Protocols: A Chapter from the Controversy of Zion

Doug Reed's book, The Controversy of Zion, written in 1956; published 22 years later in 1978 is the most important book I've read in my search to make sense of the insanity at large in this world today, and of the probable "source" of the insanity.  For me, the following chapter on The Protocols adds an important element of understanding to the highly controversial Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. The following quote taken from the chapter is all too recognizable today:  - Jackie - 
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 obedience, will not be persons trained in the arts of government, and will therefore easily become pawns in our game in the hands of men of learning and genius who will be their advisers, specialists bred and reared from early childhood to rule the affairs of the whole world".

=======================  

 THE PROTOCOLS

     While zionism thus took shape in the Eastern ghettoes during the last century [19th] 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 [mid-1800s], 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 therefore 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 deTocqueville wrote in 1848).
    This change in leadership and aims determined the course of the 20th Century.  However, the methods whereby 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 Illuminati plans continued through the generations to be the textbook of the revolutionaries of all camps as to method.
   These works propagated the destructive plans 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 XVII 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 founded his Alliance Sociale Democratique (the program as Mrs. Nesta Webster has shown by quoting correlative passages, was Illuminism undiluted). In the same year Maurice Joly published an attack on Napolion 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 those 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, and in 1905 one Professor Sergyei Nilus, an official of the Department of Foreign Religions at Moscow, of which "the British Museum in London has a copy bearing the 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".  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 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"... "alchoholized 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 principal " (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 the 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 ty the enraged Jewish attack on the document itself.  The asseveration of the 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 Edmond Burke, George 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 [1956] 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 soberest British newspaper) published twenty-three articles, also calling for investigation.
    In The Spectator on August 27, 1921, Lord Sydenham, a foremost authority of that day, also urged investigation. "The main point is, of course, the source from which Nilus obtained the Protocols.  The Russians who knew Nilus and his writings cannot all have been exterminated by the Bolsheviks.  His book . . . has not been translated, though it would give some idea of the man . . . What is the most striking characteristic of the Protocols?  The answer is knowledge of a rare kind, embracing the widest field.  The solution of this 'mystery', if it is one, is to be found where this uncanny knowledge, on which prophecies now literally fulfilled are based, can be show to reside".  
   In America Mr. Henry Ford, declaring that "the Protocols have fitted the world situation up to this time; they fit it now", caused his Dearborn Independent to publish a series of articles of which a million and a half reprints were sold.
    Within two years the proprietor of The Times was certified insane (by an unnamed doctor in a foreign land; a later chapter will describe this episode) and forcibly removed from control of his publications, and The Times published an article dismissing the Protocols as a plagiarism of Maurice Joly's book.  
   The proprietor of the Morning Post became the object of sustained vituperation until he sold the newspaper, which then ceased publication.  
   In 1927 Mr. Henry Ford published an apology addressed to a well-known Jew of America; when I was in the United States in later years I was told by credible informants that he was persuaded to do this, at a moment when a new-model Ford automobile was about to be marketed, by hostile threats from dealers on whom the fortunes of his concern depended.
  The campaign against the Protocols has never ceased since then.  In communized Russia all copies discoverable had been destroyed at the revolution and possession of the book became a capital crime under the law against "anti-semitism".  
   In the direct sequence to that, though twenty-five years later, the American and British authorities in occupied Germany after the Second World War constrained the Western German government to enact laws against "anti-semitism", on the Bolshevik model; and in 1955 a Munich printer who reproduced the Protocols had his business confiscated.  
   In England at the time of publication the sale of the book was temporarily stopped by authority, under the pressure described, and in the course of the years the attack on it continued so violent that publishers feared it and only small local firms ever ventured to print it.  
   In Switzerland, between the wars, a Jewish suit was brought against the book as "improper literature'.  The case was won, but the verdict was set aside by a higher court.
     The state of affairs thus brought about after 1920, and continuing today, was foretold by the Protocols in 1905:

"Through the press we have gained the power to influence while remaining ourselves in the shade . . . The principal factor of 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 printing press, for where would be the sense of getting rid of the attacks of the press if we remain targets for pamphlets and books? . . .
No one shall with impunity lay a finger on the aureole of our government infallibility.  The pretext for stopping any publication will be the alleged plea that it is agitating the public mind without occasion or justification . . .
We shall have a sure triumph over our opponents since they will not have at their disposition organs of the press in which they can give full and final expression to their views owing to the aforesaid methods of dealing with the press..."

     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 evident 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, [or today in 2001] 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".
    On 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 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 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 fulfillment" of these precepts in communized Russia must be obvious to all today).
   The "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 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".

      This passage is of especial interest.  The term "premier-dictator" would not generally have been understood in 1905, when the peoples of the West believed their elected representatives to express and depend on their approval.  However, it became applicable during the First and Second World Wars, when American presidents and British prime ministers made themselves, in fact, "premier-dictators" and used emergency powers in the name of "the welfare of peoples . . . international brotherhood . . . equality of rights".  
   Moreover, these premier-dictators, in both wars, did tell the peoples that the ultimate end of all this would be "unification" under a world government of some kind.  The question, who would govern this world government, was one which never received straightforward answer; so much else of the Protocols has been fulfilled that their assertion that it would be the instrument of the conspiracy for governing the world "by violence and terrorization" deserves much thought.  
    The especial characteristic of the two 20th Century wars is the disappointment which each brought to the peoples who appeared to be victorious. "Uncanny knowledge", therefore, again seems to have inspired the statement, made in 1905 or earlier.  

"Ever since that time" (the French Revolution) "we have been leading the peoples from one disenchantment to another",

followed later by this:

"By these acts all States are in torture; they exhort to tranquility, are ready to sacrifice everything for peace; but we will not give them peace until they openly acknowledge our international Super-Government, and with submissiveness".

The words, written before 1905, seem accurately to depict the course of the 20th Century.
     Again, the document says

"it is indispensable for our purpose that wars, so far as possible, should not result in territorial gains".

    This very phrase, of 1905 or earlier, was made the chief slogan, or apparent moral principle, proclaimed by the political leaders of America and Britain in both world wars, and in this case the difference between "the word" and "the deed" of "the diplomat" has been shown by results.
   The chief result of the First War was to establish revolutionary-Zionism and revolutionary -Communism as new forces in international affairs, the first with a promised "homeland" and the second with a resident State.  The chief result of the Second War was that further "territorial gains" accrued to, and only to, Zionism and Communism; Zionism received its resident State and Communism received half of Europe.
      The "deadly accuracy" (Lord Sydenham's words) of the Protocol's forecasts seems apparent in this case, where a specious phrase used in the Protocols of 1905 became the daily language of American presidents and British prime ministers in 1914-1918 and 1939-1945.
     The reason why the authors of the Protocols held this slogan to be so important, in beguiling the peoples, is also explained.  If the nations embroiled in wars are denied "territorial gains", the only victors will then be

"our international agenteur . . . 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 obedience, will not be persons trained in the arts of government, and will therefore easily become pawns in our game in the hands of men of learning and genius who will be their advisers, specialists bred and reared from early childhood to rule the affairs of the whole world".

   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 exercised.  
   In the United States, for instance, "advisers on Jewish affairs" became resident at the White House and at the headquarters of American armies of occupation.  One financier (who publicly recommended drastic measures for "ruling the affairs of the world") was adviser to so many presidents that he was permanently dubbed "Elder Statesman" by the press, and visiting prime ministers from England also repaired to him as if to a supreme seat of authority.
    The Protocols foretold this regime of the "advisers" when none understood what was meant and few would have credited that they would openly appear in the high places.
     The Protocols repeatedly affirm that the first objective is the destruction of the existing ruling class ("the aristocracy", the term employed, was still applicable in 1905) and the seizure of property through the incitement of the insensate, brutish "mob".  Once again, subsequent events give the "forecast" its "deadly accuracy".

"In politics one must know how to seize the property of others without hesitation if by it we secure submission and sovereignty . . . The words, "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity', brought to our ranks, thanks to our blind agents, whole legions who bore our banners with enthusiasm.  And all the time these words were canker-worms boring into the well being of the people, putting an end everywhere to peace, quiet, solidarity and destroying all the foundations of the States . .
This helped us to our greatest triumph; it gave us the possibility, among other things, of getting into our hands the master card, the destruction of privileges, or in other words the very existence of the aristocracy . . . that class which was the only defence peoples and countries had against us.  On the ruins of the natural and genealogical aristocracy . . . we have set up the aristocracy of our educated class headed by the aristocracy of money.  The qualifications of this aristocracy we have established in wealth, which is dependent upon us, and in knowledge . . .
It is this possibility of replacing the representatives of the people which has placed them at our disposal, and, as it were, given us the power of appointment . . . We appear on the scene as alleged saviours of the worker from this oppression when we propose to him to enter the ranks of our fighting forces; Socialists, Anarchists, Communists  . . .
By want and the envy and hatred which it engenders we shall move the mobs and with their hands we shall wipe out all those who hinder us on our way . . .
The people, blindly believing things in print, cherishes . . . a blind hatred towards all conditions which it considers above itself, for it has no understanding of the meaning of class and condition. . .
These mobs will rush delightedly to shed the blood of those whom, in the simplicity of their ignorance, they have envied from their cradles, and whose property they will then be able to loot.   'Ours' they will not touch, because the moment of attack will be known to us and we shall take measures to protect our own . . .
The word 'freedom' brings out the communities of men to fight against every kind of force, against every kind of authority, even against God and the laws of nature.  For this reason we, when we come into our kingdom, shall have to erase this word from the lexicon of life as implying a principle of brute force which turns mobs into bloodthirsty beasts . . .
But even freedom might be harmless and have its place in the State economy without injury to the wellbeing of the peoples if it rested upon the foundation of faith in God . . .
This is the reason why it is indispensable for us to undermine all faith, to tear out of the minds of the masses the very principle of Godhead and the spirit, and to put in its place arithmetical calculations and material needs . . .

. . . We have set one against another this 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.  [past 2,000 years]  This is the reason why there is not one State which would anywhere receive support if it were to raise its arm, for every one of them, must bear in mind that any agreement against us would be unprofitable to itself.   We are too strong, there is no evading our power.  The nations cannot come to even an inconsiderable private agreement without our secretly having a hand in it . . .
In order to put public opinion into our hands we must bring it into a state of bewilderment by giving expression from all sides to so many contradictory opinions and for such length of time as will suffice to make the peoples lose their heads in the labrynth 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 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 on 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 pro forma 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 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 skeptical eye on today's periodical reports of sudden "anti-semitic" turns in communist 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 with 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 generations.  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 the 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 moral 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 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 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 the responsibility curbed by constitutional controls; the president is to become one of the "premier-dictators earlier foreseen, whose function is to be to break down the constitutional defences of states and thus prepare "unification under our sovereign rule".

     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, beside 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 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".

     This forecast of 1905 or earlier particularly deserves Lord Sydenham's tribute of "deadly accuracy".  American presidents in the two wars of this century have acted as here shown.  They did take the right of declaring and making war, and it has been used at least once (in Korea) since the Second World War ended, and 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 1790s, 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 fulfillment. It is a grandiose plan, and 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 fulfillment or failure. Either will be destructive for a time, and hard for those of the time in which the denouement comes. -- End of Chapter --  

 http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/protocols.htm

Zion

THE ZIONIST STATE

[Harbinger of World War III]

     It has been said by insiders from many quarters that three world wars will be necessary in order to complete the long-laid plan for World Dominion.

     After WWI, the Versailles treaty - of which the measures against Germany guaranteed a second World War - M. Clemenceau boasted that 'we are carrying the war on into the peace'.  

"Full Responsibility for the First world War, lies squarely on the shoulders of the International Jewish Bankers. They are responsible for millions of dead and dying". -- U.S. Congress - Record 67th Congress, 4. Sitting, Senate Document nr. 346)

"The bolshevik Revolution in russia was the work of Jewish planning and Jewish dissatisfaction. Our Plan is to have a New world Order. what worked so wonderfully in Russia, is going to become Reality for the whole world." -- The American Hebrew Magazine, 10, Sept. 1920

"By using the new atheist exile politics they [the Zionists] provoked and increased anti-Semitism in Europe which led to the Second world War. . . The worldwide boycott against Germany in 1933 and the later all-out declaration of war against Germany, initiated by the Zionist leaders and the World Jewish Congress. . . " -- Rabbi Schwartz, New York Times, Sept. 30, 1997

     On April 27, 2002 an article in the Arizona Daily Star  carried a report with a statement by Ra'anan Gissen, a senior adviser to Ariel Sharon.

 WWIII Is Coming 'Whether They Like It Or Not' - Top Sharon Aide

"The Terror attacks on September 11 and extreme turmoil in the Middle East point to one thing - World War III, a spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Friday during a visit to Tucson."  

"We've been fighting a war for the past 18 months, which is the harbinger of World War III. The world is going to fight, whether they like it or not. I'm sure". [Gissen stated]

          In the first half of this chapter of Douglas Reed's book, Controversy of Zion, we're given a detailed -- almost microscopic -- look behind the scenes at the manipulations, threats, bribes and murders committed in order to secure the vote by the United Nations, mandating the 'state' of Israel as a homeland for the so-called Jews. He describes the 'contest' between Republicans and Democrats -- their fawning promises of capitulation -- before the upcoming presidential election to garner financial support and votes from the Jews.  

     Many people died in their attempts to sound the warning, including Mr. James Forrestal, U.S. Secretary for Defence, when he failed to heed the warnings of Bernard Baruch to 'back off'.  

     The second half of the chapter draws a gruesome picture of the bloody terror in Palestine that began simultaneously with the UN mandate. This a MUST READ, even for those who believe they know the facts. Reed's research appears to be indisputable and verifiable.

     You'll read statements by many people in high places who feared for the future of the world if the mandate was passed, and they predicted it would lead to a third world war.

    First, a couple of paragraphs from the preface to explain the twenty-two-year gap between the completion of this vital book and it's publication, which can be purchased from Omni Christian Book Club. You can find ordering information in our Resources section, at the bottom of the page. Here's the preface excerpt:

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

"His public career as a writer now apparently at an end, Reed was 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 2,000 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. . . " IVOR BENSON, Durban, Natal, August 1978

     Benson goes on to tell of Reed's three-year period of research and writing the book, with the Epilogue being added in 1956, then, the book gathering dust for twenty-two years, until it was finally published in 1978 by the Dolphin Press, Durban, Natal, South Africa.
     Knowing this, dear reader -- knowing how desperately you are NOT wanted to have this information -- I hope your desire for truth and understanding is strong enough that you will get the book and read it from cover to cover. It does, indeed, lay the groundwork for other smaller gems written by various authors -- several of which are posted here --  that help us to at least begin to grasp the breadth and depth of an International Priesthood's insidious, centuries-long plan for World Dominion.
     This is not to say that Doug Reed is infallible, for, being human, that would be impossible.
     We've given here a few excerpted quotes from the chapter as it so pertains to today, reminding you it was written fifty years ago. Many of Reed's statements appear to be prophetic. Actually, he saw the 'writing on the wall'. We've broken the chapter into two parts as it's among the few longest chapters of the book and we present it to you, with love.
-- Jackie --
January 27th, 2004

______________________________________ 

* . . . everyone connected with it will be hunted down and put to death * . . . this means that even the Zionist state set up after the Second World War by no means fulfills the intention of those who made the Balfour Declaration, and that further conquests of Arab lands have yet to be made by war.
* As in American elections, so in this British one of 1945 the power to "deliver the votes" 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.
* 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.
* Then he [Harry Truman] 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.
* The "activists" (as they prefer to call themselves) were left with power to ignite a third world conflict when they pleased.
* 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".
* If American troops in the 1950's or 1960's [or 1990's or in the 21st Century] find themselves in the Middle 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 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".

* His [Mr. Forrestal's] end needs to be described here, before the armed seizure of Palestine is recorded; it is the classic case of persecution by defamation, leading to death.

______________________________________________

Here's the last two paragraphs of the preceding chapter, "The Talmudic Vengeance", for the sake of continuity. [All emphasis is the author's.]
     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.

THE ZIONIST STATE

pages 423 - 469

     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 arms 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 change can be made in policy without full discussion in Cabinet". (June 23, 1944).

     The policy had been changed after full discussion in Cabinet and 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 (treatment of Jews in Hungary) is 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 be 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 4th (July 12, 1944). I like the idea of the Jews trying to get at the murders 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 26th, 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-office memorandum, was not aware "of the slightest advantage that has ever accrued to Great Britain from this painful and thankless task". 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" 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 placating Zion.  Thus it 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 (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".

(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 claimant 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" (who had no source of arms-supply).  General Wavell's view about the Zionist scheme was that of all 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 Wavell's removal from the 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" 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" and "needless" telegrams about "matters of detail".  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" 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 proving 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", 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", 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", 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"; according to 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 most contemptuous manner, asserting that I (Dr. Weizmann) had tried to bribe him with twenty million pounds to sell out Palestine to the Jews", and he indignantly rejected any suggestion of a deal on such terms.  

     Therewith all prospect of any "settlement" 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" 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" but had remained non-committal. Mr. Churchill, according to Dr. Weizmann, had 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") to Zion (in 1949 he was still very angry that Mr. Churchill, on the "pretext" that the war must first be finished, refrained from making this final public capitulation).

     Like Macbeth, Dr. Weizmann's "top-line politicians" 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!"

     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" and "greatly disturbed" 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 Kin 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" and received the blunt answer, "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 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:

"I 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" 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 known, 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 was 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:

"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 were 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 Dealers hurl a tray of empty glasses into a toilet and shout in mock bravado, "Down the hatch, we won't need you any more'. Porters and club stewards bustled up and down 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 was 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 would form a Jewish state. . . We encouraged 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 was his view this means that even the Zionist state set up after the Second World War by no means fulfills 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":  "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 were 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 "I 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 was 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 was not as simple as that. The future historian has to work from such 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 votes" was shown. Mr. churchill had gone far in "arming the Jews" and in private 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 Zionist 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", solemnly 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, but 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 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 George 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 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", 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.

     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 imbroglio 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 defenceless 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 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 Sabbata Zevi.

     He was against "trucking to the demoralizing forces in the movement", the cryptic phrase he uses to cover those referred to by Mr. Churchill as "the 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 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 longer 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 "irresistible 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 UNSCOP 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 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 by 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 Ostjuden, 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 information; in the servient condition of the press their disclosure 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".

     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" 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" was waged with it), the three governments of Washington, London and Moscow acted in perfect accord in this one matter. The "exodus" 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 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 earlier 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 though 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" 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 elections, 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 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 intervention 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 administrations there impossible; this was the reply to President Truman's proposal that 100,000 "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. Hannegan's 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 skeptical". At the next Cabinet lunch (October 6) the party-boss 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".

     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 Middle 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 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 permissible, 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, 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 Phillipines 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 of Jerusalem" 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 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:

"I 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 had been brought into the White House among the "Palace Guard" with which 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 in Palestine, and had insisted that unless the President anticipated this moment New York State would be lost to the Democrats".

     Here Mr. Byrnes gave another glimpse of the behind-the-scenes action. 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 the 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".

     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 through the world".

     Under-Secretary Lovett, on reading mr. Forrestal's 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 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 proposals 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 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. . ."

[Note - JP: It has since been disclosed that, according to in-depth investigation, Mr. Forrestal was most probably "thrown bodily from the window"; i.e. MURDERED!]

     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. Forrestal's 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 Forrestal's 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. Forrestal's 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 Encyclopedia). Literal Talmudists would presumably see in Mr. Chamber'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. Forrestal's retreat into silence, at the warning of Mr. Baruch, the 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. 

 http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/zionist.html