
held by those to whom it was addressed, like similar words of Mr. Roosevelt and 
Mr. Woodrow Wilson. Eight years after Hitler’s death the new state, where 


532 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


Hitler’s very laws held and whence the native people had been driven by massacre 
and terror, was “democracy’s outpost” and all who “loved liberty” must (the 
imperative) join to preserve it. 

If the new president thought he was free to form state policy, after he uttered 
such words, he was taught better within nine months of his inauguration. In 
October, 1953 the commitment-was called, and imperiously. An effort to act 
independently, and in the American national interest, in an issue affecting “the 
newest member of the family of nations” was crushed, and the American 
President made to perform public penance, in much the same way that 
“Rockland” (Woodrow Wilson) was brought to heel in Mr. House’s novel in 
1912. 

This humiliation of the head of what mankind saw as the most powerful 
government in the world is the most significant incident in the present story, 
which has recounted many episodes, similar in nature but less open to public 
audit. The series of Zionist attacks on the Arab neighbour-states (listed in the 
preceding section) began on Oct. 14, 1953, when every living soul in the Arab 
village of Qibya, in Jordan was massacred. This was a repetition of the Deir 
Yasin massacre of 1948, with the difference that it was done outside Palestine, 
and thus deliberately intimated to the entire body of Arab peoples that they all in 
time would suffer “utter destruction”, again with the connivance of “the West”. 

The facts were reported to the United nations by the Danish General Vagn 
Bennike, chief of the U.N. Truce Observation Organization (who received 
threats against his life) and his immediately responsible subordinate, 
Commander E.D. Hutchison of the U.S. Navy, who described the attack as 
“cold blooded murder” (and was later removed). At the subsequent discussion 
before the U.N. Security Council, the French delegate said “the massacre” had 
aroused “horror and reprobation” in France and reproached Israel, the state 
founded on the claim of “persecution”, with “wreaking vengeance on the 
innocent”. The Greek delegate spoke of “the horrible massacre” and the British 
and American delegates joined in the chorus of “condemnation” (Nov. 9, 1953). 
In England the Archbishop of York denounced this “horrible act of terrorism” 
and a Conservative M.P., Major H. Fegge-Bourke, called it “the culminating 
atrocity in a long chain of incursions into non-Israeli territory made as part of a 
concerted plan of vengeance”. 

When these expressions of horror were uttered Israel had, in effect, been 
awarded an American bonus of $60,000,000 for the deed and the American 
President had publicly submitted to the Zionist “pressure” in New York. This is 
the chronology of events: 

Four days after the massacre (Oct. 18, 1953) the American Government 
“decided to administer a stern rebuke to its protege” (The Times, Oct. 19). It 
announced that “the shocking reports which have reached the Department of 
State of the loss of lives and property involved in this incident convince us that 


533 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


those who are responsible should be brought to account and effective measures be 
taken to prevent such incidents in the future"’ (these words are worth comparing 
with what happened within a few days). The Times added that “behind this 
statement is a growing resentment at the high-handed way in which the Israel 
Government is inclined to treat the United States — presumably because it 
believes that it can always count on domestic political pressure in this country”. It 
was even reported (added The Times, as if with bated breath) “that a grant of 
several million dollars to the Israel Government may be held up until some 
guarantee is given that there will be no more border incidents”. 

Two days later (Oct. 20) the State Department announced that the grant to 
Israel would be halted. If President Eisenhower calculated that, with the election 
a year behind and the next three years ahead, his administration was free to 
formulate American state policy, he was wrong. The weakness of America, and 
the strength of the master-key method, is that an election always impends, if not a 
presidential election, then a Congressional, mayoral, municipal or other one. At 
that instant three candidates (two Jews and a non-Jew) were contending for the 
mayoralty of New York, and the campaign was beginning for the 1954 
Congressional elections, when all 435 members of the House of Representatives 
and one-third of the Senators were to seek election. Against this background, the 
screw was applied to the White House. 

The three rivals in New York began to outbid each other for the “Jewish vote”. 
Five hundred Zionists gathered in New York (Oct. 25), announced that they were 
“shocked” by the cancellation of “aid to Israel”, and demanded that the 
Government “reconsider and reverse its hasty and unfair action”. The 
Republican candidate wired to Washington for an immediate interview with the 
Secretary of State; returning from it he assured the anxious electors that “full 
U.S. economic aid will be given to Israel” (New York Times, Oct. 26) and said this 
would amount in all to $63,000,000 (nevertheless, he was not elected). 

Meanwhile the Republican party-managers clamoured at the President’s door 
with warnings of what would happen in the 1954 election if he did not recant. On 
October 28 he capitulated, an official statement announcing that Israel would 
receive the amount previously earmarked, and $26,000,000 of it in the first six 
months of the fiscal year, (out of a total of about $60,000,000). 

The Republican candidate for the New York mayoralty welcomed this as 
“recognition of the fact that Israel is a staunch bastion of free world security in 
the Near East”, and an act of “world statemanship” typical of President 
Eisenhower. The true picture of what had produced the act was given by Mr. 
John O’ Donnell in the New York Daily News, Oct. 28* “The professional 
politicians moved in on him with a vengeance. Ike didn’t like it at all. . . but the 
pressure was so violent that to keep peace in the family he had to reverse himself. 
And the aboutface, politically and personally, was about the smartest and 
swiftest seen in this political capital of the world in many a month . . . For a week 


534 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


the pressure of candidates, seeking the huge Jewish vote in New York City, has 
been terrific . . . The political education of President Eisenhower has moved with 
dizzy speed in the last ten days”. (Nevertheless, the Republican Party did lose 
control of Congress in the 1954 election, this being the familiar and invariable 
result of these capitulations; and after even greater capitulations it suffered a still 
greater setback in 1956, when its nominee, again Mr. Eisenhower, was re-elected 
president). 

After this the American Government never again ventured to “rebuke its 
protege” during the long series of equally “horrible acts” committed by it, and on 
the anniversary of Israel’s creation (May 7, 1954) the Israeli Army proudly 
displayed the arms received by it from the United States and Great Britain; a 
massive display of American and British tanks, jet aircraft, bombers and fighters 
was then offered to the view. (The United States had reported Israel “eligible for 
arms aid” on August 12, 1952, and Great Britain authorized arms exports to 
Israel by private dealers on January 17, 1952). 

Two years of relative quiet followed, but it was merely the hush of preparation; 
the next series of events was obviously being staged for the next presidential- 
election year, 1956. In May 1955 (the month when Sir Anthony Eden succeeded 
Sir Winston Churchill as Prime Minister in England), the American Secretary of 
State, Mr. John Foster Dulles, like Mr. Balfour thirty years before, at last visited 
the country which was wrecking American foreign policy, as it had wrecked that 
of England. After his experience with the “rebuke”, so swiftly swallowed, he 
must have realized that he was dealing with the most powerful force in the world, 
supreme in his country, of which “Israel” was but the instrument used to divide 
and rule others. 

Like Mr. Balfour, he was received with Arab riots when he went outside 
Palestine. In Israel he was seen by few Israelis, being hurried in a closed car, 
between hedges of police, from the airport into Tel Aviv. The police operation for 
his escort and guard was called “Operation Kitavo”, Kitavo being Hebrew for 
“Whence thou art come”. The allusion is to Deuteronomy 26: “And it shall be, 
when thou art come into the land which the Ford thy God giveth thee for an 
inheritance . . . and the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar 
people, as he hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all his 
commandements, and to make thee high above all nations which he hath made 
. . . that thou mayest be an holy people unto the Lord thy God”. Thus an 
American Secretary of State was seen in Zionist Israel merely as a minor 
character in the great drama of “fulfilling” the Levitical Law. 

Mr. Dulles on his return said he had found that the Arabs feared Zionism more 
than Communism, a discovery of the obvious: the Arabs had read the Torah and 
seen its literal application to themselves at Deir Yasin and Qibya. He said in a 
television broadcast (according to the Associated Press, June 1, 1953), “the 
United States stands firmly behind the 1950 declaration made jointly with Britain 


535 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


and France; it pledges the three nations to action in the event the present Israeli 
borders are violated by any military action’' (the famous ‘Tripartite 
Declaration”). I have not been able to discover if Mr. Dulles said this or was 
misquoted (the Declaration was supposedly impartial and guaranteed “Middle 
East frontiers and armistice lines not “Israeli borders” but this was the kind of 
news which always reached the Arabs and in fact the verbal lapse, or 
misquotation, came much nearer to the obvious truth of affairs. 

Once more the generations were passing, but the lengthening shadow of 
Zionism fell more heavily on each new one. Sir Winston Churchill, his powers at 
last failing, relinquished his post to the man on whom he had already bestowed it 
in the mannerof a potentate determining the succession: “I take no step in public 
life without consulting Mr. Eden; he will carry on the torch of Conservatism 
when other and older hands have let it fall”. That being the case, Sir Anthony 
presumably inherited Sir Winston’s unqualified support for “the fulfilment of the 
aspirations of Zionism” and might well have wished the torch in other hands, for 
it could only ruin, not illumine “Conservatism”, and England. From the moment 
when he reached the office for which all his life had prepared him his 
administration of it was bedevilled by “the problem of the Middle East”, so that 
his political end seemed likely to be as unhappy as that of Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. 
Woodrow Wilson. 

And, the scribe might add, that of President Eishenhower. In September 1955 
he was stricken down, and although he recovered the pictures of him began to 
show the traits which appeared in those of Messrs. Roosevelt and Woodrow 
Wilson towards the end of their terms. The “pressure” which these apparently 
powerful men have to endure in this, “the Jewish century”, seems to have some 
effect which shows in a careworn physiognomy. They are surrounded by the 
praisemakers, but if they try to follow conscience and duty they are relentlessly 
brought to book. After his first experience the general expectation was that he 
would not run a second time. 

He was not a Republican and during his first term felt uncomfortable as a 
“Republican” president. Indeed, soon after his inauguration his “vexation with 
the powerful right wing of the party” (in other words, with the traditional 
Republicans, who had wanted Senator Taft) “reached such extremes that for a 
time he gave prolonged thought to the idea of a new political party in America, a 
party to which persons of his own philosophy, regardless of their previous 
affiliations, might rally ... He began asking his most intimate associates whether 
he did not have to start thinking about a new party. As he conceived it, such a 
party would have been essentially his party. It would have represented those 
doctrines, international and domestic, which he believed were best for the United 
States and indeed for the world”* He only gave up this idea when Senator Taft’s 
death left the Republican Party without a natural leader and when the Senate, at 

*See footnote on page 537 


536 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


the President’s personal encouragement, censured Senator Joseph McCarthy of 
Wisconsin for the ardour of his attack on Communism-in-government. The 
public anger aroused by the exposure of Communist infestation of the 
administration under Presidents Roosevelt and Truman was one of the main 
causes for the swing of votes to the Republican Party (and its nominee, Mr. 
Eisenhower) in 1952. 

Thus at the end of 1955 a presidential-election year again impended, in 
circumstances which the dominant power in America had always found ideal: an 
ailing president, party-politicians avid for “the Jewish vote”, a war situation in 
the Middle East and another in Europe. In such a state of affairs “domestic 
political pressure” in the capital of the world’s wealthiest and best-armed 
country might produce almost any result. The Republican party-managers, 
desperate to retain at least a nominal Republican in the White House if they 
could not gain a majority in Congress, gathered round a sick man and urged him 
to run.** 

The real campaign began, as always, a full year before the election itself. In 
September 1955 the Egyptian Government of President Gamel Abdel Nasser 
contracted with the Soviet Union for the purchase of some arms. The American, 
British and French “Tripartite Declaration” of 1950 provided that Israel and the 
Arab states might buy arms from the West. President Nasser, in justification of 
his act, stated (Nov. 16, 1955) that he had been unable to obtain “one single piece 
of armament from the United States in three years of trying” and accused the 
American government of “a deliberate attempt to keep the Arabs perpetually at 
the mercy of Israel and her threats”. 

This Egyptian arms purchase from the Soviet produced an immediate uproar 

*This significant disclosure comes from a book, Eisenhower , The Inside Story, published in 1956 by a White House 
correspondent, Mr. Robert J. Donovan, evidently at Mr. Eisenhower’s wish, for it is based on the minutes of 
Cabinet meetings and other documents which relate to highly confidential proceedings at the highest level. Nothing 
of the kind was ever published in America before and the author does not explain the reasons for the innovation. 
Things are recorded which the President's Cabinet officers probably would not have said, had they known that they 
would be published; for instance, a jocose suggestion that a Senator Bricker and his supporters (who were pressing a 
Constitutional amendment to limit the President’s power to make treaties, and thus to subject him to great 
Congressional control) ought to be atom-bombed. 


**The most significant domestic events of President Eisenhower's first term (in view of the fact that his election 
chiefly expressed the desire of American voters, in 1952, to redress the proved Communist infestation of government 
and combat the menace of Communist aggression) were the censure of the most persistent investigator. Senator 
McCarthy, which received the President’s personal encouragement and approval; and the ruling of the United 
States Supreme Court in 1955, which denied the right of the forty-eight individual States to take measures against 
sedition and reserved this to the Federal Government. This ruling, if given effect, will greatly reduce the power of the 
Republic to “contend with sedition" (the “Protocols”). The third major domestic event was the Supreme Court 
ruling against segregation of White and Negro pupils in the public schools, which in effect was directed against the 
South and, if pressed, might produce violently explosive results. These events draw attention to the peculiar position 
held in the United States by the Supreme Court, in view of the fact that appointments to it are political, not the 
reward of a lifetime’s service in an independent judiciary. In these circumstances the Supreme Court, under 
President Eisenhower, showed signs of developing into a supreme political body (Supreme Politburo might not be 
too inapt a word), able to overrule Congress. The United States Solicitor General in 1956. Mr. Simon E. Sobeloff, 
stated, “In our system the Supreme Court is not merely the adjudicator of controversies, but in the process of 
adjudication it is in many ways the final formula tor of national policy" (quoted in the New York Times, July 19, 1956). 


537 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


in Washington and London similar to that which was raised in 1952-3 about “the 
trial of the Jewish doctors 1 '. President Eisenhower appealed to the Soviet Union 
to withhold arms shipments to Egypt (the bulk of these came from the Skoda 
arms factory in Czechoslovakia, which fell into Soviet possession in consequence 
of the Yalta agreement of 1945 and which had supplied the arms enabling 
“Israel 11 to set up house in 1947-8 and to “hail the Soviets as deliverers”). In 
London on the same day (Nov. 9, 1955) Sir Anthony Eden accused the Soviet 
Union of creating war tensions in the Middle East; the British Foreign Secretary, 
Mr. Harold Macmillan, complained of the introduction of a “new and disturbing 
factor into this delicate situation”. To the Arabs all these words from the West 


meant what they had always meant: that Israel would be given, and the Arabs 
would be denied, arms. 


After this the propaganda campaign swelled day by day, in the same way as 
that of 1952-3, until, within a few weeks, the memory of the three years of Israeli 
attacks on the Arab countries and the United Nations 1 condemnations of these 


had been blotted out of the public mind. In its place, the general reader received 
the daily impression that unarmed Israel, through the fault of the West, was 
being left to the mercy of Egypt, armed to the teeth with “Red” weapons. At that 
early stage the truth of the matter was once published: the leading American 
military authority, Mr. Hanson W. Baldwin, speaking of the supply of American 
arms to Israel, said, “We are trying to maintain a very uneasy 'balance 1 between 
the Israelis and the Arabs. This is not now, nor is it likely to be soon, a true 
balance in the sense that the two sides possess equal military strength. Today, 
Israel is clearly superior to Egypt, in fact to the combined strength of Egypt, 
Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq” (New York Times, Nov. 11, 
1955). 

This truth was not again allowed to reach the newspaper-reading masses in the 
eleven months that followed, at any rate in my observation.* They were kept 
bemused by the growing clamour about “Red Arms for the Arabs”, which set the 
note for both election campaigns (for Congress and for the presidency) then 
beginning.** All the presidential aspirants on the Democratic side (Messrs. Estes 
Kefauver, Governor Harriman of New York State, Stuart Symington and Adlai 
Stevenson) made inflammatory statements in this sense.*** At one point an 
American Zionist committee considered a “march on Denver” but refrained (the 
President was in hospital there after his stroke), and instead approached all 
candidates, of either party, with a demand that they sign a “policy declaration” 
against the grant of arms to any Arab state. 120 Congressional aspirants signed 
forthwith, and the number later increased to 102 Democrats and 51 Republicans 
(New York Times, Apr. 5, 1956). This excess of Democratic signatories accounts 
for the statement made at the World Zionist Congress in Jerusalem on April 26 
by Mr. Yishak Gruenbaum, a leading Israeli politician and former Minister: 


*, **, ***See footnotes on page 539 


538 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


“Israel will get no support from the United States so long as the Republican 
leadership is in control’ 1 . This was a public demand, from Israel, that American 
Jews should vote Democratic, and the belief of the American party-managers in 
the power of “the Jewish vote” there was strengthened, on this occasion, by the 
Democratic success in the Congressional election, desired by Mr. Gruenbaum in 
Jerusalem. 

Against this background of “pressure” on an ailing President through the 
party-managers and of one more campaign about “the persecution of the Jews” 
(symbolized, this time, by Israel) the year of the presidential election began. 
From the start experienced observers saw that it had been chosen (like preceding 
presidential-election years) as a year of staged and rising crisis which might erupt 
in general war. The basis of all calculations was the “domestic political pressure” 
which could be exercized on the American government and its acts. 

In the real world the year opened, typically, with one more unanimous 
“condemnation” (Jan. 19, 1956) of Israel for a “deliberate” and “flagrant” 
attack (the one on Syria on Dec, 1 1, 1955). This was the fourth major 
condemnation in two years and it came at a moment when the propaganda 
campaign about Israel’s “defencelessness” and Arab “aggression” was already in 
full swing in the West. At the same period a “state of national emergency” was 
declared in Israel. 


The Zionist attack then turned on the core of responsible officials in the 
American State Department who (like those in the British Colonial Office and 
Foreign Office in the earlier generation) tried to ward off the perilous 
“commitments” to Israel. In November 1955 the world’s largest religious Zionist 
organization, the Mizrachi Organization of America, had declared at Atlantic 
City that “a clique” of “anti-Israel elements in the United States State 
Department” was “blocking effective United States aid to Israel” (this, word for 
word, is the complaint made by Dr. Chaim Weizmann against the British 
responsible officials over a period of three decades, 1914-1947). 

In the presidential-election year 1956 the man who had succeeded to the 
burden in America was Mr. John Foster Dulles, the Secretary of State. 
Immediately after the U.N. Security Council’s “condemnation” of Israel in 
January Mr. Dulles announced that he was trying to gain the agreement of 
leading Democratic politicians to keep the Israeli-Arab question “out of debate 
in the Presidential election campaign” (Jan. 24, 1956). The New York Times 
commented, “it is known that Mr. Dulles has complained that Israeli Embassy 


* However, fourteen months later (Jan. 4. 1957), after the attack on Egypt, Mr. Hanson Baldwin, writing from the 
Middle East, confirmed the continuance of “defenceless” Israel's military predominance: “Israel has been, since 
1949. the strongest indigenous military force in the area. She is stronger today, as compared with the Arab states, 
than ever before.” 

**"The supply of arms by Soviet Czechoslovakia made Jews in Israel and elsewhere look to the Soviets as 
deliverers”, Johannesburg Jewish Times, Dec. 24, 1952. 

***“The state of Israel will be defended if necessary with overwhelming outside help”, Governor Harriman, New 
York Times, March 23, 1955. 


539 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


officials here have sought to persuade candidates for congress to lake positions 
favourable to the Israeli cause . . . The Secretary is caeer that neither nartv 

w‘ c. I 

should complicate the delicate negotiations for a Mid East settlement by 
discussing the Israeli question for personal or party advantage in the election 
campaign . . . Specifically, he is apprehensive lest anything be said in the 
Presidential campaign that would encourage Israelis to think that the United 
Stales could condone or co-operate with an Israeli invasion of Arab territory". 

Thus Mr. Dulles was complaining of the “political pressure" recorded by 
President Truman in his memoirs,* and was attempting in 1956 what Mr. 
Forrestal in 1947 had attempted, at the price of dismissal, breakdown and 
suicide. He at once came under attack from the press (equally in America and 
England) in the same way as Mr. Ernest Bevin and Mr. Forrestal in the years 
1947-8. He received a reproachful letter from “a group of Republican members 
of Congress", to whom he placatingly replied (E'eb. 7, 1955) that “The foreign 
policy of the United States embraces the preservation of the state of Israel. . . We 
do not exclude the possibility of arms sales to Israel". By this time he had further 
sinned, for the Jerusalem Post . which in 1956 was a sort of Court Gazette for the 
Western capitals, announced that he had committed “a minor but unfriendly act 
. . . he received tor 45 minutes a delegation of the American Council for 
Judaism".** 

The American Zionist Council immediately “protested' against Mr. Dulles's 
proposal that the Palestine issue “be kept out of debate during the presidential 
election; its chairman, a Rabbi Irving Miller, called this “the misguided \ie\\ that 
any particular segment of foreign policy should be withdrawn from the arena of 
free ami untrammelled public discussion". As to this freedom from trammel, the 
following rare allusions to the state of affairs prevailing appeared at that time in 
the American press: “Israel's quarrels with her neighbours have been transferred 
to every American platform, where merely to explain why the Arabs feel the way 
they do is to become a candidate for professional extinction" (Miss Dorothy 
Thompson); “A pro-Egypt policy will make no votes for Republicans in New 
Jersey. Connecticut or Massachusetts and when one talks to professional 

*ln the intervening years another book had appeared, Mr. Chesly Manly’s The l ‘..V. Record, which said that four 
senior officials of the American foreign Service, called from the Middle fast to Washington during the 
congressional elections of I 946 for consultation on i he Palestine question, had presented the Arab case and received 
from President Truman the answer. “Sorry, gentlemen. I have to answer hundreds of thousands who are anxious for 
the success of Zionism: I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents ’. Mr. Truman's 
submissiveness to Zionist pressure, when in office, and his complaint about it. w hen in retirement, thus are both on 
record. 


**This is an example, in the new generation, of the “outside interference, entirely from Jews" of which Dr. 
Weizmann bitterly complained in the earlier one. The Council feared and fought the involvement of the West in 
Zionist chauvinism. It was headed by Mr. Lessing Rosenwald, formerly head of the great mercantile house of Sears. 
Roebuck, and Rabbi Llmer Berger. Meeting in Chicago at this period, it resolved that President Truman’s memoirs 
“confirm that Zionist pressures labelled as those of American Jews -- were excessive, beyond all bounds of 
propriety" and “offered a spectacle of American citizens advancing the causes of a foreign nationalism". The 
reader, if he refers to earlier chapters, will see how precisely the situation in England in 1914-1917 had been 
reproduced in America in 1947-X and 1955-6. 


540 



THE CONTROVERSY OE ZION 


politicians he hears much on the subject 7 ' (Mr. George Sokolsky); 'The political 
masterminds argue that to get the Jewish vote in such critical states as New York, 
Massachusetts, Illinois, New Jersey and Pennsylvania the United States should 
go down the line against the Arabs' 7 (Mr. John O’Donnell). 

The next development was an announcement in the New York Times (Feb. 21, 
1956) that Mr. Dulles would have "to face an investigation on foreign policy 77 
called by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee "to enquire into the twistings 
and turnings of the Administration’s arms policy in the Mid East”. Mr. Dulles 
duly appeared before the Committee (Feb. 24, 1956) and this led to a significant 
incident. In the ordinary way the public masses, in America as in England, are 
debarred from expressing any adverse opinion about the adventure in Palestine, 
so costly to them: candidates for election cannot expect party-nomination unless 
they subscribe to the Zionist view 7 , and the press in general will not print any 
other. On this occasion the responsible Cabinet officer had an audience 
comprizing as many Americans as could crowd into the space reserved for 
spectators and they gave him ovations when he entered, while he spoke, and 
when he left. 

The reason for these ovations was plain, and the incident showed how the 
general masses of the West would all react if their political leaders ever appealed 
to them candidly in this question. Mr. Dulles said among other things, "one of 
the greatest difficulties facing the United States in its role of attempted mediation 
between Arabs and Israelis is the belief of the Arab world that Washington’s 
approach would be guided by domestic political pressures .” There was danger 
that the Israelis might "precipitate what is called a preventive war”. If that 
occurred the United States "will not be involved on the side of Israel” because it 


had commitments w ith its allies to oppose any nation that started "aggression” 
in the Middle East. He "suggested several times that domestic political pressures 
were being applied to attempt to force the Administration to take an unduly and 
unwisely pro-lsrael course in the Middle East”. 

What was applauded, then, is clear, and this was the first official and public 
allusion, within hearing of a general audience, to the clutch that holds the West in 
thrall. The demonstration of public approval did not diminish the "pressures” of 
which Mr. Dulles complained. A few weeks later (Apr. 12, 1956) he was hailed 
before Congressional leaders to report on the Middle East and told them "I fear 
the time may have passed for a peaceful solution”. He pointed out that the two 
"key factors” in United States policy there were “in conflict”, namely, 
"Retention of the immense oil resources of the region for the military and 
economic use of Western Europe,” (these resources are at pesent in the Arab 
countries) and "preservation of Israel as a nation”. The Democratic House 
leader, Mr. John McCormack then asked peremptorily, "Which policy comes 
first, saving Israel, or keeping hold of the oil? 77 By his answer, "We are trying to 
do both”, Mr. Dulles showed that the entire West was more deeply than ever 


541 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


imprisoned in the insoluble dilemma created by Britain’s original involvement in 
Zionism. 

In the vain effort to “do both” Mr. Dulles soon made the matter worse. 
Apparently he never had any hope that his original proposal would succeed; he 
“gave a bellow of sardonic laughter” when asked, at a press conference at this 
time, if he truly believed that he could get the Arab-Israeli issue taken out of 
election politics. Even as he spoke to the Senate Committee (would those 
spectators have applauded, had they known?) the method was being devised 
whereby America could officially announce that it would not supply “arms to the 
Middle East” at all, and at the same time would ensure that Israel receive such 
arms, enabling it to launch the “preventive war” which the Secretary of State 
“feared”. The device was similar to that used in the case of West German 


“reparations”, which were exacted under American pressure and ensured the 
flow of money or goods to Israel without this appearing in any American budget. 

Immediately after Mr. Dulles’s report to the Senate Committee, and 
apparently in reply to it, Israeli troops made “a pre-arranged and planned” 
attack on the Egyptians in the Gaza area, killing thirty-eight persons (Feb. 27, 
1956), and was condemned for “brutal aggression” by the U.N.M.A.C. Within a 
few weeks the columnists then began to hint at the new method of supplying arms 
to Israel: “If the United States sold arms to Israel, it would reopen the 
Communist pipeline of arms to the Arab States . . . apparently it is felt that the 
same would not be true if Britain, France and Canada met Israeli requests for 
weapons . . . It is assumed here that if the Allies sell Israel arms, the U nited States 
can maintain its own position of impartiality”. 

This was “doing both” in practice. Rabbi Hillel Silver (the Zionist leader who 
had uttered the prayer for “grace and guidance” at the President’s inauguration) 
then stated in Israel that “the Eisenhower Administration has not yet said the last 
word on arms for Israel” (New York Times, Apr. 4, 1956). Returned to 
Washington, he had “a very frank and friendly discussion” with the President. 
Then it was revealed that the United States was “discreetly encouraging the 
French and Canadian governments to sell arms to Israel” (AYvc York Times, 
April 1956). Next, these proved in truth to be American-supplied arms, for the 
French Government officially announced (May 12, 1956) that the American 
Government “had agreed to a delay in deliveries to allow France to make 
speedily a last delivery of twelve Mystere IV planes to Israel”. These were some of 
the French aircraft used in the attack on Egypt five months later; that the French 
Air Force itself would take part was not in May disclosed.* 


*Six months later, on the eve of the presidential election and immediately before the Israeli attack on Egypt. the New 
York Daily News appealed to “the Jewish voter" by recounting the following Republican services: “The Eisenhower 
Administration has not seen its way clear to supplying Israel with heavy hardware, because of various touch} 
international situations. However, the Administration, last April and May, did help Israel get 24 Mystere jet planes 
from France, and last month Canada announced sale of 24 Sabre jets to Israel. Mr. Dulles was declared by Israeli 
officials to have actively used United States Government influence in promoting both the French and Canadian 
plane sales". 


542 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


In explanation: the American Government was financing the purchase of arms 
for its allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization at that time, by placing 
orders with the foreign manufacturers. These American-financed deliveries were 
diverted to Israel at American ‘■'encouragement”. Thus the North Atlantic 
Treaty,'supposed at the start to be an alliance of the West against “Soviet 
aggression” and “Communism”, also was turned to the purpose of Zionism. 
Signed in 1949, the ostensible, original purpose was that the members (America 
and Canada, England, France and ten other European countries, and Turkey) 
would regard any attack on one as an attack on all and aid the one attacked. 

Therefore the American Government, while attacking the Soviet Union for 
supplying Egypt with arms and delcaring that it would not itself promote “the 
arms race” in the Middle East by supplying them to Israel, was in fact procuring 
arms for Israel to maintain its superiority over all seven Arab countries. Here Mr. 
Dulles operated with a Machiavellian touch which had the effect of oil on fire. 
The act of procurement was not even kept secret; as the above quotations show, it 
was given publicity and used as a vote-getting vaunt in that election campaign, 
from which Mr. Dulles had appealed for the Israeli-Arab issue to be kept aloof. 

A strange side effect on these machinations in the West was that statements 
made, on this particular question, by the utterly unscrupulous rulers in Moscow 
gained a look of honest respectability. For instance, the Soviet Government, 
when the Western uproar about "arms for Egypt” began, sent a note to the 
American, British, Egyptian and Czechoslovak Governments stating, “The 
Soviet Government hold that each state has the legitimate right to look after its 
defence and to buy weapons for its defence requirements from other states on 
usual commerical terms, and that no foreign state has the right to intervene”. 
That was an irreproachable statement of the legal, and even moral position, and 
it was echoed by Israel, for while the Western rumpus welled the Israeli Foreign 
Minister, then Mr. Moshe Sharett, stated in New York (Nov. 10, 1955) “If driven 
to a tight corner and our existence is at stake we will seek and accept arms from 
any source in the world” (in answer to a question whether the Soviet had offered 
Israel arms). Thus the whole burden of the outcry in the West was in fact that 
Soviet arms ought not to go to the Arab states, and for this no moral or legal 
argument whatever can be found. 

Against this background “defenceless Israel” (Mr. Ben-Gurion) on April 16, 
1956 held its anniversary parade with great display of United States, British and 
French aircraft and tanks (New York Times, Apr. 17); the Soviet weapons were 
presumably withheld from the parade on that occasion in harmony with the 
propaganda of that moment in the West. On April 24, in Jerusalem, Mr. Ben- 
Gurion once more proclaimed the nationalist and expansionist aim: “The 
continued ingathering of exiles is the supreme goal of Israel and an essential 
precondition for realization of the messianic mission which has made us an 
eternal people.” 


543 



THE CONTROVERSY OE ZION 


The subterfuge by means of which the Effiited States procured arms for Israel 
while officially refusing to supply them ("Nobody particularly welcomes our 
decision not to sell weapons to Israel but to encourage other allies to do so, and to 
relinquish earmarked equipment for this purpose”, New York Times, May 19, 
1956) brought no respite to the American President. Open submission is the 
invariable requirement, and the Zionist wrath began to turn against him. On the 
eve of his second breakdown in health (in the early summer he had to undergo an 
operation for hepatitis) the jeer began to be thrown at him that he was but "a 
part-time president”. A leading woman Zionist, Mrs. Agnes Meyer, launched it 
by telling a Jewish audience in New York that while “the bastion of democracy” 
'(Israel) was in peril “the President is not at his post in Washington; he is playing 
golf in Augusta”, and urging him to ask himself “whether this nation can afford a 
part-time president”. His second illness, which followed almost at once, stopped 
this particular attack for the time, but President Eisenhower, like others before 
him, was not allowed to forget that the full resources of Zionist propaganda 
might at any moment be turned against him if he stepped out of his predecessors’ 
line. 

While he struggled in these toils, across the Atlantic another Prime Minister 
seemed likely to be broken on the Zionist wheel. Sir Anthony Eden, in any other 
century, would have become a major statesman; in this one, the “commitment” 
he inherited was from the start of his premiership a millstone round his neck. 

No politician in'the world was equal to him, when he took the chief office in 
1955, in qualification and experience. He was of the First War generation, so that 
the memory of Flanders fields formed the background of all his adult life, which 
thereafter was spent entirely in politics. He came of old family with an inherited 
tradition of service, and was gifted and personable. He rose to ministerial rank at 
an early age and with brief intervals held one high post after another for over 
twenty years, during which he came to know personally every dictator and 
parliamentary politician in Europe and North America. He thus gained a unique 
experience for the testing years ahead; only Sir Winston Churchill, in the entire 
world, had a comparable range of aquaintanceship, negotiation and in general of 
training in what was once held to be the art of statesmanship. 

He was still young, for the chief office, when Sir Winslon yielded to the law of 
age and handed on “the torch” to the man he had described as embodying “the 
life hope of the British nation” (1938). Mr. Eden (as he was in 1938) gained the 
hope of men of his generation through his resignation from the' British 
Government in protest against the placation of Hitler, which (he rightly judged) 
was the one sure road to war. The event of October, 1956 was made harder for his 
contemporaries to endure by the fact that his ljame was given to it. 

I knew Mr. Eden, as a foreign correspondent may know a politician, in the 
years that led to the Second War, and on the strength of our similar feelings at 
that darkling time was later able to write to him at moments when he seemed to 


544 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


be losing touch with the mind of his generation; and to receive pleasant reply, 
acknowledging earlier acquaintanceship and perusal of my books. I saw him in 
1935 emerge, with troubled mien, from a first encounter with Hitler, who in 
menacing tones had told him that the German air force (then offcially non¬ 
existent) was greater than the English one. I accompanied him to Moscow and 
was able to confirm with him something I had heard of his first encounter with 
Stalin: that the Georgian bandit had pointed to the little point on the world's map 
that represented England and said how strange it was that so small a country 
should hold the key to the world's peace (a true statement at that time). Having 
these personal memories, I was probably more aghast than most men when I 
learned of the deed to which he was misled in October, 1956. 

From the start in May 1955 the professional observer saw that he was in truth, 

not so much Prime Minister, as Minister for the Jewish Question, in his 

generation represented by the Zionist state and its ambition. This meant that his 

whole term of office would fall under that shadow and that his political fate 

would be determined by his actions in regard to Zionism, not by his success or 

failure in matters of native interest. That was shown on the eve of his 

\ 

premiership, when he was still Foreign Secretary for a few weeks more. The 
British Government had concluded an arrangement with Iran and Turkey to 
ensure the defence of British interests in the Middle East, the oil resources of 
which were vital to England and the Antipodean Dominions. The debate in the 
House of Commons ignored this aspect and raged around the effect of the 
agreement “on Israel", so that two lonely members (among 625) protested: “This 
debate is not about Palestine and the Foreign Secretary must look after world 
interests and the interests of Britain, even though they cause annoyance and 
embarrassment to other states" (Mr Thomas Reid); “Judging by nearly every 
speech from hon. Members on both sides of the House, one might be forgiven for 
imagining that the debate was primarily concerned with the effect of a pact on 
Israel instead of the improvement of our worldwide defensive system against the 
threat of Russian imperialism" (Mr. F. W. Bennett). 

To this a Jewish Socialist member replied, “Why not?" Jn effect, it was by that 
time almost impossible to debate any major issue save in terms of its effect for 
Israel, and this plainly prefigured the course of Sir Anthony's premiership. 

During the remaining months of 1955, as Prime Minister, he continued to 
struggle with “the Middle East question", at one time suggesting that an 
international force be placed between Israel and the Arab states (the United 
States demurred) and at another, that Israel might agree to minor frontier 
rectifications, having seized in 1948 more territory than that “awarded" to it by 
the United Nations (this brought angry Zionist charges in the New York 


newspapers that “Britain has now joined the ranks of Israel's enemies"). 


Then the presidential-election year, and Sir Anthony's crisis, began. The 


Zionist machine went into top gear, playing Washington against London and 


545 



THE CONTROVERSY OE ZION 


London against Washington with the skill of forty years' experience. In March a 
significant thing occured; unknown to the world, it made an early attack on 
Egypt seem a certainty to the diligent watcher of events. 

On the eve of the Jewish Passover the mysterious “Voice of America’' 
broadcast a commemoration, laden with explosive topical allusions, of “the 
escape of the Jews from the Egyptian captivity ”. Considered in its obvious 
relationship to the propaganda bombardment of Egypt which was then in 
progress in Washington and London, this plainly portended violent events 
before the next Passover. The American people in general know nothing of what 
“The Voice of America” says, or to whom it speaks. Even my research has not 
discovered what official department is supposed to supervise this “voice”, which 
to listening peoples far away is taken to express the intentions of the American 
Government. I was able to learn that its funds, budgetary and other, are immense 
and that it is largely staffed by Eastern Jews. It appears to work in irresponsibility 
and secrecy.* 

From this moment the whole weight of Western propaganda was turned 
against Egypt. The events which followed might be considered in the light of 
Secretary of War Henry Stimson’s diarial note in the period preceding Pearl 
Harbour, to the effect that the aim of President Roosevelt’s administration was 

^During the Hungarian uprising against the Soviet in October-November 1956, several American correspondents, 
returning from the shambles, and Hungarian fugitives attributed a large measure of responsibility for the tragedy to 
this ‘'Voice 1 '. The Americans had found the Hungarian people confident of American intervention; the Hungarians 
complained that, although the word “revolt” was not used, the “Voice” in effect incited and instigated revolt and 
held out the prospect of American succour. At the same time President Eisenhower told the American people, “We 
have never counselled the captive peoples to rise against armed force”. Similar criticisms were made against “Radio 
Free Europe”, a private American organization which operated from Germany under West German Government 
license. 

One of the first Hungarian refugees to reach America complained that the Voice of America and Radio Free 
Europe for years “picked at us” to revolt, but when the national uprising came no American help was given (New 
York Times, Nov. 23, 1956). 

The West German Government ordered an investigation into Radio Free Europe’s broadcasts during the 
Hungarian uprising (it operated from Munich) after widespread charges appeared in the West German press that it 
had, in effect, played a provocative part; as example, a script prepared on Nov. 5, 1956, while the uprising was in 
progress, told the Hungarian people that “Western military aid could not be expected before 2am tomorrow”, an 
obvious intimation that it would come at some moment (N.Y.T., Dec. 8, 1956) The gravest implication of a 
provocative purpose was contained in statements made by Mrs Anna Kethly, head of the Hungarian Social 
Democratic party, who escaped during the brief liberation of the country. She said that while she was in jail in 1952 
Radio Free Europe in a broadcast to the captive countries said “that I was leading the underground liberation 
movement from my jail and quoted the names of several leaders of the alleged movement. L was taken out of the jail 
where I had been in complete seclusion since 1950 and confronted with hundreds of former militants of the Social 
Democratic party and the trade unions. All of them were tortured by the political police to confess their 
participation in the non-existent anti-Communist plot. There was absolutely no truth in the Radio Free Europe 
report; 1 had lived in complete seclusion since my arrest and had met nobody. Radio Free Europe has gravely sinned 
by making the Hungarian people believe that Western military aid was coming, when no such aid was planned” 
(N.Y.T., Nov. 30, 1956). 

Thus America spoke with two voices, those of the President addressing himself officially to the world, and of the 
“Voice” speaking in more dangerous terms over the head of the American people to the peoples of the world. At this 
period the New York Times described the official line: "High officials have made clear privately that the 
Administration wants to avoid being identified solely with Israel and thus surrendering the Arab countries to the 
influence of the Soviet Union”. The Arab peoples, if they ever heard of these “private” intimations, could not be 
expected to believe them, in view of what they heard from “The Voice of America” about the liberation of the Jews 
from “the Egyptian captivity”. 


546 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


to manoeuvre Japan into ‘Tiring the first shot”. Subsequent events had all the 
appearance of being designed to manoeuvre Egypt into firing the first shot. Egypt 
did not do this. Then the world found that the firing of a first shot was no longer 
necessary to qualify as an aggressor; the country in question could be dubbed the 
aggressor while it was being invaded, and even before that; so far had the 
resources of mass-propaganda developed in the 20th century. All the 
“condemnations” of Israel on the score of aggression had meant nothing. 

This crisis-period began on March 7, 1956 (just before the “Voice of 
America’s” Egyptian-captivity broadcast) when Sir Anthony Eden again faced 
the House of Commons on the eternal question. By that time his Socialist 
adversaries (despite the many “condemnations” of Israel) were furious in their 
demand for arms for Israel and “a new treaty of guarantees for Israel”; like the 
New York politicians, they saw the hope of office in new submissions to Zion. 
The Prime Minister “was subjected to a storm of vituperation and abuse beyond 
anything heard in the House of Commons since the last days of Neville 
Chamberlain’s prime ministership” (the New York Times); “It was a scene which, 
for a time, seemed to shock even those who had caused it; the Speaker himself 
had to intervene to plead that the House should give the Prime Minister a 
hearing” (the Daily Telegraph). Sir Anthony vainly protested that he had thereto 
been heard with courtesy “for over thirty years” by the House. At that moment 
he might have hoped for American support, for on the same day President 
Eisenhower said it was “useless to try to maintain peace in the Middle East by 
arming Israel, with its 1,700,000 people, against 40.000,000 Arabs” (the 
American procurement of arms for Israel was then under way). 

in England Sir Anthony found all hands against him. The Daily Telegraph 
(ostensibly of his own party) might in its news reports appear shocked by his 
treatment in the House, but editorially it said the case for giving Israel arms was 
“incontrovertible”, a word which always spares the need for supporting 
argument. His opponents, the Socialists, cast off all restraint in their eagerness to 
overthrow him by way of Israel. The leading leftist journal, the New Statesman , 
in two successive issues said that England had no right or means to wage war in 
any circumstances whatever and should lay down all arms (“Effective defence is 
now beyond our means and disarmament is the only alternative to annihilation”, 
March 10) and that England should arm Israel and pledge itself to go to war for 
Israel (“War is less likely if Israel is supplied with up to date arms and the Labour 
Party is correct in urging that Israel must now have them . . . The problem is not 
so much the undesirability of guaranteeing a frontier which has not yet been 
formally established . . . but the military problem of assembling and delivering the 
necessary force ... Is sufficient naval strength available in the Eastern 
Mediterranean? Does Mr Gaitskell (the Socialist leader) “even feel sure that the 
British public would back him in going to war, probably without the 
endorsement of the United Nations, in defence of Israel?” (March 17). 


547 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


The endless effects of the original, apparently small commitment to Zion may 
be studied in such quotations. Sir Anthony Eden on this occasion appeared to be 
trying, in unison with the United States Government, to stem a lunatic tide, but 
he gave a "warning to Egypt' 1 which was not then justified and was ominous, as 
events proved. At that moment both the British and American Governments 
were (officially) courting Egyptian friendship in the hope of helping to pacify the 
Middle East. To that joint end England, "under American pressure 11 was 
preparing to withdraw its troops from the Suez Canal.* 

Why Sir Anthony Eden yielded without security to "the pressure 11 to let go of 
what, immediately after, was proclaimed to be "the vital lifeline 11 of the British 
Commonwealth is of those questions which politicians never answer. "Pressure 11 
from Washington in matters related to the Middle East has in the last four 
decades always been Zionist pressure, ultimately; and about this time an 
Egyptian journalist, Mr Ibrahim Izzat, was cordially received by the Premier, 
Foreign Minister and Labour Minister of Israel who told him "Israel and Egypt 
had the identical aim of opposing British influence in the Middle East 11 (Ros el 
Youssef, May, 1956; AVvr York Times, May 20, 1956). 

The effect of this submission to pressure very soon became clear: it was to be 
war, involving England in a great humilation and fiasco. The British withdrawal 
was supposed to be one-half of a larger, Anglo-American arrangement for 
"winning the friendship of the Arabs 11 , and the American half had yet to be 
performed. This was to join with the British Government and the World Bank in 
providing $900,000,000 for the construction of a dam on the Nile at Aswan (the 
offer had been made to Egypt in December 1955). 

The chronology of events again becomes important. The British troops 
withdrew from the Suez Canal in June 1956. as undertaken. On July 6, 1956 the 
State Department spokesman told the press that the Aswan Dam offer "still 
stood 11 . A few days later the Egyptian Ambassador in Washington announced 
that Egypt had "definitely decided that she wanted Western help for the dam 11 . 
On July 19 the Egyptian Ambassador called on Mr. Dulles to accept the offer. He 
was told that the United States government had changed its mind. In London the 
day before the Foreign Office spokesman had announced that the British share of 
the offer "still stood 1 '. On July 19 the spokesman informed the press (not the 
Egyptian Ambassador) that the British offer, too, was withdrawn. The 
spokesman declined to give reasons but admitted to "continuous consultation 
between Whitehall and Washington 11 . 

Therefore the "pressure' 1 to infuriate the Egyptians by this contemptuous 
affront came from the same quarter as the "pressure 11 to mollify them by 
withdrawing from the Suez Canal. The British Government was left far out on a 

*The fact that this “pressure” was used is authentic. It was everywhere recorded in terms of an American success by 
the American press, for instance, “Secretary of State Dulles was confident that he could win the friendship of the 
Arabs, as when he brought pressure on the British to get out of Egypt, while retaining that of the Israelis, (New York 
Times, Oct. 21, 1956). 


548 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


limb, in the American phrase; if the first submission was made in reliance on 
President Eisenhower's announcement of February (that he wanted “to stem the 
deterioration in relations between the Arab nations and the United States” and 
“restore the Arabs’ confidence and trust” in America), the aboutface in the 
Aswan Dam offer should have warned it, and it would then have saved much if it 
had resisted the “pressure” in the second case. 

I cannot remember any more calculated or offensive provocation to a 
government with which “the West” was ostensibly seeking friendship. Such 
behaviour by the Washington and London governments has only become 
imaginable since thev fell under the thrall of Zionism. American withdrawal of 

j 

the offer, and the manner of withdrawal (its imitation by London is beyond 
comment) were clearly the true start of the war crisis of 1956, but the original 
source, the “pressure”, was not “American”. “Some Congressmen feared 
Zionist disapproval”, discreetly remarked the New York Times of the withdrawn 
offer to Egypt; and this was election year. 

Within the week President Nasser of Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal and at 
once the air was filled with war-talk, as in 1952-3 during the episode of “the 
Jewish doctors”. From that moment President Nassser received the “wicked 
man” treatment; this is the sure sign of the imminence of war. I have seen many 
"wicked men” built up in my life, and have observed that this propaganda can be 
turned on and off as by a tap. and infused with toxic effect into the public mind: 

Cursed juice of hebenon in a vied; 

And into mine ear did pour 
The leprous distilment . . . 

My early childhood was clouded by the wickedness of The Mad Mullah (a 
Muslim leader now universally forgotten) and of a respectable old Boer called 
Paul Kruger. Of all the figures in this Chamber of Horrors, built around me as I 
went along, I now see that nearly all were no better or worse than those who 
called them wicked. 

Even before the war-talk reached the “wicked man” stage, and long before the 
unprecedented provocation of July 19, (which still provoked no warlike act from 
Egypt), President Nasser had been declared the aggressor in a war yet to begin. In 
March Mr Ben-Gurion stated at Tel Aviv that early delivery of arms to Israel 
alone could prevent “an attack by the Arab states within the next few months” 
and added that the aggressor “ would he the Egyptian dictator Nasser”. On April 
13 Sir Winston Churchill emerged from a year's retirement to tell a Primrose 
League audience that “prudence and honour” demanded British aid for Israel if 
it were attacked by Egypt. Sir Winston expressed implicit, but clear approval of 
the Israeli attack on Egypt which the “activists” in Israel were then demanding: 
“If Israel is dissuaded from using the life force of their race to ward off the 
Egyptians until the Egyptians have learned to use the Russian weapons with 
which they have been supplied and the Egyptians then attack, it will become not 


549 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


only a matter of prudence but a measure of honour to make sure that they are not 
the losers by waiting"'. This was followed in May by an Israeli attack on Egyptian 
troops in the Gaza area in which about 150 men, women and children were killed 
or wounded. Nevertheless, the outcry about the "‘wicked man" and "‘Egyptian 
aggression" grew ever louder in the West. 

The state of servitude into which England had fallen at this period was shown 
by two symbolic events. In June 1956 the ""Anglo-Jewish Community" held a 
banquet at the Guildhall to commemorate “the three hundredth anniversary of 
the resettlement of the Jews in the British Isles"; the young Queen's consort, the 
Duke of Edinburgh, was required to appear in a Jewish skullcap. In September 
the “Cromwell Association" held a service at the statue of the regicide and 
butcher of Drogheda to celebrate this same fiction (that he “restored" the Jews to 
England three hundred years before). In his speech the president of this body, a 
Mr Isaac Foot, recommended that the young Prince Charles, when he reached 


the throne, take the name of “Oliver II", because “We don’t want Charles III".* 


After President Nasser's seizure of the Suez Canal the war cries from the West 


rose to a high note. “Nationalization" in itself was not startling or shocking 
enough, in 1956, to account for it. America had accepted the seizure of foreign- 
owned oilfields, Mexico agreeing (as President Nasser agreed) to pay the going 
price for the property; domestically, America, through the Tennessee Valley 
Authority, was already treading this wellworn path to impoverishment; in 
England the Socialist Government had nationalized railways and coalmines. A 
valid legal or moral ground for violent denunciation was not easy to find, 
although shades of difference, admittedly existed between President Nasser's act 
and the many precedents and his action was obviously one of protest against 
provocation, not of rational policy. 

In any case, the only effective answer, if his act was intolerable, was to 
reoccupy the Canal forthwith, and that was not done. Instead, all the oracles, as if 
reading from a long-prepared script, began to dub him “Hitler". Premier Ben- 
Gurion began with “dictator", which soon became “Fascist dictator", and the 
French Prime Minister (a M. Guy Mollet at that instant) changed this to 
“Hitler". Thereafter the campaign followed the lines of the one against Stalin in 
1952-3. Dictator-Fascist Dictator-Hitler: the inference was plain; President 
Nasser was to be depicted, and punished if he were punished, as an enemy of the 
Jews. 


When Sir Anthony Eden again rose in the House of Commons (Aug. 9, 1956) 
to grapple with that monster of his dreams, “the Middle East question", the 


*The same shadow was with deliberate intent cast across the coronation of Queen Elizabeth in 1953. As part of the 
festival the newly-crowned queen reviewed at Spithead a great assembly of war vessels from every country that 
could send a ship. Among the many craft, between the lines of which the Queen’s ship passed, was one alone, the 
crew of which did not cheer (a mistake, the later explanation asserted). This Soviet ship was the Sverdlov, named for 
Yankel Sverdlov, the assassin of the Romanoff family, in whose honour the town where they were butchered, 
Ekaterinburg, was renamed Sverdlovsk. 


550 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 

Socialist leader, Mr Hugh Gaitskell, said, “It is all terribly familiar ... It is 
exactly the same as we encountered with Mussolini and Hitler before the war’. 
Another Socialist speaker, Mr Paget Q.C., (events having altered K.C’s) baited 
him thus: “This weekend technique is just what we got from Hitler. Are you 
aware of the consequences of not answering force with force until it is too late?” 

The Socialists were deliberately prodding Sir Anthony to use force (they 
shouted “Murderer” at him when he used it) by these taunting allusions to his 
political past. He was the man who resigned in 1938 in protest against the 
placation of Hitler, and his resignation was immediately vindicated by Hitler’s 
invasion of Austria. That was “force”, long foreseen, and Mr Eden of 1938 was 
right. In 1956 the case was different, and no comparison was possible. Egypt was 
not a great military power but a very weak one. Egypt had not been “appeased”, 
after the British withdrawal, but subjected to provocation by public humiliation. 
Egypt was not a proven aggressor; it held been the victim of attack and Israel had 
declared that it would make war on Egypt. 

Therefore the comparison with “Hitler” was absurd, unless it was intended 
solely to denote that the Zionists held Egypt for their enemy. Nevertheless Sir 
Anthony Eden yielded to this fiction (perhaps the memory of 1938 had too strong 
a hold on him) for he alluded to President Nasser as “a Fascist plunderer whose 
appetite grows with feeding”, which was just the language he and Mr Churchill 
had rightly used about Hitler eighteen years before. 1 must add that I do not find 
these exact words in the text of his speech but this is the form in which they 
reached “the mob” through the New York Times and that is what counts, as 
Prime Ministers should know. For the rest, Sir Anthony based his attack on 
President Nasser on the argument that the Suez Canal “is vital to other countries 
in all parts of the world ... a matter of life and death to us all. . . the canal must 
be run efficiently and kept open, as it always has been in the past, as a free and 
secure international waterway for the ships of all nations ...” 

But President Nasser had not closed the canal, only nationalized it. It was 
“open” to the ships of all nations, with one exception. In those five words lay the 
secret. The only country which was denied full freedom of passage was Israel, 
with which Egypt was still technically at war; Egypt had been stopping ships 
bound for Israel and examining them for arms. This was the only case of 
interference; ergo, Sir Anthony represented only that case, not any British one. 
However, he concluded: “My friends, we do not intend to seek a solution by 
force”. 

In the following weeks, while “a solution” was sought at various conferences 
in London and Washington, the press informed the masses that “the Egyptians” 
would not be able to run the canal, where traffic would soon break down. In fact, 
they proved able to operate it and shipping continued to pass without hindrance, 
with the one exception. By clear implication, therefore, the case of Israel was the 
sole one on which Sir Anthony’s Government could rest its increasingly angry 


551 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


protest. This was soon made clear. On August 22, 1956 Mrs Rose Halprin, acting 
chairman of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, stated in the New York Times that 
“the only legal ease which the Western powers have against Egypt in terms of the 
contravention of the 1888 convention is Egypt’s denial of the eanal to Israel ships 
and the striefares on ships bound for Israel". 

Mrs Halprin's statement of the legal position is correct. If the whole dispute 
rested on a point of law, then the only case which could be invoked was that of 
Israel,' and that would open the whole question of the legality of the creation of 
Israel itself and of the unterminated state of war between Israel and Egypt. 
Therefore any government which joined in the uproar against President Nasser 
was in fact acting on behalf of Israel and Israel alone, and was prejudging all legal 
questions in favour of Israel. 

By October Sir Anthony Eden had gone further in presuming Egyptian 
aggression. I have not the text of this speech but the version distributed by the 
Associated Press, and therefore reproduced in thousands of newspapers all over 
the world, says, “Prime Minister Eden predicted tonight that President Nasser 
would attack Israel next if he got away with seizure of the Suez Canal. Sir 
Anthony hinted that Britain would go to Israel’s rescue with arms if necessary” 
(Sept. 13, 1956). 

Thus the British Prime Minister was sliding on a slippery path. Within the 
space of six weeks the "vital lifeline” and "matter of life and death” theme had 
become subordinate and the world faced the menace of war based on something 
that the Egyptian president would do //something else happened. From this point 
on "the mob” was fed with news of an impending Egyptian attack on Israel (the 
"interference with international navigation” theme was dropped, as it could not 
be maintained) and in time this took on so definite a note that many casual 
readers, I fancy, must have thought that Egypt had already attacked Israel. I give 
one of many examples (from the London Weekly Review, September 1956, a few 
weeks before the Israeli attack on Egypt): "We can be absolutely certain that the 
Arabs, encouraged by Russia, will attack Israel. This is now beyond all doubt and 
should form the basis of our calculations". 

In writing this book I have been chiefly impelled by the hope of giving the later 
reader, in what I hope will be a more rational time, some idea of the astonishing 
condition of the public prints during the 1950's. He will certainly be unable to 
comprehend the things that happened unless he is aware of this regime of 
sustained mis-information and of the boundless lengths to which it was carried. 
The last statement quoted came after years of repeated Israeli attacks on the 
various Arab neighbours and of repeated United Nations condemnations of 
these acts. 

In the way I have summarized above the ground was prepared, during the first 
nine months of the presidential-election year, for the climactic events of October. 
Arms continued to move into Israel from the West. After the seizure of the Suez 


552 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


Canai Sir Anthony Eden announced that “all arms shipments to Egypt had been 
stopped’’; in the same month (July) two British destroyers were delivered to 
Israel. Throughout the spring and summer months France, under American 
“pressure”, supplied jet fighters and other weapons to Israel. In September 
Canada, at the same prompting, agreed to send jet aircraft to Israel, the Ottawa 
Government announcing that it had “consulted with the United States before the 
decision was made” (New York Times, Sept. 22, 1956). 

All this time the presidential-election campaign continued. The Democrats, 
eager to regain the White House, exceeded all past performances in their bids for 
“the Jewish vote” (the Mayor of New York demanded that Israel should receive 
arms “as a gift”): the Republican incumbents were slightly more reserved. 
However, when the rival nomination conventions were held (the Republican at 
San Francisco, the Democratic at Chicago, both in August) there was little to 
choose between the submissions which each party made (so that the Jerusalem 
Post might have repeated, and perhaps did repeat its dictum of 1952, that for the 
Jewish voter there was “little to choose” between the presidential aspirants). 

The only passage of any vital meaning in the “foreign policy programmes” 
adopted by the two parties related, in each case, to Israel; the other foreign policy 
statements were platitudinous. The commitments to Israel were in both cases 
specific. 

The Republican Party programme, on which President Eisenhower was 
unanimously elected candidate, said: “We regard the preservation of Israel as an 
important tenet of American foreign policy. We are determined that the integrity 
of an independent Jewish state shall be maintained. We shall support the 
independence of Israel against armed aggression”. 

The Democratic Party programme said: “The Democratic Party will act to 
redress the dangerous imbalance of arms in the area created by the shipment of 
Communist arms to Egypt, by selling or supplying defensive weapons to Israel, 
and will take such steps, including security guarantees, as may be required to 
deter aggression and war in the area”. (The phrase, “dangerous imbalance of 
arms”, reflected the propagandist fiction that Israel was “defenceless” and the 
Arab countries strong; the truth, a little earlier established by Mr Hanson 
Baldwin was that Israel was stronger in arms than all seven Arab countries 
together). 

These two policy statements gave the picture of a world in the Zionist thrall, 
and complemented the statements then being made by the British Government. 
They had no relation to any native American interest but reflected simply Zionist 
control of the election-machine, or the unshakeable belief of the party-managers 
in that control. (On this occasion events appeared to justify that belief; the 
Democratic Party, the higher bidder, captured Congress, although the nominal 
“Republican” was re-elected President). 

The only other event of importance in the two conventions w as one wflfich may 


553 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


appear to have little bearing on the theme of this book, but in the later sequel 
might prove to be of direct significance; the re-nomination of Mr Richard Nixon 
as President Eisenhower's running-mate (and in effect as Vice-President). Mr 
Eisenhower's state of health made the Vice-Presidency more important than 
usual, and the possibility that Mr Nixon might succeed to the Presidency between 
1956 and 1960 was evidently regarded as a major danger by the powers that 
govern America .today, so that a supreme effort was made to prevent his 
nomination. Thut was not remarkable, in this century; what was remarkable is 
that the attempt failed. At some time men will obviously emerge who will break 
the thrall that lies on American and British political life, and this failure was a 
portent of that coming liberation, so that the person of Mr Richard Nixon gains a 
symbolic importance in our day, even though he, if he became President, might 
find himself unable to break the bonds. 


The reason for this powerful enmity to Mr Nixon is that he is not an 
“internationalist". Far from it, he played the decisive part in the unmasking and 
conviction of Mr Alger Hiss, the Soviet agent in Mr Roosevelt's administration. 
This is the true reason why he has ever since had a uniformly bad “press", not 
only in America but elsewhere in the Western world. Having that black mark 
against him, he is held to be a man who, in the chief office, might conceivably 
rebel against the constraints to which American Presidents and British Prime 
Ministers, almost without exception, have submitted in the last fifty years and 
which Vice-President’s automatically incur.* 

Hence a campaign of great force and ingenuity was begun to prevent his 
nomination. A member of the President’s own political household (and nominal 
party) was released from duty for some weeks to conduct a nationwide “Stop 
Nixon" offensive, with committee-rooms, placards and meetings. This had no 
effect on the general public, with whom Mr Nixon appears to be popular. Then, 
for his particular discomfiture, new tactics were introduced at the convention of 
the rival. Democratic party. Instead of the elected nominee (Mr Adlai Stevenson) 
choosing his own vice-presidential “running mate" as on former occasions, the 
selection of a “running mate" was thrown open to vote and of various 
competitors Senator Estes Kefauver (an exceptionally zealous Zionist) received 
the nomination as vice-presidential candidate. 

The aim of the manoeuvre was to force the Republican Party’s convention to 
follow this “democratic procedure" and also to submit the choice of the vice- 
presidential candidate to vote. It did so and Mr Nixon, like Mr Eisenhower, 
received a unanimous vote. This event, and his deportment during President 
Eisenhower’s illnesses, made Mr Nixon’s prospects of becoming President in his 
own right one day much better than they had ever been deemed before. Elis story 
up to now makes him a hopeful figure (as Mr Eden appeared to be in 1938), and 


*The inevitable twin-reproach, of “anti-semitism”, was also raised against him during the election campaign. A 
rabbi who knew' him well came forward to defend him against it. 


554 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


in the chief office he might conceivably produce a sanative effect on American 
policy and foreign relations. 

After the nominations America sat back with relief, for Mr Eisenhower’s re- 
election was held sure and he had been given a rousing build-up in the press as 
“the man who kept us out of war”. The phrase was reminiscent of similar phrases 
used about Mr Woodrow Wilson in 1916 and Mr Roosevelt in 1940, but by 1956 
a respite of three years was held to be a boon and he was given credit for this 
period of “peace”, such as it was. 

I was a witness of this election, as of the one in 1952, and realized that in fact 
war, localized or general, was near. I felt that a respite, at least, would be gained if 
election day (Nov. 6) passed without the eruption in the Middle East which for 
months obviously had been preparing (once the election is over the Zionist power 
to exert pressure diminishes, for a little while). I remember saying to an American 
friend on October 20 that if the next seventeen days could be got over without 
war the world might be spared it for another three or four years.* 

On October 29, eight days before the election, war came, by obvious 
predetermination of the moment held most suitable to cause consternation in 
Washington and London. From that moment events swept along on a tide of 
elemental forces let loose and only much later will mankind be able to see what 
was destroyed and what survived. For Britain and the family of oversea nations 
offsprung from it, this was nearly ruin, the foreseeable end of the involvement in 
Zionism. 

On October 29, 1956 the Israeli Government announced that it had begun a 
full-scale invasion of Egypt and that its troops had “advanced 75 miles into 
Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula”.** 

The news, coming after the long series of earlier attacks on the Arabs and their 
repeated “condemnation” by the United Nations, sent a shock of repugnance 
round the world. At that very moment the Hungarians were fighting and winning 
their people’s war against the Communist revolution. The two destructive forces 
released from Russia in October 1917 stood self-condemned by acts equally 
brutal. They were destroying themselves; there was no need to destroy them. At 
this instant great counter-forces of universal reprobation were released which 
would have been too strong for them. Not even the “Zionist pressure” in New 
York could make this deed appear to be “Egyptian aggression” or induce the 

*1 had in mind what is known to American politicians as “the Farley iaw”. Named after an exceptionally astute 
party-manager, Mr James A. Farley, who was held to have contrived the early electoral triumphs of Mr Roosevelt, 
the essence of this "law" is that American voters have decided by mid-October for whom they will vote and only 
their candidate’s death, war or some great scandal between then and November 6 can change their minds. The 
morning after the Israeli attack on Egypt Mr John O'Donnell wrote, "Spokesmen in the worried State Department, 
Pentagon" (War Office) "and headquarters of both parties agree that the Israelis launched their attack on Egypt 
because they were convinced that the United States would take no action in an Israeli war so close to the Presidential 
elections . . . Word came through to political headquarters that American Zionists had informed Tel Aviv that 
Israel would probably fare better under a Democratic administration of Slevenson and Kefauver than under a 
Republican regime of Eisenhower and Nixon” {New York Daily News). 

**See footnote on page 555. 


555 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


public multitudes to accept it. This was a gift from heaven, releasing 'The West” 
from both its dilemmas. It only needed to stand aside and, for once, let "world 
opinion” do the work; for on this occasion there was world opinion, produced by 
deeds that could not be hidden, disguised or misrepresented by "the press”. 

Within twenty-four hours the golden opportunity was cast away, The British 
and French Governments announced that they would invade the Suez Canal 
zone "unless Israeli and Egyptian troops agree to stop fighting and withdraw ten 
miles from the carnal within twelve hours”. As this would have left the Israeli 
troops near!) a hundred miles inside Egyptian territory, the demand obviously 
was not meant to be accepted by Egypt. Thereon the British and French air forces 
began intensive bombing of Egyptian airfields and other targets and by 
destroying Egypt's air weapon gave unchallenged victory to the invader. 

The future reader will hardly be able to imagine the feelings of an Englishman 
of my kind, who heard the news in America. Shame is too small a word, but as it is 
the only word 1 use it to express something l felt more deeply than even at the time 
of Munich, when I resigned from The Times as the only protest (a stupid one, I 
now estimate) I could make. I shall always remember the fairmindedness of 
Americans at this moment. Incredulous, shocked and bewildered, none that I 
met gave way to the glee over a British discomfiture which is instinctive, though 
irrational, in many Americans. Some of them realized that American policy, 
twisting and turning under "the pressure”, had mainly caused this calamitous 
denouement and shared my sense of shame. These were the ones who understood 
that the shame was that of all "the West”, in its servience. not particularly of 
England or America. 

However, the blame, as distinct from the shame, at that moment was Britain's. 
The consequences of this act reach so far into the future that they cannot be 
estimated now, but one thing will always be clear: that the glorious opportunity 


**Al the very moment of the invasion of Egypt another massacre of Arabs was carried out inside Israel and at a 
point far removed from the Egyptian frontier, namely, the frontier with Jordan, on the other side of Israel. 48 Arabs, 
men. women and children, of the village of Kafr Kassem, were killed in cold blood. This new Deir Yasin could only 
be taken bv the Arabs, inside or outside Israel, as a symbolic warning that the fate of “utter destruction . . . man, 
woman and child . . . save nothing that breatheth” hung over all of them, for these people were of the small Arab 
population that stayed in Israel after Deir Yasin and the creation of the new state. The deed was officially admitted, 
after it had become widely known and was the subject of an Arab protest en route to the United Nations (where it 
seems to have been ignored unto the date of adding this footnote!, by the Israeli premier, Mr Ben-Gurion six weeks 
later (Dec. 12). He then told the Israeli Parliament that the murderers “faced trial”, but as the Arabs remembered 
that the murderers of Deir Yasin, after "facing trial” and being convicted, had been released at once and publicly 
feted, this was of small reassurance to them. Up to the time this footnote (Dec 20) I have not seen any allusion, 
among the millions of words that have been printed, to the fate of the 215.000 fugitive Arabs (U.N, Report, April 
1056) who were huddled in the Gaza Strip when the Israelis attacked it and Egypt. The Israeli Government has 
announced that it will not give up this territory; earlier, it had announced that it would under no conditions permit 
the return of the Arab refugees to Israel. Therefore the lot of this quarter-million people, which at any earlier time 
would have received the indignant compassion of the world, has been entirely ignored. Presumably they are referred 
to in the only statement I have seen on the subject, the letter of eleven Arab states to the United Nations of Dec 14, 
stating that “Hundreds of men. women and children have been ruthlessly murdered in cold blood”, but there seems 
small prospect of impartial investigation or corroboration, and the Arab letter itself says, “The whole story will 
never be told and the extent of the tragedy will never be known”. However, in the particular ease of Kafr Kassem the 
facts are on authentic record. 


556 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


offered by the simultaneous events in Sinai and Hungary was thrown away, 
apparently through a series of miscalculations unprecedented, I should think, in 
history. 

I aim to show here that merely as a political gamble (surely it cannot be 
considered as an act of statesmanship) this was like the act of a man who might 
wager his entire fortune on a horse already withdrawn from a race. By no 
imaginable turn of events could it have benefited England (or France). 

Of the three parties concerned, Israel had nothing to lose and much to gain: the 
world's instant reprobation glanced off Israel when England and France dashed 
in to snatch the aggressor's cloak and win its war; it was left deep in Egyptian 
territory, cheering its "conquest". France had no more to lose, unhappily, than 
the lady in the soldiers' song who "lost her name again". France was left by its 
revolution the land of the recurrent fiasco, ever unable to rise out of the spiritual 
despondency where it lay. During 160 years it tried every form of government 
conceivable by man and found reinvigoration and new confidence in none. Its 
prime ministers changed so often that the public masses seldom knew their 
names; shadowy figures, they seemed indistinguishable even in appearance, and 
the French politician acquired a tradition of venality; the American comedian 
said he went to London to see the changing of the Guard and to Paris to see the 
changing of the Cabinet. A country rendered incapable, by a series of corrupted 
governments, of resistance to the German invader of its own soil in 1940, in 1956 
invaded Egyptian soil in the service of Israel. But this was only an episode in the 
sad story of France since 1789 and could not much affect its future. 

England was a different case, an example, a great name and a tradition of 
honourable dealing not less in hard times than in good ones. England had a soul 
to lose, in such company, and no world to gain. England had shown wisdom in 
applying the lessons of history. It had not tried to petrify an empire and to ward 
off the tides of change with bayonets. It had accepted the inevitability of change 
and successfully ridden those tides, successively transforming its Empire of 
colonies, first into a Commonwealth of independent oversea nations and 
colonies, and next, as more and more colonies attained to self-government, into a 
great family of peoples, held together by no compulsion at all, but by intangible 
bonds which, as the Coronation of the young Queen Elizabeth showed in 1953, 
were if anything stronger than ever before, not weaker. The avoidance of any 
rigid organization based on force, and the ever-open door to new forms of 
relationship between these associated peoples, made the family of nations sprung 
from "England" and "the British Empire'’ a unique experiment in human 
history, in 1956, and one of boundless promise, if the same course were 
continued.* The outstanding result of the apparent weakness of this elastic 
process was the strength it produced under strain; it yielded, without collapsing, 
to stresses which would have snapped a rigid organization based on dogmatic 

*See footnote on page 558. 


557 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


rules, and became taut again when the strain was past. 

Thus England had the whole achievement of British history to imperil, or lose, 
in [956 by any act which, in fact or even in appearance, reversed the policy, or 
method, which had gained it so great a reputation and produced, on balance, 
good material results. In that light the British Government’s action of October 
30, 1956 has to be considered. 

If the Suez Canal was “vital” to it, why had it ever withdrawn? If a friendly 
Egypt was vital after the withdrawal, why the calculated affront in July? If British 
ships were freely using the Canal, why the pretence that it was not “open'’ and 
that “the freedom and security of international shipping” were endangered? If 
any vital British interest was at stake, why did it wait until Israel attacked Egypt, 
and only then attack Egypt? 

The question may be turned and scrutinized from every angle, and always the 
same answer emerges. This cannot have been done for the sake of Britain or 


France; the moment chosen is incriminating. It would not have been done at all, 
had Israel not existed; ergo, the humiliation which England (and France, if the 
reader will) suffered was in that cause. The involvement begun by Mr. Balfour 
fifty years before produced its logical consequence, and by this act its 
continuance was ensured when release from it was at last at hand. 


If any rational calculations of national interest prompted this foolhardiest of 
Jameson Raids, they will one day appear in the memoirs of men concerned; 
personally, I doubt if it can ever be justified. At this moment it can only be 
examined in the light of four weeks’ developments, which have already seen the 
great fiasco. 

The enterprise was evidently long prepared between two of the parties at least, 
Israel and France, evidence of that soon appeared.** 


*This method is the exact opposite of that by which the world would be ruled under the '"world-government” 
schemes propounded from New York by Mr Bernard Baruch and his school of "'internationalists”. Their 
concept may in fact be called that of “super-Colonialism” and rests entirely on rigid organization, force and penalty. 
Speaking at the dedication of a memorial to President Woodrow Wilson in Washington Cathedral in December 
1956, Mr Baruch again raised his demand, in the following, staitlingly contradictory terms: "‘After two world wars 
. . . we still seek what Wilson sought, "a reign of law based on the consent of the governed . . . that reign of law can 
exist only when there is the force to maintain it. . . which is why we must continue to insist that any agreement on the 
control of atomic energy and disarmament be accompanied by ironclad provisions for inspection, control and 
punishment of transgressors' ”. 

* *C or respondents of The Times, Reuters and other newspapers and agencies subsequently reported that they had 
seen French aircraft and French air officers in uniform on Israeli fields during the invasion, and at the “victory 
party” given in Tel Aviv by the Israeli air force, when the Israeli commander. General Moshe Dayan, was present. 
These reports agreed in an important point: that the French Air Force was present to "cover” or provide “an air 
umbrella” for Tel Aviv if it were attacked by Egyptian aircraft. Reuters reported that some French air officers 
admitted attacking Egyptian tanks during the Sinai fighting. As far as the French were concerned, therefore, the 
pretence ofa descent on the Suez Canal to “separate” the belligerents was show n to be false, French officers and 
aircraft having been seen behind the Israeli lines in Israel and Sinai during the fighting. The Times correspondent 
reported “an undertaking on the part of France to do her best, if war broke out between Israel and Egypt, to prevent 
any action against Israel under the terms of the tripartite declaration of 1950 and to see that Israel had appropriate arms 
with which to fight" . The 1950 declaration pledged France impartially “to oppose the use of force or threat of force in 
that area. The three governments, should they find any of these states were preparing to violate frontiers or armistice 
lines, would . . . immediately take action ... to prevent such violations". 


558 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


In England the Government (up to the time of concluding this book) has 
refused the demand for enquiry into the charge of collusion, which cannot be 
established in the British (as distinct from the French) case. There does seem a 
possibility that the British action was a sudden one, taken on the spur of a 
moment deemed to be favourable. In that case, it was a titanic miscalculation, for 
when the British and French “ultimatum” was launched the United States had 
already called an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council and presented 
a resolution censuring the Israeli attack and demanding that the Israelis 
withdraw from Egyptian territory (Oct. 29). 

Thus the onlv effect of the British and French attack was to divert the 
reprobation of the world from Israel to themselves and by November 7 (after a 
second resolution calling on Israel to withdraw) an overwhelming majority of the 
General Assembly had duly transferred the weight of its censure to “Britain and 
France”, Israel then appearing in the third place among the parties told to 
withdraw.* 

By that time the military fiasco was as clear as the political one; English ears 
had had to listen for nearly five days to the reports of British bombing of 
Egyptians, the Suez Canal was blocked by sunken ships, President Nasser was 
more popular in the Arab world than he had ever been, and the British 
Government was gradually retreating from “no withdrawal” through 
“conditional withdrawal” to “unconditional withdrawal”. 

President Eisenhower and his administration, made the most of these events. 
What was coming was evidently known in Washington, (as the attack on Pearl 
Harbour had been foreknown). American residents had been told to leave the 
danger zone some days before the attack, and in the two days preceding it 
President Eisenhower twice admonished Mr Ben-Gurion, once in “urgent” and 
then in “grave” terms; the only answer he received was a radio message, delivered 
to him during an aeroplane trip from Florida to Virginia, telling him that Mr 
Ben-Gurion had launched the attack. 

However, the British government did not officially inform the President (or 
even the Dominion Governments) of its intention, and Mr Eisenhower was able 
to present a face of patient suffering to his people when he appeared on the 
television screen with the words, “We believe it” (the attack) “to have been taken 
in error for we do not accept the use of force as a wise or proper instrument for the 
settlement of international disputes”. This was an irreproachable statement, 

*From that moment, following the example set by the American President, the weight of censure was bv stages 
shifted from “Israel" to “Israel, Britain and France’’, then to “Britain and Frafice", and in the last stage to 
“Britain" (thus recalling the transformation earlier effected in the case of Hitler’s persecution of men, which began 
as “the persecution of political opponents", then became “the persecution of political opponents and Jews", then 
“Jews and political opponents" and. at the end, “of Jews”). 

A characteristic public comment of this period was made by Mrs Eleanor Roosevelt, who was generally accepted 
in America as the voice of her husband, the late President. She said at a news conference three days before the 
presidential election (she was campaigning for the Democratic nominee), “1 do not consider that Israel is an 
aggressor; she acted in self-defence ... 1 believe Britain and France were technically guilty of aggression”. (AVur 
York Times , Nov. 4, 1956). 


559 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


against a background of culpability (the American-prompted supply of French, 
British and Canadian arms to Israel all through the summer). If the British 
Government counted on “Zionist pressure" in Washington, it was deceived at 
that moment. There is always a margin of error in these things and Mr 
Eisenhower was ensured of election; in any case, the opportunity to divert his 
wrath to Britain spared him the need to spend any more of it on Israel (which, for 
that matter, had got what it wanted). A harsh word to England, moreover, has 
been a popular thing in America since the Boston Tea Party; is it conceivable that 
a British government did not realize that? 

The British action seems to be accountable only in the context of the entire 
Zionist delusion. If the thing was to be done at all, the only hope lay in a swift and 
massively efficient operation which would have gained possession of an intact 
canal and have confronted the world with something accomplished. The British 
undertaking was slow from the start and very soon showed all the signs of second 
thoughts. After the fiasco The Times (Nov. 16) reported from the British base at 
Cyprus, “The British Government's decision to intervene in Egypt was taken 
without the advice of nearly all its senior diplomatic representatives in the area. It 
was continued against the warnings of most of them about its probable effects on 
the future of British relations with the Arab nations . . . When details of the 


British ultimatum to Cairo and the decision to intervene militarily against Egypt 
were first learned in British Embassies and Legations in the Arab countries the 
reactions in nearly all of them appear to have ranged from frank disbelief to talk 
of its being potentially a disaster . . . Many were incredulous or aghast when the 
form of this direct action appeared to associate British policy with that of Israel 
and France" (this passage vividly recalled to me the feeling I found in “British 
Embassies and Legations" throughout Europe at the time of Munich). 

So much for the political decision; next, the military execution of it. The Times 
(Nov. 17) reported that among the military commanders in Cyprus “There was a 
nearly unanimous feeling that if it were done it had best be done quickly. The 
failure to allow them to complete the job has produced a sense of frustration and 
confusion among many senior officers here, as well as among many of their 
subordinates". The eminent American military writer, Mr Hanson Baldwin, 
later discussing “A Confused Invasion" which was “likely to become a famous 
case study in the world's military staff colleges", said that under the confused 
direction from London “the multiple political, psychological and military 
objectives became inextricably confused; the result was no clearcut purpose, or at 
least no objective that military force could achieve, given the limitations imposed 

‘it* 

on it . 


It soon became apparent that something was indeed delaying and deterring the 
British and French governments in carrying out the enterprise. To the French 
this mattered little, for the reasons previously given; for the British, reputation, 
honour, the hope of prosperity, the cohesion of the great British family were all at 


560 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


stake. Already, in the stress of those days, the Canadian Prime Minister had 
given warning that such actions might lead to the dissolution of the 
Commonwealth. In the United Nations Britain stood in the pillory with Israel 
and France, a sorry sight indeed. Against huge adverse votes, only Australia and 
New Zealand remained at its side, and that possibly from dogged fidelity more 
than conviction. 

What caused the hazardous undertaking, so vaingloriously announced, to be 
delayed until it fizzled out? The “vigorous and emphatic protest” from President 
Eisenhower and the United Nations resolution presumably caused the first 
reconsideration in London. Then there was the agonizing coincidence of events. 
As soon as the British and French began to bomb Egyptians the Moscovites 
turned back into Hungary and began to massacre Hungarians. Then at the 
united Nations the spokesmen of East and West began to shout “You’re 
another” at each other; while British and French aeroplanes bombed Port Said 
the British and French delegates accused the Soviet of inhuman savagery; while 
Soviet tanks murdered the Magyars the Soviet delegates accused the British and 
French of naked aggression. These exchanges began to show something of the 
professional mendacity of peddlers in a Levantine bazaar. 

The picture then took on nightmare shapes. Sir Anthony Eden, the rising 
young man when he resigned in 1938, received the resignation of Mr Anthony 
Nutting, the rising young man of 1956, who as Minister of State for Foreign 
Affairs “had most strongly advised against British intervention in Egypt”, and of 
other colleagues. To restore his position he had recourse to Sir Winston 
Churchill, who proclaimed, “Israel, under the gravest provocation, erupted 
against Egypt. . .Ido not doubt that we can shortly lead our course to a just and 
victorious conclusion. We intend to restore peace and order in the Middle East 
and I am convinced that we shall achieve our aim. World peace, the Middle East 
and our national interest will surely benefit in the long run from the 
Government’s resolute action”. 

This, possibly one of the last of Sir Winston’s pronouncements, remains for the 
future to audit. The British action has strongly Churchillian traits, and his 
successor was so closely associated with him that, at all events, it is unlikely to 
have been done without Sir Winston's approval. At that same moment the 
veteran published the second volume of his History of the English-speaking 
Peoples, and the New York Times said of it, “The author is proud of the fact that 
his small island, The little kingdom in the northern sea’, although possessing 
when this volume begins but three million inhabitants, should have civilized three 
continents and educated half the world”. Only time can show whether the British 
attack on Egypt was in that civilizing and educating tradition, or will remain to 
the discredit of England. 

Then came the biggest of the shocks resulting fromthe British Government's 
action. The Soviet Premier Bulganin, in notes to Sir Anthony Eden and the 


561 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


French Prime Minister, plainly threatened them with rocket and atomic attack if 
they did not “stop the aggression, stop the bloodshed 11 (the bloodshed in 
Budapest continued and the stream of Hungarian fugitives across the hospitable 
Austrian frontier swelled towards a hundred thousand souls; in Budapest 
another Bela Kun man of 1919, Mr Ferenc Munnich, became Moscow’s “key 
man” in succession to Rakosi and Geroe, and began the new terror). More than 
that, Mr Bulganin in a letter to President Eisenhower proposed a joint American- 
Soviet attack “within the next few hours” on Britain and France, a proposal 
which the White House in a press statement, merely termed “unthinkable”. 

Is anything “unthinkable” in our time? The Hitler-Stalin alliance of 1939 (an 
obvious development, which the present writer and others foretold) was 
portrayed to the masses as something “unthinkable” until it was made and the 
Second War begun. The New York Times at this period quoted “a senior United 
States diplomat with long experience in the Arab world” as implicitly approving 
the suggestion: “Our rejection of the Russian offer as 'unthinkable’, without 
offering to consider it within the framework of the United Nations, is interpreted 
here” (he was in Jordan) “as meaning that despite whatever we may say we will 
always side with the West and Israel when the chips are down”. 

No doubt the proposed joint American-Soviet atomic attack on England was 
unthinkable at that time, but in fact the two countries were acting together 
against England in different ways, which combined to produce a massive 
pressure from two sides. Sir Anthony Eden had embarked on torrential rapids in 
a frail canoe. There is in America a constant, latent matricidal instinct towards 
Europe in general and England in particular (it cannot be explained but must 
always be taken into account) which is most easily made active by the charge of 
“colonialism”. The fact that America is the greatest colonial power in the world 
(for 1 see no valid difference between oversee/ and overland expansion)* does not 
alter this; it is an irrational impulse which has always to be taken into account in 
calculating the results of any contemplated action involving “American 
opinion”. 

However, “opinion” today is a manufactured product and can be produced in 
any form desired. What was much more important, and should not have been 
overlooked, was that President Eisenhower, quite evidently, was selected, 
nominated and in effect elected by the “internationalist” group which dominated 
Presidents Wilson, Roosevelt and Truman, and that American state policy, 
under this direction, has always supported the revolution and taken on an anti- 
British nature at moments of peak-crisis. The ultimate “internationalist” 


*The United States, of course, is the occupant, by conquest or by purchase, of British, Dutch, French and Spanish 
colonies, and of vast Mexican and Russian territories ; only the virtual extirpation during the life of the American 
Republic, of the original inhabitants of this great area produces a present picture differing from that of today’s 
British, Dutch, French and Spanish colonies, with their millions of “colonial peoples”. American’s oversea 
possessions, by conquest or purchase, are few. The Panama Canal Zone, which is under permanent United States 
sovereignty, is a separate case; if it proves anything, in relation to the Suez Canal and Britain, it proves only the 
advantages of good “title” and of military adjacency. 


562 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


ambition is the world-government project, to be achieved through the 
convergent, destructive forces of revolutionary-Communism and revolutionary- 
Zionism, and it is the essence of this ambition that the two great English-speaking 
countries on either side of the Atlantic be kept divided, for only through their 
division can empire be achieved. This ambition dominated the Second War. 

President Eisenhower first emerged as the third figure in the Roosevelt- 
Marshall-Eisenhower group. The anti-British nature of General Marshall’s 
proposals in the war years has been earlier shown; he was, in fact, Mr Churchill’s 
great adversary and the man responsible for the fact that (as the official British 
history of the war recorded in 1956) despite Mr Churchill’s worldwide renown 
and apparently formidable authority, he proved, in fact, unable to shape a single 
major strategic decision during that war; by the outcome of which the Roosevelt- 
Marshall-Eisenhower policy must be judged. In the final palaver, at Yalta, Mr 
Roosevelt’s dominant wish was to effect injury on Britain, as the Yalta papers 
show.* 

General Eisenhower, as the commander in Europe, gave the military order 
resulting, in effect, in the cession of half Europe to the revolution. 

Against this background, the support of President Eisenhower could not have 
been counted on by the British Government; the prehistory is too weighty. He 
was the executor of the Roosevelt-Marshall policy in the war, and seven years 
after its end was patently selected by powerful backers, in opposition to Senator 
Taft, as a man who would further pursue the “internationalist” policy. What was 
unexpected, and cannot be justified, is the length to which he went in publicly 
humiliating Britain at this time, by enforcing the “unconditional” withdrawal in 
the most abject circumstances, by virtually ostracizing the British Ambassador in 
Washington, and generally by displaying a rancour reminiscent of President 
Roosevelt at Yalta. 

This display of repugnance (the reproachful mien w 7 as seen by the entire 
country on the television screen) was without moral basis. The “pressure” on 
Britain to withdraw 7 from the Canal, and the ensuing “pressure” on Britain to 
join w 7 ith America in the provocative insult to Egypt, which was the true start of 
the war-crisis of 1956, originated in the White House. 

Moreover, this was done while the massacre in Hungary went on and apart 
from saying that his heart went out to the victims the American President and his 
administration remained passive in face of that, much graver affair. In this, 
again, he was consistent with his earlier acts: the dropping of the “repudiation of 
Yalta” pledge, after his election in 1952. and the order to halt the Allied armies 


*“The President said he would tell the marshall" (Stalin) “something indiscreet, since he would not wish to say it in 
front of Prime Minister C hurchill. . . The British were a peculiar people and wished to have their cake and eat it too 
. . . He suggested the ‘internationalizing’ of the British colony of Hong Kong and that Korea be placed under a 
trusteeship with the British excluded. Stalin indicated that lie did not think this was a good idea and added that 
‘Churchill would kill us’. When post-war political questions came up. he often took positions that were anti- 
British”, (New York Times, March 17. 1955). 


563 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


east of Berlin in 1945. The effect of all these was to continue that “support of the 
revolution” which was the dominant tenet of American state policy during two 
wars. 

One great lesson was learned through the events of October and November, 
1956. They showed that, if sufficiently shocked, something like “w orld opinion” 
can express itself through the debating society known as the United Nations in 
New York. The demonstration of repugnance w as overw helming in both cases, 
those of the attack on Egypt and of the Soviet massacre in Hungary. They 
showed, further, that as an instrument for giving effect to any such moral censure 
the United Nations is utterly impotent. In the graver case, that of Hungary, it 
could do nothing whatever, because the Soviet was in possession and the United 
States was passive. In the other case, that of Egypt, an immediate result was 
produced only because both these countries joined against Britain; the one with 
“measures short of war" (the refusal of oil supplies) and the other w ith the direct 
threat of war. 

In fact, the British withdrawal from Suez was effected by American-Soviet 
collaboration, and while “the internationalists” are able to control the American 
sciection-and election-machine that will remain a great danger to the world. An 
Eisenhower-Bulganin pact is not inherently more “unthinkable”, in the 
circumstances of this century, than was the Hitler-Stalin pact in 1939; at all 
events, the professed intention (to crush “Communism”) is the same in both 


cases. 

II'the British Government put reliance on “Zionist pressure" in Washington 
(and this had effected the British withdrawal from Palestine and the 
establishment of Israel in 1947-8), this was another miscalculation at that 
particular moment. It left out of account the shock-effect of the Israeli attack and 
the greater shock-effect of the British and Trench one, which turned the eyes of 
the world chiefly on Britain and much strengthened President Eisenhower in 
adopting the moral attitude. 

Thus the British Government found itself between threats of Soviet attack, on 


the one hand, and a hostility, apparently surprising to it, from the White House, 
on the other. The “vital lifeline” was blocked, and Britain's oil supplies were 
blocked with it. Apparently it looked confidently to the American Government 
to make these good and then learned that it could expect no American oil until it 
“got out”; by this time the entire brunt of the affair fell on Britain. British 
representatives in Washington were coldly received and found that no matter of 
substance would be discussed with them; they were left to understand that they 
might call again if they washed, in their quest for oil, when Britain had “got out”. 
The American President in those days went much further in the public 
humiliation of the British Government than he needed to go, and the reason for 
this must be sought in the anti-British feeling which was shown in the recorded 
deeds and words of his patron. President Roosevelt. The whole history of 


564 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


American governmental machinations in the matter, during his presidency, 
deprived him of ground for the posture of honest indignation. 

Unhappily, the British humiliations were earned. The attack on Egypt was 
disastrous in every major point: in its plain appearance of complicity with Israel, 
in its delivery at the very moment of Soviet defeat in Hungary, and in it its 
indecision and ineffectiveness, once begun. Sir Anthony Eden, wot n down by the 
strain and politically ruined, retired to Jamaica to recuperate. '"Unconditional 
withdrawal" (of the British and French, not of the original aggressor. Israel) 
began. An "international force", hurriedly assembled by the United Nations, 
appeared on the Stiez Canal and hung around, wondering what it was supposed 
to do. President Nasser's renown soared in the Arab world; the Canal remained 
blocked; Egypt declared that it would not give up an inch of Egyptian territory; 
Israel began to complain about "anti-semitism" in Egypt. 

Three weeks after the attack the drunken Kruschev, the Soviet Communist 
leader, jeered at the British and French Ambassadors at a Polish Embassy 
reception in Moscow: "You say we want war, but you now have got yourselves in 
a position 1 would call idiotic . . . You have given us a lesson in Egypt". Who 
could gainsay him? 

A week later the New York Times summed up the balance: "Britain and France 
have gambled and appear to be losing disastrously . . . Israel has so far emerged 
from the crisis in a somewhat better position" (Nov. 25).* 

The same issue prominently reported the remarks of a member of the Israeli 
Parliament, a Mr Michael Hazani: "Mr Hazani expounded his theory that the 
failure of Britain and France to clinch their Suez Canal objective was a lucky 
thing for Israel . . .The Israelis feel less isolated today than before their October 
29 thrust into Sinai which alienated friends and raised the hackles of enemies 
around the world . . . Israelis revelled in their newly developed friendship with 
France which supplied the tools which enabled their foces to whip the Egyptians 
... A few weeks ago Israelis had a fright when they feared they might have brought 
the world to the brink of a thermomielear war. The initial scare has worn off, the 
threats are regarded as tactics in a war of nerves . . . Some Knesset members said 
that Israel too could play that game ... so they ask why Israel should not exploit 
her current nuisance value to induce the great powers to press Egypt and the 
other Arab states to negotiate peace". 

These sentences may show the reader how little hope of respite the world has 
until the Zionist adventure is liquidated. Fiasco is the inevitable fate of all who 
associate themselves with it because its own inevitable end is fiasco, but the brunt 
of each disaster must and always will fall on these associates, not on the original 
authors of the mad ambition. Today it cuts across all rational relationships 
between nations, antagonizing those which have no reason for discord, 


*Two weeks later, after this chapter was finished, the same newspaper dismissed Britain as henceforth “a second 
class power”. 


565 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


misleading some to undertakings which cannot possibly bring them good, and 
prompting others to threats of world war. 

In the case of England, which by this act was reinvolved in the morass from 
which Mr Earnest Bevin had extricated it in 1947-8, the penalties on this occasion 
were so heavy that, if the entire process of involvement in Zionism be likened to 
thirteen steps to the gallows, this may be said to have been the twelfth step; the 
only worse thing that could befall England through it would be final calamity. 
Already, on this occasion, the warning about the disintegration of the 
Commonwealth was heard from the highest place outside the British island itself, 
and on no earlier occasion had that been even a remote peril. It was put in the 
dock, beside Israel (and France) before the world and rebuked like a miscreant. It 
suddenly found alarming menaces arising on all sides. None of the aims 
announced were achieved, its lighting forces were not allowed to complete even a 
repugnant task, nothing but discredit remained. At the end higher taxation, 
deprivation and hardship fell on the land, as the price, and this was in truth 
further tribute to Zion. 

In all this, one thing is clear: none of it could have happened but for the state set 
up in 1948. If general war had come, it would have been begun by Israel; if it 
should yet come out of this affair (and that is still an open possibility as this book 
is ended) it would have been begun by Israel. 

Speaking for myself, if I could have persuaded myself that the British attack on 
Egypt was truly prompted by concern for any British interest, I would have 
accepted it in the belief that the British Government knew things, unknown to 
me, which somehow justified what seemed by all outer appearance indefensible 
and foredoomed. I cannot persuade myself of that. This was but the latest 
misstep in the tragedy of errors which began with the original British 
commitment to Zionism in 1903; I have traced them all in this book. 


I think this is clearly implicit in what was said from the Government benches in 
the House of Commons at the fiasco’s end. Sir Anthony Eden being in Jamaica, 
the task of the apologia fell to his colleagues and one of these, Mr Anthony Head, 
the Minister of Defence, rested the apologia, not on any British interest at all, but 
on the claim to have averted “a crippled Israel, a bombed Tel Aviv and a united 
Arab world" (again, I have not the text and quote from the New York Times; I 
hold that politicians must stand to what the world understands them to say). 

Now, the corollary of the achievement claimed is a disunited Arab world, a 
bombed Port Said and a crippled Egypt (of these three things one was done, the 
bombing, and the others were not achieved). What British interest is served by 
disuniting the Arab world and crippling Egypt? What Englishman would have 
supported the act if it had been put to him in those terms before it was done? 
When was the case, for supporting “the fulfilment of Zionist aspirations”, ever 
put to the British elector in those terms? 


In some diseases modern medicine is able to identify the original source of 


566 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZiON 

infection, the primary sore. The primary source of all these troubles, as they 
culminated in the deeds of October 29 and 30, 1956 is demonstrably Zionism: 
they could not have happened in that way without it. In the logical sequence to its 
every act since it took shape as a political force in the ghettoes of Russia some 
eighty years ago, it led the world to the edge of universal war, and on that brink 
none knew which of their friends of yesterday would be the foe of the morrow. 
Here was ’"the deception of nations” at the full, indeed. 

Can time distil good of all this? Clearly it can and will; only for contemporaries 
is the needless turmoil in which w r e live infuriating. The first signs of the long- 
delayed turn for the better begin to show. The nations which lie in the chains of 
revolutionary-Communism are beginning to throw them off; the Eastern 
European peoples yet may save themselves by their exertions and the rest of the 
captive West by their example. 1 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.* 

The events of October and November 1956 themselves supplied the apt 
concluding chapter for this book.** I believe they also added the conclusive 
evidence to its argument. 


*A development which may have been foreshadowed by a report (if it was accurate) published in the New York 
Times on December 30, 1956, that “fewer than 900 of the 14,000 Jews who have lied from Hungary . . . have decided 
to resettle in Israel”, the “vast majority” preferring to go to America or Canada. On the other hand, if they follow 
the example of their predecessors they will swell the mass of “explosive” Eastern Jew's there whose transplantation, 
during the last seventy years, has produced the present situation; the incitement of these against America w'as shown 
by quotation from Jewish authorities in the preceding chapter. 

**As to the Sue/ affair, the apt footnote was supplied by President Eisenhower on January 5, 1957 when he asked 
Congress for standing authority to use the armed forces of the United States against ''overt armed aggression from 
any nation controlled by international Communism” in the Middle East. He thus envisaged doing very much what 
he had censured the Eden Government fordoing. An example &f “overt” aggression is presumably the sinking of the 
Maine in Havana Harbour; the explosion was “overt” and it was attributed to Spain. Before and after the attack on 
Egypt the international press began to accuse one Arab nation after another of being “controlled” by international 
Communism, and President Eisenhower's request to Congress again opens the prospect that the much-heralded 
extirpation of Communism might prove, in the event, to be an attack on the Arabs, not on Communism. The 
description, “controlled by Communism”, is incapable of definition or proof, and simple to falsify through 
propaganda. For instance, the New York Times on Dec 2,1956 published pictures of “Russian tanks captured by the 
Israelis” during the attack on Egypt. Readers’ objections led it to admit that the tanks were in fact American. 
Whether they were captured from the Egyptians remains open to question; anyone can photograph a tank and write 
a caption. Israel w'as originally set up with Soviet arms, but is not on that account said to be "controlled by 
international Communism”. 

The news of President Eisenhower’s act was followed by a sharp rise in various Israel shares on the American 
Stock Exchange and by sermons of praise in several New York synagogues. A possible reason for this w as the fact 
that the President undertook to act militarily in the Middle East only in response to request from “any nation or 
group of nations” attacked. As Egypt was widely declared to be “the aggressor” in the attack on itself in October 
1956, this proviso again lies open to many interpretations, at need. If the words were earnestly meant, they imply 
that American forces would have been used, on Egyptian request, to repel the Israeli attack of October, 1956. That is 
difficult to imagine; to put it mildly, American military intervention in response to a request from any other Middle 
Eastern slate than Israel is hard to picture; however, times change and all things are possible. 


567 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


EPILOGUE 

If this book has any sombre look, that is the native hue of the story it tells, not 
the reflection of my own cast of mind. I have written with feeling: the feeling of a 
contemporary, participant, eye-witness and of a journalist thwarted in his 
calling, which in my belief should serve truth without fear or favour, not special 
interests. 1 have seen more of the events of our century and of the secret 
perversions of national purposes than most, and have discovered through this 
experience that it was not all chance, but design. Therefore I have written a 
protest, but it is a protest against the suppression of truth, not against life. 

It is a contemporary's tale of history in the making. After my time will come 
the historians, who from the fragments they disinter will assemble the story in all 
its elements. As well might one judge the impulses of a man from his skeleton. 
However, they may perceive things now hidden from me, and, above all, they will 
hnd that it was all necessary to the state of affairs in which they find themselves 
(and that, in the case of historians, is usually a comfortable one). Between the two 
depictments, somehwere, lies the whole truth; my part of it is the living protest of 
the living participant. 

No doubt all these things are essential to the ultimate purpose, and I have no 
doubt about the nature of that, but they were unnecessary when they happened, 
and that is the theme of my remonstrance. The ultimate good end could have 
been reached more quickly without them, I believe; however, I know that all these 
things are not for mortal man to comprehend and can imagine that in God’s 
dispensation these recurrent ordeals are necessary to the ultimate self-liberation 
of the human soul. Under that same dispensation, the believer must protest 
against them as they occur. 

Anyway, I leave the dispassionate analysis to the future scribe, whose flesh and 
heartbeat will not be involved; to him the microscope, to me the living spectacle. I 
am involved. “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. 

In our time, I judge, a barbaric superstition born in antiquity and nurtured 
through the ages by a semi-secret priesthood, has returned to plague us in the 
form of a political movement supported by great wealth and power in all great 
capitals of the world. Through the two methods used, revolution from below and 
the corruption of governments from above, it has come far towards success in a 
fantastic ambition of achieving world dominion, using these two instruments to 


568 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


incite nations against each other. 

I cannot presume to judge what is evil; thinking makes it so. I only know what I 
feel to be evil; perhaps I am wrong. Anyway, by my own sensations and 
standards I have felt, during the labour of preparing this book, that I lived with 
evil. The forces which have been projected into the 20th Century, as from some 
dinosauric cavern, are superstitious ones. I have had a constant sense of contact 
with the minds of men like Ezekiel, who in barbarous times had barbarous 
thoughts. I had a distinct feeling of re-encounter with such minds in our present 
time, though in a place recently redeemed from barbarism, when I read a book, A 
Pattern of Islands, by Sir Arthur Grimble. 

This recounts the author’s experiences, early in the 20th Century, as a British 
colonial administrator in a remote group of Pacific islands, the Gilberts, where 
the people lived in a state of primeval superstition until 1892, when a British 
protectorate was proclaimed. I find an uncanny resemblance between the curses 
enumerated in Deuteronomy, which forms The Law of Zionist nationlism today, 
and the words of a curse on a cooking oven, used by these islands before the 
British came. The sorcerer, squatting naked in the dark before dawn over his 
enemy’s fireplace and stabbing it with a stick, mutters: 

“Spirit of madness, spirit of excrement, spirit of eating alive, spirit of 
rottenness! I stab the fire of his food, the fire of that man Naewa. Strike west of 
him, you! Strike east of him, you! Strike as I stab, strike death! Strangle him, 
madden him, shame him with rottenness! His liver heaves, it heaves, it is 
overturned and torn apart. His bowels heave, they heave, they are torn apart and 
gnawed. He is black mad, he is dead. It is finished: he is dead, dead, dead. He 
rots”. 

The comparison between this and many passages in Deuteronomy and Ezekiel 
is instructive in this time when the Talmud-Torah is literally invoked as The Law 
ordaining such deeds as that committed at Deir Yasin; the statement of the 
Jewish Eneyclopaedia, that the Talmud teaches belief in the literal efficacy of 
cursing, is also relevant. Such passages always occur to me when politicians 
invoke “the Old Testament”; each time I wonder if they have read it, and if they 
comprehend the relationship between these superstitions of antiquity and 
current events, brought about with their help. 

In my judgment we have to deal with a force, released on the world in the 20th 
Century, the leaders of which think in terms of such superstitions; to what else 
can Dr. Chaim Weizmann’s belated, tormented words have alluded, “ . . . the 
resurgence of the old evil in a new and more horrible guise”. 

Only this element of dark superstition, in my estimate, can account for the fear 
to which the Jewish masses yield, when they surrender to Zionist nationalism. 
They were almost liberated from it by the century of emancipation and in another 
fifty years would have been involved in mankind, but now have been drawn back 
into its clutch. Again, I felt as if I were reading a description of the ghettoized 


569 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


masses in the Talmudic areas when I came across this description of pre¬ 
protectorate days in the Gilbert Islands: 

“A man with sixty generations of terror-struck belief whispering in his blood 
. . . was easy meat for the death magic . . . Generation on generation of sorcerers 
who willed evil, and of people who dreaded their power, had lived out their lives 
in these islands. The piled-up horror of their convictions had achieved, down the 
ages, a weight and shadow of its own, an immanence that brooded over 
everything. It was man’s thoughts, more potent than ghosts, that haunted the 
habitation of men. One felt that practically anything could happen in that 
atmosphere”. 

“Men’s thoughts, more potent than ghosts, haunted the habitations of men”. 
The words seemed to me to apply to the condition of these masses, with more 
than sixty generations of such beliefs whispering to them, who towards the end of 
last century began to be wrested back from the daylight towards the tribal gloom. 
Again, the liberation so barely missed seemed to me to be described in these 
words of an old woman of the Gilbert Islands who remembered the earlier time: 

“Listen to the voices of the people in their lodges. We work in peace, we talk in 
peace, for the days of anger are gone . . . How beautiful is life in our villages, now 
that there is no killing and war is no more”; and these words, again, most strongly 
recall 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”. 

The feeling I had, in tracing the story of this ancient superstition and its re- 
emergence as a political force in our century, was that of contact with a living, evil 
thing. The destructive revolution, in my view, is part of it and I could have written 
exactly what an American diplomat, Mr Frank Rounds, junior, wrote in his 
diary on Christmas Day of 1951: “In Moscow, you feel that evil exists as a thing, 
as a presence; that is my thought this Christmas Day”. 

In this 20th Century process, which I feel as an accompanying, evil presence, 
all of us now alive, Jew and Gentile, are involved, and most of us will see the 
denouement. As to that, Mr. Bernard J. Brown in 1933 misgivingly wrote, “Of 
course we must be feared and eventually hated if we persist in absorbing 
everything America offers us and yet refuse to become Americans just as we have 
always refused to become Russians or Poles.” 

This statement applies to all countries of the West, not only to America, but 
Mr Brown was wrong. What he foresaw is one thing the Talmudists cannot 
achieve; hatred is their monopoly, and creed, and they cannot make Christians, 
or Gentiles, hate Jews. The hateful things done by the West in this century were 
done under Talmudic prompting; hatred and vengeance are not innate in 
Westerners, and their faith forbids these. The teaching of hatred, as part of a 
religion, still comes only from the literal Torah-Tulmudists in the revolutionary 
area, in Palestine, and where they have nested in the Western capitals. No 


570 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


Westerner would speak as a Zionist leader spoke to a Jewish meeting at 
Johannesburg in May, 1953: "The beast that is called Germany must not be 
trusted. The Germans must never be forgiven and the Jews must never have any 
contact or dealings with the Germans”. 

The world cannot live like that, and for this reason the insensate plan must 
ultimately fail. This is the heresy which the teaching of Christ above all else 
repudiated; it is the one to which the political leaders of the West have lent 
themselves since Mr Balfour, just fifty years ago, began to subordinate national 
policy to it. When the approaching climax has been overcome this heretic 
teaching, injected into the West from the Talmudic centre in Russia, will pass. 

As a writer, I believe it will pass sooner and with less trouble for all involved, 
the more the general masses know about what has gone on in these fifty years. 

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


571 



INDEX 


Aaron. 26-28. 31. 

Abbell, Maxwell. 497. 531. 

Abd el Rahman. 1 1 7. 

Abdullah ibn Maynnin. 140. 143. 

A bill u. 29. 

Abraham. 74. 127. 

Abrahams. A. 516. 

Abram. 26. 

Abu Isa. 103. 

Abu Ishak of Elvira. 1 14. 

Aeheson. Dean. 316. 

Aeton. Lord. 135. 136. 152. 165. 

Adams. James Truslow. 312. 

Adams, President John. 155. 156. 192. 
Adenauer, Dr. 467. 

A gag. King. 7. 53. 

Aerippa. 69. 

Ahasuerus. Kina. 108. 109. 120. 

Alexander 11. Czar. 188. 195. 240. 241. 332. 
461. 

Alexander III. Czar. 240. 

Alexander. Field Marshall. 368. 

Alexander of Yugoslavia. King. 319. 

Alienbv. General Lord. 257. 259. 286. 

A mere. Leopold. 250. 303. 424. 429. 438. 465. 
513 .' 

Amos. 9. 10. 182. 

Anti pa ter. 54. 

Antony. 54. 

Arrabanel. Isaac. 1 15. 

Ariaxerxes. 44. 46. 47. 130. 

Asquith. Ladv Cvnlhia. 225. 

Asquith. Herbert'. 247. 248. 250-252. 263. 264. 
Attlee. Clement. 380. 425. 431. 

Auerbach, Philip. 404. 405. 

Avniel. Dr. Benjamin. 511. 

Baaroff. 241. 

Bakunin. Michel. 169-174. 202. 209-212. 485. 
Balabanoff. Angelica. 358. 

Baldwin. Hanson W. 367. 538. 539. 553. 560. 
Baldwin, Stanley. 303. 32.3. 324. 327. 328. 
Balfour. A.J. 36. 125. 189. 224. 225. 227-229. 
231. 241. 243. 245. 246. 248. 250. 251. 262. 

265. 266. 269. 270. 281. 285. 286. 289. 291. 

292. 299-301. 303. 325. 328. 334. 427. 429. 

432. 434. 438. 458. 465. 492. 526. 535. 538. 

571. 

Barabbits. 68 
Barkley. Albert. 532. 

Baric. Karl. 408. 

Baron. Prof. Salo. 85. 

Barron. Breton. 379. 382. 

Barr tick Abbe. 152. 153. 157. 158. 212. 273. 

341. 387. 

Barthou. M. 148. 

Baruch. Bernard. 241. 261. 315. 318. 323. 330. 
354. 359. 360. 366. 389. 442. 446. 447. 470. 
472-478. 518. 527-529. 558. 

Beaconsiicld, Lord (Disraeli). 165. 

Beamish, Major Tuft on. 420. 

Beaty, Prof. John O. 266. 272. 

Begin, Menachem. 463. 464. 519. 520. 524. 


Bclgion. Montgomery. 401. 

Belloc. Hilaire. 342. 

Belshazzar. King. 36-39. 109. 162. 278. 279. 
Benesh, Edouard. 323. 

Ben-Gurion. 486. 513. 515-519. 521. 523. 525. 

543. 549. 550. 556. 559. 

Benjamin (Biblical). 46. 

Benjamin, Hilde. 421. 501. 

Bennett, F.W. 545. 

Bennike, General Vague. 533. 

v_ 

Bcrendsen, Sir Carl. 455. 

Berger. Rabbi Elmer. 4. 46. 108. 199. 224. 270. 

281. 457. 482. 487. 540. 

Berman. Jakub. 502-505. 

Bernadotte. C ount Eolke. 456. 460-464. 466. 
520. 

Ben, Isaac. 131. 

Bevin. Ernest. 431 -433. 448. 459. 51 7. 518. 540. 
566. 

Birch. Nigel. 403. 

Blanc. Louis. 169. 170. 2.32. 361. 

Blum. Leon. 327. 

Bohlcn. Charles L. 374. 

Borkcnau, E. 416. 

Bonnann. Marlin. 395. 

Bors. General. 375. 

Bowman. Dr. Isaiah. 285. 

Brandeis. Mr. Justice. 1 15. 241.242. 260. 261. 
265-269. 293. 294. 299. 311. 315. 321. 417. 
499. 

Briand. Aristide. 327. 

Bricker. Senator. 537. 

Brock, Ray. 347. 

Brockdorff-Ranl/au, Count. 358. 

Bros/, Joseph (Tito). 408. 

Brown, Bernard .1.85. 110. 130.292.341.417. 

449. 479. 487. 570. 

Brownell Junior. Herbert. 386. 

Brueker. Wilbur M. 509. 

Brunswick, Duke of. 145. 146. 148. 155. 158. 
Buchan. John. 121. 

Bulganin. Nicolai. 280. 38 1.495. 561. 562. 564. 
Burgess, Guy. 144. 264. 380, 381. 

Burke, Edmund. 148. 150. 153. 154. 157. 165. 

192. 211. 272. 394. 

Burns. General ELM. 521-523. 

Butcher, Captain Harry C. 372. 

Butenko. 420. 

Byrnes, Senator James E. 354. 366. 367. 382. 
385. 428. 444. 475. 

Caesar. 65. 67. 

Caiaphas. 67. 68. 

Cardozo, Mr. Justice. 31 i. 316. 

Carlson, John Roy. 347. 

('arson. Sir Edward. 250. 259. 

Carter, Hodding. 319. 

Casey, R. 381. 

Cassel. Sir Ernest. 204. 

Cecil, Lord Robert. 248. 249. 

Chamberlain. H.S. 127. 133. 134. 200. 
Chamberlain, Neville. 322. 324. 328. 331. 332. 
334. 


581 





INDEX 


Chamberlain, W.H. 418. 419. 

Chambers, Whittaker. 99. 380. 383. 387. 446. 
Charles II, King. 122. 

Charles, Prince. 550. 

Chancer. 342. 343. 

Cha umette. 151. 

Chauvin, Nicolas. 479. 

Chefdebien, Marquis de. 160. 

Chesterton, A.K. 412. 

Chesterton, G.K. 342. 408. 437. 

Chiang Kai-shek, General. 466. 

Chiang Kai-shek, Mine. 239. 

Chodorov, Frank. 92. 486. 

Christ. 73. 89. 90. 161. 272. 472. 

Churchill, Colonel. 199. 

Churchill, John, Duke of Marlborough. 517. 
Churchill, Randolph. 518. 

Churchill. Winston. 125. 165. 227. 241. 242. 
253. 262. 272. 273. 280. 281. 292. 293. 304. 
307. 325. 330-338. 359. 361. 365-372. 374- 
376. 378. 384. 389. 391, 392. 407. 423-427. 
429-432. 434. 442. 465. 470. 471. 474. 475. 
480. 515-517. 529. 535. 536. 544. 549. 551. 
560. 563. 

Chuler. Rev. James. B. 377. 

Cicero. 112. 113. 

Clardy, Kit. 497. 

Clark, General Mark. 367-370. 

Clemenceau. 289. 

Clifton, Brigadier G. 453. 454. 

Cloolz. 151. 

Cobbett, William. 152. 

Cohen. Ben V. 299. 317. 

Cohen, Myer. 437. 

Collins, Wilkie. 186. 

Connell, Brian. 204. 

Constantine, Emperor. 81. 112. 

Cresson, Warder. 184. 

Crewe, Lady. 286. 

Cromwell. Oliver. 121. 122. 125. 126. 193.492. 
Curzon, Lord. 299. 430. 

Cyrus. King. 36-39. 44. 108. 120. 127. 286. 

Da Costa, Uriel. 98. 99. 

Daniel. 36-38. 54. 7o. 107. 109. 162. 

Danton. 150. 151. 

David. 7-9. 46. 60. 81. 106. 121. 

Davies, Clement. 512. 

Dawson, Geoffrey. 258. 

Dayan, Moshe. 558. 

De Burckheim. L.C. 158. 

De Haas. Jacob. 269. 

De Hirseh. Baron. 204. 

De Langres, Lombard. 151. 

De Leon, Mose. 90. 

De Luchel. Marquis. 148-150. 152. 164. 165. 
De Sacy, Silveslre. 140. 

Des Mousseaux. Gougenol. 210. 

De Wiarl, Sir Adrian Carton. 321. 

Deane, General John R. 357. 

Dehler, Dr. 467. 

Derounian, A.B. 347. 

Dewey. Thomas. 444. 464. 499. 528. 529. 


Dickens. 182. 186. 343. 

Dies, Martin. 344. 349. 387. 

Dil, Branko. 408. 409. 

Dillon, Mgr. 160. 

Disraeli, Benjamin. 164-168. 172-175. 177. 
180-182. 202. 203. 209. 211. 212. 272. 283. 
415. 451. 485. 

D'Israeli, Isaac. 168. 

Dilcrichs, General. 277. 

Donin, Nicholas. 100. 

Donovan, Robert J. 537. 

Dozer, Dr. Donald M. 379. 

Dozy, Reinhart. 140. 

Draeh, P.L.B. 88. 90. 94. 180. 

Dreyfus. 198. 199. 

Dugdale, Mrs. 228. 229. 266. 281. 282. 
Dulles, J.F. 501. 535. 536. 539-543. 548. 

Ebbutt, Norman. 308. 

Eberstadt, Ferdinand. 476. 

Eden, Anthony. 323. 328. 384. 401. 418. 424. 
499. 521. 535. 536. 538. 544. 547. 548. 550- 
553. 561. 562. 565. 566. 

Edersheim, Alfred. 98. 

Edinburgh, Duke of. 550. 

Edward VI. King. 183. 

Ehrenburg, Ilya. 403. 497. 

Einstein, Dr. Albert. 458. 

Eisenhower, President. 241.264. 280. 350. 360. 
367. 370-372. 375. 376. 379. 384. 387. 394. 

414. 415. 437. 459. 497. 498. 500. 509. 515. 

527. 528-532. 534. 535. 537. 538. 542. 544. 

547. 549. 553-555. 559-564. 567. 

Elijah. 10. 

Eliot, T.S. 342. 

Elisha. 10. 101. 

Elizabeth II. Queen. 550. 557. 

Engel, Leopold. 139. 161. 

Engels, Friedrich. 169. 

England, King of (George V). 286. 

Esaias. 64. 

Esau. 52. 

Esther. 108-110. 

Ezekiel. 33. 41-44. 47. 55. 64. 81. 89. 94. 167. 
Ezra. 43-46. 48. 50. 53. 55. 81. 92. 94. 182. 

Earley, James. 239. 555. 

Farouk, King. 461. 

Farran, Captain Roy. 522. 

Faviell, Frances. 403. 

FI ace us. 112. 

Flemming. 350. 

Flynn. John T. 319. 

Foot, Isaac. 550. 

Ford. Henry. 213. 

Forrestal, James. 153. 289. 439-447. 460. 461. 

463. 472. 477. 528. 529. 540. 

Forestier. C.F. 139. 

Forster, Arnold. 343. 

Francis, David R. 273. 

Franco. General. 412. 

Frankfurter, Prof. Felix. 316. 345. 442. 443. 
Franz Ferdinand, Archduke. 319. 



INDEX 


Fraser. Peter. 454. 

Freehof', Rabbi Solomon B. 110. 

Funk, Dr. 14. 

Fuseus. 112. 

Gaitskell. Hugh. 547. 551. 

Gamaliel. 71. 

Gamzey. Robert. 490. 

Garnett, David. 288. 

Gautama, Prince Sidhatta. 35. 

Genet. 155. 

G eorge VI, King. 431. 

George. Llovd. 125 . 126. 169. 198. 229. 245- 
248^ 250-259. 261-265. 268-270. 282. 286. 
287. 289-291. 294. 303. 304. 314. 330. 334. 
448. 475. 

Gerard. Ambassador. 279. 

Geroe, Erno. 416. 506-508. 562. 

Gibbes, Sidney. 278. 

Ginsburg. Asher. 197. 

Gleason, Prof. S. Everett. 383. 

Goebbels. 323. 

Goedsche. 210. 

Goering. 308. 320. 323. 

Goethe. 145. 

Goldman. Emma. 273. 

Goldman, Dr. Nahum. 460. 461. 517. 525. 
Goldman, Rabbi Solomon. 48. 

Goldstein, Dr. John. 18. 57. 

Gomulka, Vladislav. 505. 

Gordon, Sir William Evans. 312. 

Gotha, Duke of. 145. 

Gouzenko, Igor. 380. 

Graetz, Prof. 61. 94. 113. 1 14. 

Graham, Ronald. 250. 

Graham, William J. 359. 

Gregory XVI, Pope. 209. 

Grenfell, Captain Russell. 401. 

Grey, Sir Edward. 284. 

Grimble, Sir Arthur. 569. 

Groves, General Leslie R. 362. 364. 365. 
Gruenbaum, Vishak. 538. 539. 

Guedalla. Philip. 126. 

Gwynne. H.A. 258. 259. 294. 

Ham, Sir Douglas. 247. 248. 251. 257. 

Hall, Mr. 430. 431. 

Halevi, Judah. 114. 

Halprin, Rose. 552. 

Halsey, Admiral. 356. 357. 

Hainan. 108-110. 396. 

Hamilton, Alexander. 156. 157. 165. 192.212. 
272. 

Hammarskjold, Dag. 521. 

Hannegan, Robert. 440. 441. 

Harding, President. 301. 

Harmsworth, Alfred (Lord Northcliffe). 295. 
Harriman. Governor. 538. 539. 

Hart, Captain Liddell. 396. 

Haycraft Commission. 304. 

Hazani, Michael. 565. 

Head. Anthony. 566. 

Hearst, Randolph. 295. 


Hecht, Ben. 472. 475. 477. 482. 

Helphand, Dr. 358. 

Henderson, Lord. 468. 

Henderson, Loy. 443. 

Henry. Sir Charles. 269. 

Heine, Heinrich. 278. 

Herod. 54. 67. 

Herzl. Theodor. 197-200. 202-208. 219. 225. 
226. 228. 234. 242. 282. 293. 294. 435. 480. 
481. 522. 

Hertz, Chief Rabbi J.H. 11. 

Hess, Moses. 196. 197. 

Hesse, Prince of. 145. 148. 

Hillman, Sidney. 317. 

Himmler, Heinrich. 461. 

Hirsch, Rabbi Emil. 4. 

Hiss, Alger. 99. 138. 144. 316. 364. 374. 380- 
383. 385-390. 443. 474. 554. 

Hitler. 36. 46. 54. 67. 121. 138. 282. 307-309. 
311. 315. 317. 320-328. 332. 333. 340. 343. 

357. 370. 375. 377. 382. 383. 389. 394. 395. 

397. 398. 400. 405. 406. 408. 412. 413. 415. 

416. 420. 462. 469. 474. 475. 490. 499. 500. 

503. 510. 515. 530. 532. 533. 550. 551. 559. 

562. 564. 

Hoffman, Rep. C.E. 350. 351. 

Hoover, President Herbert. 311. 

Hoover, J. Edgar. 386. 

Hopkins, Harry. 332. 333. 357-362. 364. 365. 

367. 373. 428. 

Horder. Lord. 517. 

Hosea. 10. 110. 

Hoskins, Colonel. 426. 

Howden, Arthur D. 232. 242. 261-263. 285. 
314-316. 

House. Colonel E.M. 165. 231-239. 241. 242. 

244. 249. 253. 260-263. 266. 279. 280. 283- 

285. 289. 290. 295. 299. 301. 314. 315. 322. 

333. 340. 357. 358. 360. 361. 428. 443. 464. 

470. 473. 529. 533. 

Huddleston, Sisley. 407. 

Hull, Cordell. 384. 391. 

Hulme, Kathryn. 413. 414. 

Hunt, Holman. 184-187. 189. 190. 

Hurwitz. 511. 

Hutchinson, Cmdr. E. 522. 533. 

Hutchinson, Dr. Paul. 487. 

Hyrcanus, John. 54. 

Ibn Saoud, King. 292. 337. 338. 378. 424. 426. 
427. 444. 

Isaiah. 33-35. 110. 

Ishbosheth. 7. 

Islington, Lord. 301. 

Israel, Rabbi Manasseh ben. 121. 122. 

Israel, Michel Boas. 184. 

Izzat, Ibrahim. 548. 

Jabotinsky, Vladimir. 513. 516. 

Jacob. 397. 

Jacob-called-Israel. 6. 52. 

Jacobson, Rabbi Moses P. 130. 

James, King of England. 517. 


583 



INDEX 


Jefferson, Thomas. 328. 

Jeffries, J.M.N. 295. 304. 

Jefroikin. L. 490. 

Jehovah. 2. 6-10. 13-16. 19. 20 . 25. 26. 28. 31. 
32. 36. 37. 40. 45. 46. 59. 76. 81. 82. 94. 107. 
108. 132. 401. 476. 515. 

Jeremiah. 25. 32-35. 41. 63. 65. 167. 
Jeroboam. King. 8 . 

Jerome, St. 50. 

Jesus. 6 . 34. 50. 52. 59-62. 64-66. 68 . 69. 72. 

73. 89-92. 112. 141. 154. 396. 482. 

Jethro. 31. 

Jogiches. Leo. 416. 

John, St. 60. 71. 

Johnson, Dr. 93. 

Johnson. flerschel. 443. 

Joly, M.C. 169. 209. 210 . 213. 

Jordan, King of. 519. 

Jordan, Major George Raeev. 362-365. 
Joseph (Biblical). 6 . 

Joseph. Dr. 461. 

Joseph, King of Kha/ars. 1 17. 

Joseph, St. 60. 

Joseph. Saadya ben. 103. 

Joshua. 101. 

Josiah. 22 . 

Judah. 6 . 46. 60. 

Judas Iscariot. 6 . 17. 67. 276. 396. 

Juranitsch, Oskar. 408. 409. 

Kadar. Janos. 509. 

Kaganovitch, La/ar. 495. 496. 

Kahn, Leon. 162. 

Kaiser, The. 203. 225. 283. 358. 474. 475. 515. 
Kanegisser. 276. 

Kashmir, Maharajah of. 466. 468. 

Kastein. Dr. Joseph. 4. 7. 8 . 10. 11. 14. 32. 41. 
44 , 45 , 47 - 51 . 54. 67-70. 73. 76. 78-80. 83-86. 
93-95. 98. 100. 102. 110-115. 119. 123. 126- 
129. 135. 173. 174. 176. 181. 195. 197. 198. 
204. 205. 240. 243. 334. 442. 

Kastner, Dr. Israel. 411. 

Kaufman. Theodore N. 481. 

Kefauver. Lstes. 538. 554. 555. 

Kerensky. 274. 275. 277. 

Kerr, Sir Philip. 248. 268. 

Kcsselring, General. 369. 

Kethly. Anna. 546. 

Keynes. J.M. 288. 

Kiinmel. Admiral. 356. 357. 

King-Crane Commission. 304. 

King, Mackenzie. 380. 

Kipling, Rudyard. 141. 312. 

Kitchener. Lord. 247. 248. 251. 

Koestler. Arthur. 449. 482. 

Kohn, Dr. Hans. 397. 398. 

Koschir, Prof. Miro. 408. 

Kossoi, Jonah. 490. 

Kotarbinski. Prof. 503. 

Kotikov. Colonel. 363. 

Kreintz. Prof. Boris. 408. 

Krivitsky. General Walter. 417. 

Kruger. Paul. 549. 


Kruschev. Nikita. 381. 495. 505. 565. 

Kun, Bela. 273. 416. 507. 509. 562. 

Kuter, General Laurence S. 373. 

Lavouisse. Henry R. 519. 

Lacroix. 151. 

La Guardia. Liorello. 437. 

Laible, Rabbi. 57. 90. 94. 

Lambert. Alexandre. 162. 

Landrieux. Mgr. 88 . 

Lane. Arthur Bliss. 420. 504. 

Lane. F.K. 261. 315. 

Laneer, Prof. William. 383. 

Lansing, Robert. 287. 288. 360. 474. 

La von, Pinhas. 458. 

Law, Bonar. 250. 

Lawrence. Colonel T.L. 248. 288. 289. 
Lazare, Bernard. 174. 175. 

L.azare (Hitler's envoy). 412. 413. 

Leeper. Reginald. 275. 276. 

Leflwieh, Joseph. 398, 399. 

Legge-Bourke, Major LI. 533. 

Lehman, Herbert. 317. 345. 437. 442. 443. 
Lenin. 138. 169. 226. 274. 278-281. 353. 358 
388. 390. 406. 419. 500. 

Levi (Biblical). 46. 

Levi, Paul. 416. 

Levi. Rabbi. 91. 

Levi. Sylvain. 287. 290. 291. 483. 

Levine. 395. 416. 

Levine, Meyer. 483-485. 

Lewin, Sally. 411. 

Lewis, Fulton. 364. 

Lie. Trygve. 450. 

Liebknecht. Karl. 416. 

Lilienthai. Alfred. 482. 486. 

Lincoln, Abraham. 187. 188. 312. 392. 395. 
Lippmann, Walter. 285. 

Litvinoff. Maxim. 323. 339. 419. 

Llovd, Lord. 334. 335. 426. 430. 
Locker-Lampson, Oliver. 245. 

Loewe, Prof. H.M.T. 398. 

Lone, B.K. 253. 

Long, Huey. 318. 319. 322. 

Lonyay. Count Carl. 204. 

Lothian, Lord (Sir Arthur). 248. 466. 468. 
Louis Philippe. 172. 

Lovett. Robert. 440. 443. 

Lubin, Isador. 317. 

Ludendorff, General. 279. 

Luke, St. 60. 

Lunatscharsky. 417. 418. 

Lundstrdm, General. 462. 463. 

I.aria, Solomon. 85. 

Luxembourg. Rosa. 273. 

Macaulay, Lord. 245. 568. 

MacArthur. General. 264. 366. 394. 
MeCarran. Senator Pat. 312. 339. 400. 
McCarthy, Senator Joseph. 366. 387. 388. 537 
McCloy, John J. 403. 

McCormack, John. 541. 

McCormick, Colonel Robert. 295. 


584 





INDEX 


McCrary. Tex. 466. 

Macdonald. Malcolm. 326. 327. 331. 
Macdonald, Ramsav. 303. 305. 306. 323. 
326. 

McGrath. J. Howard. 441. 

Maclean. Donald. 144. 264. 380-382. 
Macmillan. Harold. 538. 

Magnes. Dr. Judah. 457. 

Malmonides, Moses. 100. 102. 

Main/. Elector of. 145. 

Malenkov. 405. 

Malet, Che\alicr dc. 161. 

Malon. Benoit. 160. 173. 

Mammon. 121. 

Mandcistamm. Dr. 04. 

Manly, Cheslw 540. 

Manning. Cardinal H.E. 102. 

Margoliouth. 122. 

Maria Anna of Bavaria. 138. 

Mark, St. 344. 

Marr. Wilhelm. 485. 486. 

Marsden. 212. 

Marshall, General Geo rue C 323. 366-371. 

374. 430. 441. 445. 446.“448. 460. 563. 
Martin, Henry. 140. 

Martin. Jack. 531. 

Marx. Karl. 160-173. 108. 200. 210. 238. 273. 
314. 502. 

Mary (Mother of Our Lord). 60. 00. 01. 
Matthew. St. 52. 60. 67. 344. 

Maury. Abbe. 163. 

Mechiis, Lev. 406. 407. 

Meier (Myerson) Golda. 521. 

Melehett. Lord. 518. 

Mendelssohn. Moses. 101. 142. 

Met tern ich. 145. 

Meyer, Agnes. 544. 

Meyer, Prof. Edouard. 30. 

Mover, Sir William. 466. 

Mezes, Dr. Sidney. 233. 235. 240. 285. 

Mieah. 10. 61. 

Mihailovitch. General. 407. 

Mikhoels Commission. 308. 300. 

Mikoyan. 364. 

Miller. Rabbi Irving. 540. 

Milner, Lord. 248. 

Mine, Hilary. 503-505. 

Mindszenty. Cardinal. 421. 508. 

Mirabeau. Count. 130. 147. 148. 161. 
Mitchell. 350. 351. 

Modena. Leo. 08. 00. 

Mollet. Guv. 550. 

Moloch. 167. 180. 

Molotov. 360. 405. 

Monk. Henry Wentworth. 182-101. 107. 220. 
245. 517. 

Montagu. Sir Edwin. 268. 335. 466. 
Montefiore. Mr. 0. 25. 32. 66. 

Monteliore. Sir Erancis. 204. 

Montuomerv, Eield Marshal. 370. 371. 415. 
Mordeeai. 107. 108-111. 306. 

Morel. 173. 

Moruan, General Sir F. 437. 430. 443. 


Morgan. J. Pierpont. 474. 

Moraenthau Junior, Elenrv. 317. 321. 345 
365. 370. 374. 383-385. 301. 442. 480. 484. 
Morgenthau Senior. Henry. 470. 484. 
Morley, John. 140. 

Morrison. Herbert. 331. 

Morse, Rev. Jedediah. 152-154. 157. 158 
212. 273. 341. 387. 

Moses. 2-6. 0. 13. 14. 17-10. 21. 25-28. 30-32 
38. 41. 53. 55. 74. 04. 08. 107. 142. 

Moss. Major W. Stanley. 406. 407. 
Mountbatten. Lord Louis. 304. 

Moyne, Lord. 426. 430. 434-436. 463. 
Muhammad (The Prophet). 74. 1 12-1 14. 

Munnich, Eerence. 500. 562. 

Murphy. Justice. 443. 

Murray, General. 254. 

Musa ibn Nossair. 113. 

Mussolini. 06. 323. 327. 551. 

Nadieh, Rabbi Judah. 414. 415. 

Nagy, Imre. 505-500. 

Nancy, Bishop of. 163. 

Nansen. Odo. 400. 

Napoleon. 124-130. 137. 158. 173. 182. 103 
200 . 

Napoleon III. 210. 

Nasser, Gamel Abdul. 400. 537. 540-552 
550. 565. 

Nathan. 0. 

Nebuchadnezzar. 37. 38. 

Nearin. Juan. 41 7. 

Nehemiah. 43. 46. 50. .53. 55. 60. 81. 02. 04 
05. 100. 182. 107. 

Newman, Maraarct B. 405. 

Nicholas II, Czar. 240. 276. 277. 

Niaer, Sholem. 480. 400. 

Nikulin. 277. 

Niles. David. 317. 444. 445. 520. 

Nilas. Sergyci. 210. 213. 

Nixon. Richard. 380. 554. 355. 

Noah. Major Mordeeai. 184. 

Noetzlm. Edouard. 205. 

Nokrashi Pasha. 460. 461. 

Nordau, Max. 202. 207. 224. 220. 234. 243 
244. 264. 481. 518. 

Northcliffe. Lord. 205-200. 

Nowak, Zenon. 503. 504. 

Nutting, Anthony. 561. 

Obler, Walter. 411. 

Oehab, Edward. 505. 

O'Donnell. John. 534. .555. 

Olezewski. 504. 

Oliphant, Laurence. 180. 100. 

Omar. Caliph. 113. 114. 

Ormsby-Gore. 250. 328. 

Orwell, George. 342. 

Oswald, Stane. 408. 

Oumansky. 410. 

Ovid. 112. 

Oudcndyk, M. 273. 


585 



INDEX 


Paget, Q.C. 551. 

Panthera. 90. 

Pasvolsky, Leo. 317. 

Pauker, Anna. 421. 

Paul, St. 71. 193. 

Payson, Rev. Seth. 155. 

Pearson, Hesketh. 168. 186. 

Peel Commission. 327. 328. 

Peiser, Rabbi Walter. 318. 

Pepper, Senator G.W. 284. 

Percy, Lord. 226. 

Perkins, Frances. 239. 

Pershing, General. 257. 

Persius. 112. 

Peslalozzi. 145. 

Peter, St. 71. 

Petrov, Vladimir. 380. 381. 

Petuchowski. Rabbi Jakob. 142. 

Philippson, Franz. 205. 

Philpotts, Eden. 283. 

Phinehas. 31. 

Pilate. 67. 68. 

Pinsker, Leon. 196. 202. 207. 224. 234. 322. 
Pi row, Oswald. 322. 

Plunkett, Sir Horace. 239. 

Pompey. 54. 

Prinsep, Val. 186. 

Puller, Janko. 408. 409. 

Radkiewicz. 504. 

Raglan. Lord. 301. 

Rajk, Laszlo. 507. 

Rakosi, Matyas. 416. 420. 421. 503. 506-509. 
562. 

Rapp, Sir Thomas. 520. 

Rathenau, Walter. 300. 

Rauschning, Hermann. 395. 

Reade. Charles. 343. 

Reading, Lord. 466. 468. 

Reed, Mr. (Douglas). 117. 413. 

Reid, Thomas. 545. 

Reitz, Colonel Deneys. 392. 393. 

Repineton, Colonel. 257-259. 275. 276. 294. 
308. 

Richardson. Lady Constance Stewart. 251. 
Rieser. Gabriel. 196. 

Robertson. General Sir William. 247. 248. 

251. 252. 254-260. 308. 335. 

Robespierre. 150. 151. 

Robison. Prof. John. 152-154. 157. 158. 212. 

272. 273. 341. 387. 

Rodkinson, M.L. 99. 101. 180. 

Rochm. Captain. 395. 

Rokossovsky, Marshal. 503. 505. 

Rommel, Field Marshall. 453. 454. 

Ronsin. 151. 

Roosevelt, Eleanor. 315. 474. 559. 

Roosevelt, Elliott. 373-375. 

Roosevelt. Franklin D. 125. 138. 154. 166. 
235. 239. 280. 289. 292. 306. 311. 313-322. 
328. 331. 334. 336-340. 345. 350. 351. 354- 
362. 364-368. 371-380. 382-385. 387. 389. 
391. 394. 400. 401. 402. 424. 426-429. 433. 


439. 442. 444. 459. 470. 471. 474. 475. 480 
497. 512. 528. 532. 536. 537. 546. 554. 555 
562. 563. 

Roosevelt Junior, F.D. 445. 446. 
Rosenbloom, M.V. 315. 354. 359. 470. 
Roscnblum, Rabbi. 311. 

Rosenmann, Judge Samuel. 317. 444. 
Rosenwald, L.J. 513. 515. 540. 

Ross, Charlie. 452. 

Rothermere, Lord. 298. 

Rothschild, Lord. 269. 

Rounds, Frank. 570. 

Rubens, Dr. William. 53. 94. 

Rudolf of Austria, Prince. 204. 

Rusk in, John. 186-190. 

Sadder. Colonel. 355. 

Salisbury, Harrison. 495. 

Salisbury, Lord. 225. 

Samuel (Biblical). 7. 54. 

Samuel, Herbert. 167. 247. 

Samuel, Maurice. 22. 105. 107. 484. 

Sargon. 3. 

Satan. 161. 

Saul, Kina. 7. 54. 106. 

Saul. (St. Paul). 73. 

Saxe-Golha, Prince of. 145. 

Saxe-Weimar, Duke of. 145. 

Sayre. 364. 

Schanzer, Signor. 300. 

Schiff, Jacob. 205. 

Schmandt, Leo. 411. 

Scott, C.P. 245. 246. 264. 

Seneca. 112. 

Serot. Colonel. 462. 

Seymour, Charles. 232. 262. 

Shakespeare. 61. 342. 343. 

Shared. Moshe. 411. 519. 521. 522. 543. 
Shaw, Bernard. 342. 

Shaw Commission. 304. 

Sheehan, Vincent. 343. 

Sherwood, Robert E. 239. 359. 361. 369. 374. 
385. 

Shmuelevitz. 463. 

Short. General. 356. 357. 

Silver, Rabbi Hillel. 499. 515. 516. 532. 542. 
Simpson Commission. 304. 

Simpson, Justice G. 402. 

Smilanski, Moshe. 511. 

Smith, Governor Al. 311. 

Smith, Fred. 384. 

Smith, Merriman. 428. 

Smollett. 342. 

Smuts, General J.C. 253-255. 303. 314. 322. 

389. 393. 454. 455. 

Smuts, J.C. (Mr.). 254. 

Sobeloff, Simon E. 537. 

Sokol off. M. 277. 278. 

Sokoloff, Dr. Nahum. 207. 

Sokolsky, George. 272. 486. 541. 

Solomon. 8. 41. 46. 

Sorge. Dr. Richard. 355. 

Sotelo, Calva. 417. 


586 



INDEX 


South Africa, Chief Rabbi of. 300. 

Spielfricd, General W. 407-409. 

Spinoza, Baruch. 100. 101. 102. 

Spychalski. 504. 

Stalin. 226. 286. 366. 369. 371. 373. 375. 376. 
378. 382-385. 395. 398. 420. 454. 474. 493. 
495. 499. 500. 503. 507. 532. 545. 550. 562 
564. 

Stanley, Oliver. 436. 

Steed/Wickham. 268. 296. 297. 

Stehelin. 467. 

Stepischnik, Milan. 408. 

Stern, Karl. 408. 488. 

Stettinius, Edward. 382. 

Stevenson. Adlai. 512. 529. 538. 554. 555. 
Stimson. Henry L. 354. 356. 367. 383-385. 391. 
546. 

Stoddard. Amos. 155. 

Stolypin, Count. 240. 241. 322. 461. 
Stolvpine. A. 419. 

Struck. 94. 

Strakosch, Sir Henry. 253. 

Suedfeld {Max Nordau), 207. 

Sulzberger, CL. 502. 505. 

Sutton. Sir George. 298. 

Sverdloff, VankeT. 277. 278. 550. 

Sydenham, Lord. 2i 3-216. 264. 301. 

Sykes. Sir Mark. 248. 265. 267. 269. 
Symington, Stuart. 512. 538. 

Symons, General Penn. 393. 

Szamuely, Tibor. 416. 507. 

Taft. Senator Robert E. 361.528-531.536. 563. 
Tarik. 113. 

Taylor, R.C. 227. 

Templevvood, Lord. 412. 

Tennyson. 186. 

Terrill. Commander. 522. 

Thackeray. 342. 

Tharsi, Simon. 61. 

Theobald, Admiral. 356. 

Thompson, Dorothy. 343. 540. 

Thoreau. 73. 102. 

Tito. 406-408. 506. 

Toynbee, Prof. Arnold J. 399. 400. 

Trotsky, Leon. 273. 281. 408. 

Truman, President. 36. 125. 166.231.235.264. 
363. 380. 385. 386. 400. 428. 430. 433. 434. 
439-441. 443. 444. 446. 448. 450-453. 455. 
456. 459. 464. 465. 469. 475. 477. 497. 528. 
530. 532. 537. 540. 562. 

Turkey, Sultan of. 203. 

Urch. R.O.G. 418. 

Uriah. 9. 

Uritsky. 276. 

Vanderbilt. Consuelo. 225. 

Veale, F.J.P. 401. 

Von Herder, J.G. 133. 200. 

Von Knigge, Baron. 141. 

Von Kuehlmann, Richard. 358. 

Von Plehve. 205, 


Von Rath. 322. 328. 

Vyshinsky. 478. 

Wagner, Richard. 171. 

Wagner, Robert. 520. 

Waite, A.E. 146. 

Walter, Rep. F.E. 312. 400. 

Warburg, Max. 205. 

Washington, George. 154. 155. 212. 272. 353. 
Wavell, General. 426. 458. 

Webb, Beatrice. 262. 

Webster, Nesta. 139. 140. 153. 158. 160, 161. 
165. 169. 209. 273. 

Weishaupt, Adam. 138-148. 151. 158. 160 i65. 
168. 169. 173. 180. 192. 211. 215. 220. 272. 
273. 380. 406. 416. 470. 492. 

Weiss, Dr. Carl Austin. 319. 

Weizmann. Dr. Chaim. 16. 36. 44. 122. 177. 
193-195. 197. 200. 204-207. 209. 210. 224. 
226-229. 234. 242. 245-247. 249. 251. 253. 
256. 257. 261. 264. 265. 267-270. 281. 282. 
286-288. 291-296. 299-301. 303-306. 312. 
313. 321. 325. 326. 328. 330-338. 340. 344. 
348. 421. 423. 425-427, 429. 431-435. 439. 
442. 443. 448-457. 460. 472. 480. 492. 493. 
516. 517. 522. 539. 540. 569. 

Wellhausen, Prof. 41. 

White, Harry Dexter. 144. 365. 370. 374. 381. 

383-386. 388-391. 

Wilkie, Wendell. 342. 

William of Orange. 517. 

Wilson, General Sir Henry. 255-257. 294. 
Wilson, President Woodrow. 125. 166. 234. 
235. 237-244. 261. 263. 264. 266. 267. 269. 
283-289. 292. 294. 307. 314-316. 318. 320. 
322. 333. 336. 354. 360. 372. 428. 470. 473. 

474. 497. 526-528. 530. 532. 533. 536. 555. 

558. 562. 

Wilton, Robert. 274-279. 281. 294. 295. 301. 
310. 502. 

Winant, John G. 337. 

Wingate, Orde. 517. 522. 

Wise, Rabbi Stephen. 60. 115. 199. 234. 239. 
241. 242. 260. 261. 263. 266. 268. 269. 286. 

287. 299. 311. 315. 320-322. 335. 336. 342. 

417. 499. 

Wiseman, Sir William. 239. 

Woodhead Commission. 328. 

Wyszynski, Cardinal. 505-507. 

Yellin. 463 

Yeo-Thomas, Wing-Cmdr. 407. 409. 

York, Archibishop of. 520. 

Yurovsky, Yankel. 277. 

Zevi, Sabbatai. 103. 187. 193. 205. 282. 434. 
Zinovieff. 276. 

Zonarias. 103. 

Zukerman, William. 489. 490. 512. 515. 516. 
Zvi, Ben. 515. 


587 





THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


APPENDIX 


“After the lifetime of Jesus the Old Testament, with the New Testament, was 
translated into Latin by Saint Jerome, when both eame to be regarded by the 
Chureh as of equal divine authority and as sections of one Book." 

A modern encyclopaedia. 


THE TORAH 

“And the Lord spake unto me. 
saying . . . This day wall 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 shew 7 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 thv God shall 

j 


THE NEW TESTAMENT 

“Blessed are the peacemakers; for 
they shall be called the children of 
God ... I am not come to destroy" 
(the law or the prophets) “but to fulfil 
. . . Ye have heard that it hath been 
said. Thou shalt love thy neighbour, 
and hate thine enemy. But I say unto 
you. Love your enemies. . . He taught 
them as one having authority, and not 

j 

as the scribes . . . Lay not up for 
yourselves treasure on earth . . . what 
is a man profited if he shall gain the 
whole world, and lose his own soul? 
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God . . . 
this is the first and great 
commandment; and the second is like 
unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbour 
as thyself. On these tw^o command¬ 
ments hang all the law and the 
prophets. . . One is your Master, even 
Christ, and all ve are brethren . . . Let 
brotherly love continue . . . Whoso- 
ever shall exalt himself shall be abased 
. . . Woe unto you, scribes and 
Pharisees . . . ye are the children of 
them which killed the prophets . . . 
This gospel of the kingdom shall be 
preached in all the world for a w itness 
unto all nations . . . Forgive them, for 
they know not w ; hat they do . . . God 
that made the world and all things 
herein . . . and hath made of one 
blood all nations of men ... be it 
known therefore unto you that the 


572 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


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 . . ." 

Deuteronomy. 


salvation of God is sent unto the 
Gentiles, and that they will hear it. . . 
What then? Is he not also of the 
Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also . . . 
for the promise, that he should be heir 
of the world, was not to Abraham, 
and to his seed, through the law, but 
through the righteousness of faith . . . 
One God and father of all, who is 
above all ... let brotherly love 
continue ... For manv walk, of 
whom I have told you often, and now 
tell you even weeping, that they are 
the enemies of the cross of Christ; 
whose end is destruction ..." 

The Gospels, /lets and Epistles. 


No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a pieee of a eontinent, a 
part of the main; if a elod he washed away by the sea, Europe is the less as well 
as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend or of thine own 
were; any man \s death diminishes me, heeause I am involved in mankind; and 
therefore never send to ask for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. 

John Donne. 


573 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


BIBLOGRAPHY 

ABRAHAMS, Israel. Jewish Life in the Middle Ages. 

ADAMS, James Truslow. The Epie of Ameriea (1931). 

ADAMS, President John. Works, with a Life of the Author (1850-6). 
ANONYMOUS. (See Mr. E. M. House). Philip Dm, Administrator (1912). 
ASQUITH. Lady Cynthia. Remember and he Glad (1952). 

ASQUITH, Lord (Mr. EEH.) Memoirs and Refleetions (1928). 

BAKUNIN. Michel. Polemique eontre les Jails. 

BALFOUR, Lord. Life of (see Dugdale). 

BALZAN, Consuelo Vanderbilt. The Glitter and the Gold (1952). 

BARON, Prof. Salo. Soeial and Religious History of the Jew's (1937). 
BARUCH. Bernard, (see Field). 

BARRULL. Augustin. Memoirs of Jaeohinism (1797). 

BEALE. F.J.P. Advauee to Barbarism (Devin-Adair, New York. 1955). 
BEAMISH, Tufton, M.P. Must Night Fall ( 1951). 

BEATY. John. The Iron Curtain over Ameriea (1951). 

BE LG ION, Montgomery. 

BENTWICH, Norman. The Jews (1934); Judea Lives Again (1943). 

BERGER, Rabbi Elmer. The Jewish Dilemma (1946); A Partisan History of 
Judaism (1951); Who Knows Better Must Say So (1956). 

BERNADOTTE, Count Eolke. To Jerusalem ] 1951). 

BORD, Gustave. Conspiration Revo/utionnaire de 1789. 

BORKENAU, F. The Communist International (Faber and Faber, London, 
1938). 

BRANDEIS, Louis Dembiteh. Miseellaueous Papers (1935); The Brandeis 
Guide to the Modern World ( 1941 ). 

BROWN. Bernard J. From Pharaoh to Hitler (1933). 

BUCHAN. John. Oliver Cromwell (1934). 

BURKE, Edmund. Refleetions on the Revolution. 

BUTCHER, Harry C. My Three Years with Eisenhow'er, (1946). 

CARTER. Hodding. (Chapter on Huey Long in The Aspirin Age, 1949). 
CHAMBERLAIN. H.S. Foundations of the Nineteenth Century (German 
edition, 1899). 

CHAMBERLAIN, W.H. Confessions of an Individualist. 

CHAMBERS, Whittaker. Witness (1952). 

CHESTERTON. A.K. The Tragedy of Anti-Semitism (with Joseph Leftwich, 
1948). 

CHESTERTON, G.K. G.K's Weekly, (1932). 

CHODOROV. Frank. 

CHURCHILL, Winston. The Gathering Storm; Their Finest Hour; The Grand 
Allianee; The Hinge of Fate; Closing the Ring; Triumph and Tragedy. 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


CHURCHILL.. Winston. Biographies of, see Cowles, and Taylor. 

CHUTTER, Rew James B. Captivity Captive (1954). 

CLIFTON, Brigadier George. The Happy Hunter (1952). 

CLOSTERMANN, Pierre. D.F.C. Flames in the Sky (1952). 
CONFERENCES AT MALTA AND YALTA. IJ.S. Stale Department, 
(March, 1955). 

CONNELL, Brian. {Sir Edward Casseh from Manifest Destiny. A Study of the 
Mounhatten Family. 1953). 

COWLES. Virginia. Winston Churehill (1952). 

DAVIS. Forrest. Huey Loup ( 1935). 

DEWHURST. Brig. C.H., O.B.E. Close Coutaet (1954). 

DISRAELI, Benjamin. Coniupshy (1844); Life of Lord Ceorpe Bentinek (1852). 
DRACH, D.P. De PHarmotiie entre EEplise et la Syuapopue (1844). 
DUGDALE. Blanche E.C. Life of A. J. Balfour (1948). 

EDERSHEIM, Alfred. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (1883). 
EISENHOWER. Dwight D. Crusade in Europe (1948). 

E1SEN M ENGFR, Johann Andreas. The Traditions of the Jews, firsl published 
as Judaism Unmasked (1732). 

FIEL D, Carter. Bernard Barueh, Park Beneh Statesman (1944). 

FLYNN. John T. The Roosevelt Myth (1948). 

FORRESTAL, James. The Eorrestal Diaries (1951). 

FREEHOE, Rabbi Solomon B. Reform Jewish Praetiee (1944). 

I LINK. S. Die Entstehunp des Talmuds. 

GARNETT. David. Letters of T.E. Lawrenee (1938). 

GINSBERG. Aseher (Quoted, see Weizmann). 

GOLDMAN. Rabbi Solomon. Cod and Israel. 

GOLDSTEIN, Dr. John. AH the Doors were Opened (1955). 

GOUZENKO, Igor. The Fall of a Titan (1954). 

CiRALTZ. Heinrich. Tolksthuemliehe Gesehiehte der Juden (1888). 
GRENFELL, Russell. Uueo/ididonal Hatred ( 1955). 

Cj RIM BLIT Sir Arthur. A Pattern of Islands (1952). 

HAMILTON, Alexander. Works (1886-7). 

HARRIS. Maurice H. Modern Jewish History (1909). 

IIF.CHT. Ben. A Jew in Love. 

HERDER. Johann Gottfried von. Uutersuehunpen des verp. Jahrhunderts. 

I lERZL, Theodor. The Jewish State. 

HESS, Moses. Rom und Jerusalem. die letite Natiotuditaetsfrape (1862). 
HIRSCTL Emil. Professor of Rabbinical Literature, Chicago University (quoted 
by Mr Bernard J. Brown, see Brown). 

HOPKINS, Harry. (See Roosevelt). 

MORSTMANN, Lali. We ( hose to Stay (1954). 


575 



THE CONTROVERSY OE ZION 


HOUSE, E.M. Private Papers of Colonel House (1926); also author of Philip 
Dm, Administrator (see Anonymous; see also Howden). 

HOWDEN. Arlliur D. Mr. House of Texas (1940). 

HUDDEES [ON. Sisley. 

HULE. Cordell. Memoirs (1948). 

HI EM 12 Kathryn. The 11 lid Plaee (1953). 

HUTCHISON. Cdr. E.H. Violent Truee (1956). 

JACOBSON. Rabbi Moses E. (Quoted by Bernard J. Brown; see Brown). 
JtTTRlES, J.M.N. The Pedesline Deeeplion (1933); Palestine . Ihe Reality 
(1939). 

JEWISH ENCYCLOPAEDIA. 1903. 1909. 1912. 1916 (Eunk and Wagnall, 
New York). 

JORDAN, George Race). Irani Major Jordan s Diaries ( 1932). 

KASTE1N. Josef. History and Destiny of the Jews (1933). 

KAUKMANN. Theodore N. (iernumv Must Perish (1941). 

KERN. Erich. Donee of Death (1932). 

KEYNES, J.M. Essays in Biography (1933). 

KIPLING. Rudyard. Something of Myself (1937). 

KOESTEER. Arthur. Promise and Fulfilment, Palestine 194^- C J (1949). 
KRAVCHENKO, Victor. / Chose Freedom (1946). 

KRIV1TSKY. General Walter. In Stalin's Secret Service (1939). 

EAIBEE. Jesus ('histits im la!mud. 

LAMBERT. R.S. For The Time Is At Hand ( Life of Henry Wentworth Monk, 

1947) . 

LANDRIEUX. Mgr. ldllistoire el les Histoires dans la Bible. 

LANG RES, Lombard de. 

LANE. Arthur Bliss. / Saw Poland Betrayed { 1948). 

LAWRENCE. I E. Letters of (see Garnett. 1938). 

LAZARE. Bernard. Antisemitism (1903). 

EEETWICH, Joseph. The Tragedy of 'Antisemitism (with A. K. Chesterton, 

1948) . 

LEVIN. Meyer. In Search (1950). 

LILIENTHAL. Alfred. What Price Israel? ( 1953). 

LLOYD GEORGE, David. War Memoirs (1936). 

LONG, B.K. Autobiography. 

LONG. Eluey. My First Week in the White House. 

EONYAY, Count Carl. Rudolf { 1950). 

LOTHIAN. Sir Arthur. Kingdoms of Yesterday (1951). 

LUCHET, de. 

MACLEAN, Eitzroy. Eastern Approaches (1949). 

MACPI!AIL, Sir A. Three Persons (material on Sir Henry Wilson, 1926). 
MALET. Chevalier de. 


576 



THE CONTROVERSY OL ZION 


MAI,ON, Benoit. Espose des Eeoles Soeialistes (1872). 

MANLY. Chesly. The i . A. Record ( 1955). 

MANNING. Cardinal. (See Slraehey). 

M ARGO LI OUT H. Moses. History of the Jews of Great Britain (1857). 
MARR, Wilhelm. Dev Sieg des Jiidenthnms tteher das (iermanenthum (1879). 
MARSHALL. Bruee. The W hite Rabbit (material on Wing-Cdr. Yeo-Thomas, 
1952). 

MASSING. Hede. This Deception ( 1951). 

MEYER, Eduard. Entstehung des Judentiims (1896). 

MOCATTA. David. The Jews in Spain and Portugal. 

MONK. Heim Wentworth. Simple Interpretation of the Revelation (1857); Life 
of (see Lambert). 


MONTEEIORL. C.G. Religion of the Ancient Hebrews (1892). 

MORLEY. John. Edmund Burke (life of). 

MORSE. Re\. Jedediah. Sermons (1795-9); Proofs of the Early Existence; 
Progress and Deleterious Effects of Eretieh Intrigue and Influence in the 
i Hi ted States ( I 798). 

MOSS. W. Stanley A W ar of Shadows (1952). 


NLTCIIYOl ODOIT. A. IfEmpereur Xicolas II et les Jinfs. 
NIAVMANN. Margaret Bubers. Which IIV/.v The II orst'I (1952). 
NOR DAI . Max. Degeneration . 


NOR i l lCLI L L L. Lord. My Journey Round The World (1925); see also Oflieial 
History of The limes. 

ORWELL. George. SiuE, Such Were The Jen's (1945). 

PEARSON. Ileskelh. The Man Whistler (1952: material on John Rusk in); 


Disraeli. 


PEPPER. Senator George Wharton. Philadelphia Lawyer (1944). 

PINSKER. Leon. Auto-Emancipation (1881). 

R ACSC 1IN1NG. Hermann. The Revolution of Destruction (1959). 
REPINGTON. Col. C. a C. The Eirst W orld W ar (1921). 

REPORTS: Of the Canadian Government Royal Commission appointed to 
investigate . . . the communication by public oflieials and other persons in 
positions of trust of secret and confidential information to agents of a foreign 
power (The Gou/enko. or Canadian Spy Case: Canadian Government 
Stationer) Office. June 27. 1946). 

Of the Subcommittee of the United States House of Representatives 
in\ estigaling the Civil Sen ice Commission. 1947 (the Ant i-Defama titan League’s 
“Black List” case; U.S. Government Printing Office, 1948). 

Russia. No. 1 (1919); a Collection of Reports on Bolshevism in Russia (British 
Government’s Stationery Office. 1919). 

On the Conferences of Malta and Yalta (U.S. State Department, March, 
1955). 


577 



THE CONTROVERSY OH ZION 


ROBERTSON, Sir William. Soldiers and Statesmen, 1914-1916 (1926). 
ROBISON, John. Proofs of a Conspiracy against all the Religions and 
Governments of Europe (1793). 

RODKTNSON, Michael Levi. History of the Talmud (1903). 

ROOSEVELT, H.D.R. Persona! Letters (edited by Samuel Rosenmann, 1947); 

Roosevelt and Hopkins (Robert A. Sherwood, 1948). 

ROSEN BLOOM, Morris, V. Peaee Through Strength; Bernard Barueh and a 
Blueprint for Security (1953). 

ROUNDS, Frank, Jr. A Window on Red Square (1953). 

RUBENS, William. Der alte und der neue Glauhe im Judentum. 

SAMUEL, Maurice. You Gentiles (1924). 

SAUNDERS, Hilary St. George. The Red Beret (1950). 

SHEEAN, Vincent. Personal History. 

SHERWOOD. Robert, A. Roosevelt and Hopkins (1948). 

SMITH, Fred. Artiele on Morgenthau Plan, Its History, in United Nations 
World, March, 1947. 

SMITH, Mcrriman. Thank You , Mr. President (1946). 

SMITH, W. Robertson. The Prophets of Israel and their Plaee in History (1 895). 
SMUTS, Jan Christian. Life of (by his son, J. C. Smuts, 1952). 

SPENGLER, Oswald. Der Untergang des Ahend/andes (1918). 

STERN, Karl. Pillar of Fire ( 1951). 

STIMSON, Henry L. On Active Service in Peaee and War (1947). 
STOLYPIN. A. Contre-Revolution (1937). 

STOLYPINE, Alexandra. L'Homme du Dernier Tsar (1931). 

SJ RAC HEY, Lytton. Eminent Wetorians (1918; material on Cardinal 
Manning). 

S TRACK, H.L. Einleitung in den Talmud (1908). 

TAFT, Senator Robert. A Foreign Policy for Americans (1952). 

TAYLOR, R.C. Winston Churchill (1952). 

TIMES, The Official History of, 1922-194k (1952). 

TOYNBEE, Arnold J. The Modern West and the Jews (vol. \ii of A Study of 
History, 1954). 

WAITE. A.E. 

WASHINGTON, Pres. George. Writings (1837). 

WEBSTER. Mrs. Nesta. Secret Societies and Subversive Movements (1923); 
The French Revolution, (1919). 

WEISHAUPT. Adam. Finige Originalsehriften des Illuminaten Ordens 
(published by the Bavarian Government, 1787). 

WEIZMANN. Chaim. Trial and Error ( 1949). 

WEI EHAUSEN, J. IsraeUtisi he und Juedisehe Gesehiehte (1897); Composition 
des Hexateuehs ( 1901). 

WILSON. Sir Henry. Life ant! Diaries ( 1927; see also Macphail). 


578 



THE CONTROVERSY OF ZION 


WILTON, Robert. Last Days of the Romanoffs (1920). 
WISE, Rabbi Stephen. Challenging Years (1949). 
YEO-THOMAS, Wing-Cdr. (see Marshall). 


OTHER WORKS BY DOUGLAS REED 

The Burning of the Reichstag (1934). 

Insanity Fair (Jonathan Cape, 1938). 

Disgrace Abounding (do., 1939). 

Nemesis'/ The Story of Otto Sfrasser (do.) 

A Prophet at Home (do., 1941). 

All Our Tomorrows (do., 1942). 

Lest We Regret (do., 1943). 

From Smoke to Smother (do., 1948). 

Somewhere South of Suez (do.. 1949). 

Far and W ide (do., 1951 ). 

The Battle for Rhodesia (HAUM, 1966). 

The Siege of Southern Africa (Macmillan, 1974). 

Behind the Scene (Dolphin Press, 1975). 

The (irand Design of the 20th Century (Dolphin Press, 1977). 

Novels: (iahinty Show. Reasons of Health. Rule of Three, The Next Horizon. 
Play: Downfall. 


A SHORT LIST OE BOOKS EOR FURTHER READING 


ALLEN, Gary. None Dare Call h Conspiracy (Concord Press). 

BAKER. John. Race (Oxford University Press. 1974). 

BENSON, Ivor. The Opinion Makers (Dolphin Press, 1966). Undeclared War 
(Australian League of Rights, 1978). 

BUTLER, Erie. The Red Pattern of World Conquest (Australian League of 


Rights). 

BUTLER. General Sir William. Autobiography (Constable, 1911). 

BUI'/. A.R. The Hoax of the Twentieth Century (Historical Review Press, 1977). 
CHESTERTON, A.K. The New Unhappy Lords (Candour. 1969). 

DA EL, Curtis B. FDR, My Fxploifed Fathcr-in-Lu u (Noontide Press). 

DE PONCINS. Leon. Judaism and the \ atiean (Britons, 1967). State Secrets 


(1975). 

FORREST. Rev. A C . The Unholy Land (McClelland & Stewart, 1971). 
GAYRE OP CjAYRE, R. The Syro-Mc.\opotamian Fthnofogy as Revealed in 
(ieuesis A (Armorial. 1973). 


579 



THE CONTROVERSY OK ZION 


GLUBB. 


Brigadier-General Sir John. 


Peace in the Holy Laud (I Iodder & 


Sloimhton. 1971). 

GR1KKIN. Edward. The Tearful Master (Western Islands). 

HOBSON. J.A. The War in South Africa (James NisbeU 1900). 

JOHN, Robert HADAWI, S. The Palestine Diaries {New World Press, 1970). 
K17ITH, Sir Arthur. A New Theory of Evolution (Walls Co, 1948). 
KOESTLLR, Arthur. The Thirteenth 'Tribe (Random House. 1970). 
L4LIKNTHAL. Alfred. There does the Middle East (Devin-Adair. 1957). The 
Other Side of the Coin (do., 1905). 

MENUHIN, Moshe. The Decadence of Judaism in Our Time (Britons). 
OLIVER. Revilo P. Christianity and the Survival of the West (Sterling. 1973). 
QUIGLEY, Carroll. 'Tragedy and Hope (Macmillan. 1900). 

ROBERTSON. Wilmot. The Dispossessed Majority (Howard Allen. 1972). 
SKOUSEN. W. Cleon. The Naked Capitalist (Skousen. 1970). 

SOE/HI NI1 SYN. Alexander. The Onlay Archipelago (Harper <Y Row. 1974). 
STORMER. John. None Dare Call It Treason (Libertv Bell). 

SI 4 TON, Antony C. National Suicide ( Random House. 1973). Wad Street and 
the Bolshevik Revolution (do.. 1974). Wad Street and the Rise of Hitler ('70 
Press. 1970). 

TOLSTOY. Nieolai. Tietiins of Yalta (Hodder <Y Stoughton. 1977). 

VON HORN, General Carl. Soldiering for Peace (C assell, 1900). 

WADDELL. L.A. The Makers of Civilisation (Lu/ae). 

YOCK.EY. E'raneis Parker, hnpcriitm (Noontide Press. 1902). 

ZAWODNY. J.K. Death in the Barest (Maemillan. 1902). Nothing But Honour 
(do.. 1978). 


"Know the truth . and the truth shall make vou freed 


John S.S2.