Introduction to the German translation of
Douglas Reed’s book
“The Controversy of Zion”
By Jürgen Graf
1. The Controversy of Zion
Douglas Reeds monumental work has two evident weaknesses which should be pointed out from the outset:
Reeds references are insufficient. For example, the title of Josef Kastein's “History and Destiny of the Jews” (1933), his most frequently quoted source, does not appear anywhere in the original English text; he simply keeps mentioning “Dr. Kastein's book”, and leaves it to the reader to find the title in the (surprisingly meager) bibliography in the appendix. In such cases I, as the translator, could correct that and insert the relevant book titles in the text. I could not find out on which page the quotations in question are to be found, for such information is not to be found in Reed's text, and the purchase of the original texts would have involved unreasonable expenses. Similarly with the newspaper articles: here one must be content when Reed mentions the name of the newspaper in question, and ideally also the date on which the quoted article was published. Often he gives as his source “A South African newspaper” which makes it impossible to trace the quotation.
In the frequent quotations from The Old Testament, especially in the first chapter, Reed typically mentions that it comes from, for example, “The Book of Leviticus” of “from The Book of Ezekiel”. As a translation back from the English text was out of the question, I spent many days in finding the passages in question, and thus got to know The Old Testament better.
Reed delivers a wealth of information on the methods by which Zionist Jewry gained its overwhelming political influence during the 20th century, so that at some point it could control the top politicians in “the free world” almost at will, but he leaves out completely one central aspect - the economic one. We hear nothing about the sources of the enormous sums at the disposal of the Zionist leaders to further their agenda (including bribing of politicians). He does not mention at all such important questions as the roots of the Jewish financial power or the fundamental difference between the productive capitalism of, for example, Henry Ford who created workplaces and produced goods that served the common good, and the parasitic financial capitalism of, for example, the Rothschild family which used, and still uses, money as a means of acquiring enormous riches through speculations at the stock exchanges.
These were the weaknesses of Reeds work. What about its strengths which aroused my admiration, and moved me to immediately accept the offer of translating it into German, already after the first cursory reading?
Douglas Reed was born in 1895. Prior to resigning in 1938, he was the European correspondent of the prestigious London newspaper The Times. Shortly after the end of The Second World War he set himself a task from which many better qualified persons, out of fear, would have shrunk away. He decided to document the development of Judaism from the fifth century B.C. until the present, as well as the influence of Jews on society and the policy of their host countries. In spite of a few unavoidable errors, he succeeded so brilliantly that one can certainly count “The Controversy of Zion” among the most important political books of the 20th century.
Reed completed his masterpiece at the end of 1956 aged 61. Although he was to live another 20 years, he never saw his book published as he could find no publisher. "The Controversy of Zion" was first published in South Africa shortly after his death.
As he embarked upon this epoch-making work, he had already become a non-person for having criticized Jewry in his works during and after The Second World War. Had this been done by some other person, he would have been called a “Nazi”, but that wouldn’t have worked with Reed because prior to the war he had been among the most uncompromising opponents of The Third Reich and in his two books “Insanity Fair” and “Disgrace Abounding” he had castigated the policy of collaboration of his government. (To his credit, his rabid anti-Nazism did not prevent him from later castigating the orgies of revenge of the victorious powers in occupied Germany as well as the revolting farce of the Nuremberg trials.) As it was not possible to smear him as a Nazi, he was labeled a “virulent anti-Semite” (as The Times wrote in the obituary of its former correspondent)1. This is totally wrong because, if that word still is to have any meaning, “anti-Semitism” signifies “hostility towards Jews because of their Semitic descent”. There is no trace of such racially motivated hostility towards Jews with Reed. For him the Jewish problem is not to be found in the Jewish genes, but alone in the Jewish religion.
Reeds judgment of this religion is merciless:
The creed which was given force of daily law in Judah in 458 BC was then and still is unique in the world. It rested on the assertion, attributed to the tribal deity (Jehovah), that “the Israelites” (in fact, the Judahites) were his “chosen people” who, if they did all his “statutes and judgments,” would be set over all other peoples and be established in a “promised land.”(Chapter 1).
“In our time, I judge, a barbaric superstition born in antiquity and nurtured through the ages by a semi-secret priesthood, has returned to plague us in the form of a political movement supported by great wealth and power in all great capitals of the world. Through the two methods used, revolution from below and the corruption of governments from above, it has come far towards success in a fantastic ambition of achieving world dominion using these two instruments to incite nations against each other.” (Epilogue)
Reed saw the only solution in ”the Jews merging with the rest of mankind”, that is in their total assimilation which would necessarily mean their mixing with their host populations. For a racially conscious “anti-Semite”, such mixing would of course be an abomination - as it would for Orthodox Jews:
“In those days also saw I Jews that had married wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab: And their children spake half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews language, but according to the language of each people. And I contended with them, and cursed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God, saying, Ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters unto your sons, or for yourselves. Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? Yet among many nations was there no king like him, who was beloved of his God, and God made him king over all Israel: nevertheless even he did outlandish women cause to sin. Shall we then hearken unto you to do this great evil, to transgress against our God in marrying strange wives?” (Nehemiah 13; 23-27)
“And Ezra the priest stood up, and said unto them, Ye have transgressed, and have taken strange wives, to increase the trespass of Israel. Now therefore make confession unto the LORD of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives. Then all the congregation answered and said with a loud voice, As thou hast said, so must we do.”
(Ezra 10; 10-12)
Please note that the Nuremberg Laws of 1935 were more humane than Ezra’s demands: although they forbade future marriages between Aryans and Jews, they did not touch the already established ones.
2 An incorruptible observer
In 1821 the French astronomer Alexis Bouvard discovered disturbances in the orbit of the planet Uranus which at first he could not explain. He came to the conclusion that there must be an invisible planet on the other side of Uranus which gravitation influenced the orbit of Uranus. In 1846 this planet was discovered by the Frenchman Urbain Le Verrier, as well as by the German Gottfried Galle, and was given the name Neptune. Bouvard's hypothesis had thus been proved correct, but he did not live to see its triumph as he died three years before Le Verrier's discovery.
The way Alexis Bouvard succeeded in the field of astronomy, Douglas Reed did in the field of politics. As a keen and incorruptible observer of events on the stage of world politics, from apparently inexplicable occurrences he discovered the presence of an invisible power which made statesmen dance like marionettes. Two particularly illustrative examples:
In the fall of 1917 the British government decided to transfer a considerable part of the forces fighting on the French battlefields to the Near East in order to drive the Turks, a German ally, out of Palestine. From a military viewpoint this was sheer madness, as it has been proven in innumerable wars that transferring troops from a main battlefield to a secondary one is a big mistake. The decision of the London-government provoked embarrassed head shakes from experienced military leaders. The enormous expedition actually succeeded in beating the Turks in Palestine (Jerusalem was conquered in December 1917), but the weakening of the Western front had catastrophic consequences for the British army. All the more because, after Russia's dropping out of the war, the Germans were able to throw most of their units, until then tied up on the Russian front, to the West. The British suffered terrible losses, and only arrivals of huge numbers of American troops in the spring of 1918 prevented a total catastrophe.
At that time Douglas Reed was fighting in the air force in France and, of course, had no idea what had moved his government to follow this unusual course. Only many years later he understood the reason: “The Invisible Pressure” of the Zionists on the government in London, which approved the establishment of a Jewish state, had been successful. On the 2nd of November 1917, while the fighting in the Near East was in full swing, the minister of foreign affairs, Lord Arthur Balfour, had promised the Zionist Lionel Rothschild, in writing, that his government would support the efforts to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine. In order to be able to hand over this area to the Zionists, the English would have to conquer it first, of course. That is why they sent a big expedition of troops to the Near East without any regard for the catastrophic consequences for their own troops on the Western Front. Thus those responsible in London sacrificed tens of thousands of young Englishmen on the altar of the future state of Israel.
At first glance the policies of the USA and Great Britain from the spring of 1943 were no less inexplicable. After the battle of Stalingrad and the withdrawal of German troops from North Africa it was clear that the German Reich no longer had any chance of a military victory. As neither the USSR nor the Western Powers had the slightest intentions of reaching a peaceful compromise with Adolf Hitler, it was already at that time predictable that, as a consequence of the inevitable German defeat, one part of Europe would come under Anglo-American influence, and another - under Soviet control. From the viewpoint of the Western Powers the only sensible policy would have been to conquer as large parts of Eastern Europe as possible before the arrival of the Red Army. Consequently a push towards “the soft underbelly of the Axis”, the Balkans, would have been the best thing to do in the summer of 1943 with the advance towards the north to Greece and Yugoslavia. However, that was exactly what the Anglo-Americans didn't do. Instead they landed in Italy where their progress stagnated for four months south of Rome. Instead of pushing towards the Balkans, while there was still time, they staged an invasion of the south of France by mid August, whereas the Red Army took Romania and from there advanced south and west. Even so it would still have been possible for the Anglo-Americans to reach the three key central European cities, Berlin, Vienna and Prague before the Soviets, but Eisenhower ordered his troops to stop, so that all the three cities could be taken by the Red Army.
After a thorough study of the available material Reed concluded that the ailing US president Roosevelt, who had become a puppet of his predominantly Jewish and thoroughly pro-Soviet “advisers”, had decided to serve half of Europe to communism on a silver platter and thus pave the way for a future partition of the European Continent. Winston Churchill was not happy with these plans, but he no longer had much influence and had been reduced to a supernumerary. All major decisions were now made in Washington, not in London.
Under these circumstances Reed had to conclude that the real victors of The Second World War were the two revolutionary twin brothers, Jewish Communism and Jewish Zionism. Thanks to the cooperation of Western leaders Stalin became the master of half of Europe, while the Zionists could establish their much longed for state in the Near East three years later. With much clear-sightedness Reed realized that this state was a potential powder-keg right from the start, the explosion of which had to lead to a world fire. At present everything points to his being right about that. He was only mistaken as to the timing. Things are developing much slower, and the coming world fire is building up under circumstances quite different from anything, Reed could have imagined.
How did it come about that an insignificant religious and ethnic minority could gain almost total control over the policies of the US – the leading power in the West? In order to answer that question conclusively, one had to follow the development of the Jewish people and their power through the centuries, and so it was obvious to start with the beginning – the Old Testament.
3. The Jewish Religion
I cannot imagine who would have the right to deny The Old Testament his respect. It is one of the most powerful works of all time. Never before or after has the eternal question of the root of evil and injustice been described so strongly and answered as in The Book of Job. The fall of man, the expulsion from the Garden of Eden, the story of Cain and Abel, the Tower of Babel, Noah’s Ark, all of these stories have so enormous symbolic power and are so intense that no sensitive human being, who has once heard them, can ever forget them.
Among the passages in The Old Testament which make the most of an impression on me, is the dialogue between God and Abraham about the fate of the sinful city of Sodom. God promises Abraham to spare the city if fifty righteous persons can be found in it. Then Abraham negotiates the number down to ten:
Genesis chapter 18, verse 32. “And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten’s sake.” verse 33. And the Lord went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place.”
God does not find ten righteous persons in Sodom, and the city is destroyed. I thought of this story with shock and sorrow when I heard of an appeal to the German people from Horst Mahler (shortly after he was sentenced to twelve and a half years in prison for his critique of Jewry, as well as of the Jewish version of the history of The Second World War): The Germans should have walked the streets by the thousands to raise their voices against this lie which has been lying as a leaden weight upon them since 1945 which makes it impossible for them to regain their self-respect and which, if not broken, will lead to their destruction. The tens of thousands of demonstrators did not show up, not even ten. Fear is rooted too deeply in the German people.
Next to such awe-inspiring passages, one also encounters things which give less cause for admiration. Again and again Jehovah orders his people to utterly destroy other tribes. Here is an example:
Deuteronomy 7; 1-3, 16:
When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;
2 And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them:
3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
16 And thou shalt consume all the people which the Lord thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them: neither shalt thou serve their gods; for that will be a snare unto thee.
How could the same God, who had given his people The Ten Commandments, including the Sixth, which forbids murder, order the indiscriminate extermination of whole nations? And how could Moses, who had brought the tablets with The Ten Commandments to the children of Israel, end his earthly life with the horrible massacre on the Midianites to which his wife belonged (Numbers, chapter 31)? To these questions Reed gives a logical answer: The genocidal orders of Jehovah were added to the sacred texts later, in the Babylonian exile, by the scribes who created the final version of the holy texts in order to inoculate the desired chauvinism into their people.
Evidently this means that the historical reality described in these passages is an open question. There is no objective proof that these mass murders have ever taken place. A strong indication that it is not so is given in the Book of Esther in the story of the 75.000 Persians whom the Jews slaughtered with the express permission of the Persian king, Ahasveros. (In memory of this joyous event, or non-event, orthodox Jews celebrate their annual Purim to this day!) In Persian history there is not the slightest hint of this amazing event; thus, with a probability approaching certainty, we have to do with a myth.
For religious Jews such myths are important parts of their tradition, because a non-event of which one hears and reads constantly becomes an irrefutable fact in a man’s subjective consciousness. In an opinion poll amongst Jews and brainwashed European and American non-Jews concerning the most important event in the 20th century, most Jews and at least a large minority of non-Jews would undoubtedly mention the Holocaust. Thereby they would not refer to the very real and very brutal persecution of Jews during the Second World War but the imaginary, industrial extermination of millions of Jews in chemical slaughterhouses. This Holocaust propaganda has now for six and a half decades influenced the consciousness of half of mankind, the same way the commands of Jehovah to exterminate other nations have influenced the thinking of orthodox Jews for more than two thousand years, with all their consequences.
In Jewish tradition the enemy who must be destroyed carries the name of Amalek after the Amalekite people who were completely exterminated by the Israelites according to The Old Testament. (First Book of Samuel, 15; chronicle 4; 43). Any ruler or political leader who opposed or opposes the Jews in the past or the present is considered Amalek, be it the Ukrainian Cossack leader Bogdan Khmelnitsky (1595 – 1667) or Adolf Hitler, Gamal Abdul Nasser or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Whole peoples can also be identified with the Amalekites, be it Germans (in 1898 rabbi Yosef Haim Sonnenfeld declined to meet with Wilhelm II during his visit in Palestine, because the Germans were, according to him, descended from the Amalekites), or 2 the Palestinians.
On February 25th 1994 a captain of the Israeli army and physician, Dr. Baruch Goldstein, entered a mosque, shot 29 Arabs and wounded 150 with his machine gun. As he was about to change the magazine, he was killed by a survivor with a fire extinguisher. Through his heroic deed and his “martyrdom”, the amok runner won the status of a saint, whilst his victims were mocked by pious rabbis.
Rabbi Israel Ariel: “The holy martyr Baruch Goldstein from now on is our patron in Heaven.” 3
Rabbi Dov Lior: “What Goldstein did, he did in the name of God. Thereby he has shown himself to be righteous.” 4
Rabbi Moshe Levinger: “I feel for the 29 dead Palestinians just as much compassion as I would feel for 29 dead flies.” 5
Rabbi Yaacov Perrin: “A million Arabs are not worth as much as one Jewish fingernail.” 6
A year after the massacre grateful Israelis erected a monument for the butcher with an inscription as follows:
“Here rests the holy Dr. Baruch Goldstein, blessed be the memory of this righteous and sacred man, may the Lord avenge his blood.” 7
According to the same inscription Baruch was the seventh successor of the founder of the Chabad-Lubavitch Movement, rabbi Schneur Zalman (1745-1812) from whom the following wise statement has been handed down:
“The souls of goyim (non-Jews) are of a quite different, inferior kind. All Jews are good by nature; all goyim are evil by nature. The Jews are the crown of creation, goyim are the scum.” 8
It is comforting to know that none of these pious rabbis recommend that all goyim should be killed; at least some of them must stay alive, so that they can fulfil their purpose. This purpose was explained by rabbi Ovadia Yosef, a spiritual leader, who entered the Israeli government as a representative for the Shas-movement in October 2010:
“Goyim are born to serve us. They have no other purpose in this world. Only to serve us.”
To the question, why the Almighty often gives non-Jews a long life, the learned rabbi also knows the only right answer:
“What are non-Jews needed for? Imagine that someone’s donkey dies. He would loose his money. After all, the donkey is his slave. That is why he is granted a long life, so he can work well for these Jews … They (the non-Jews) will plough, they will bring in the harvest. We will sit as masters and eat.” 9
After these words of wisdom had found their way to the press of “the free world” and had caused a considerable outcry, Jewish organizations such as the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) tried to minimize the damage by reprimanding Ovadia Yosef for his “bigoted” and “intolerant” remarks. However this was nothing but disgusting hypocrisy, for his remarks were in complete agreement with the Jewish religion. After all, Jehovah has promised his people:
Book of Isaiah, chapter 60
10. And the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister unto thee: for in my wrath I smote thee, but in my favor have I had mercy on thee.
11 Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that men may bring unto thee the forces of the Gentiles, and that their kings may be brought.
12 For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.
This prophecy has been fulfilled, for today the wealth of the nations is actually brought to Israel. From the USA come billions of dollars each year as foreign aid; from West Germany, according to official sources,10 up until the year 1992, Israel received 85,4 billion DM “Wiedergutmachung” (reparations) and additional tributes in the form of goods. Nahum Goldmann, a longstanding member of The Jewish World Congress states in his book, The Jewish Paradox”:
Without the German reparations, which were paid during the first ten years after the founding of the state of Israel, this country would hardly have had half of its infrastructure; all trains, all ships, all electricity plants as well as most of the industry came from Germany.” 11
Such generous support was and is given by Germany to a country that was founded on stolen Palestinian territory and which has driven out half of its population with bloody terror. Also this theft of land is justified in The Old Testament:
Deuteronomy, chapter 6
10 And it shall be, when the LORD thy God shall have brought thee into the land which he sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give thee great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not,
11 And houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wells digged, which thou diggedst not, vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantedst not; when thou shalt have eaten and be full;
12 Then beware lest thou forget the LORD, which brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
The virulent chauvinism and racism increases to white-hot in Talmud and takes an especially anti-Christian turn. According to the Talmud, Jesus Christ is boiling in Hell in seething excrement:
“He (the heathen Onkelos, who dared convert to Judaism) went to awaken Jesus from the dead by means of invocations. Then he asked: Who is esteemed in the other world? He answered: The children of Israel. He asked: Shall I smite them? He said: seek to benefit them. Whosoever attacks them, attacks the apple of his (God’s) eye. He said: What is your punishment? He answered: Seething excrement, for a master has said: He, who scorns the words of the wise men shall be punished with seething excrement.”12
Such is the gloomy world view of this little nation which during several centuries achieved a fantastic economic and political power. For its host nations it could and can only have unpleasant consequences.
Here one may argue that not all Jews think that way. This is, of course, true. There have always been honest and courageous Jews, who raised their voices against the insane ideology of their leaders, from the prophets of The Old Testament such as Amos (“Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel? saith the LORD;” Book of Amos, 9,7) over the famous philosopher, Baruch Spinoza, who was expelled by his co-religionists (May God strike him with consumption, with fever, with fire, with infection, with sword, with barrenness, with leprosy and may he persecute him until he has totally destroyed him”) to the anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian Israeli dissidents of today, such as Israel Shahak, Israel Shamir and Gilad Azmon. Even so, these men with new ideas have always been an isolated minority in Jewry; at its head always stood the guardians of the pure teaching supervising with Argus eyes that the Jewish foot soldiers did not fall out of step. Just how the rabbis maintained their reign of terror in the ghettos and how mercilessly they acted against dissidents is described in Israel Shahak’s excellent book, “Jewish History, Jewish Religion. The weight of 3000 years”. 13
4. Self isolation or assimilation?
In spite of their inner strife, the Jews appeared to their Christian host nations to be a compact group. They managed to keep the conflicts between members of the Jewish community from Christian courts, dealing with them in Jewish tribunals instead. They used to live in isolated ghettos.
Under these conditions no co-existence was possible between the Christian majority and the Jewish minority. At best, they lived side by side and at worst - in conflict with each other. The suspicious, even hostile, attitudes of the Christian masses towards the Jews, which periodically resulted in pogroms, are being described by politically correct historians solely as a result of religious intolerance and incitement by Popes. In reality, almost always they had economic causes.
In Deuteronomy 5, chapter 23 it says:
19 Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:
20 Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it.
21 When thou shalt vow a vow unto the LORD thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the LORD thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee.
Unscrupulous Jewish usurers used the permission to lend upon usury to its full potential:
During the Middle Ages Jewish usurers charged an interest of between 22 and 43 percent. 14
In the fourteenth century the rulers of Spain allowed the Jews an interest of 33,3 percent. During a famine in Cuenca in 1326 when the peasants desperately needed money for buying seed, the Jews refused to lend them money as long as they were not allowed to charge an interest of 40 percent. 15
Similar examples can be multiplied almost endlessly. It is easy to understand that the Jews did not make themselves very popular by such methods. Where the local authorities had the sense to limit the interest to a reasonable level – as for example in Venice in the sixteenth century,16 where the highest interest permitted was 5 percent – the hostility against Jews also diminished.
The Jews were denied influence on the social order, religion and culture. The secular power and the Church quickly stopped any attempt of that sort. This changed with the French Revolution (in which the Jews had no part worth mentioning, as Reed sees it). As a consequence of the revolution, the former limitations for the Jews disappeared almost everywhere in Western Europe. Overnight, the Jews gained new undreamt-of possibilities for influencing their host populations, promoting destructive ideologies and harmful behavior.
From the viewpoint of the Jewish leaders, however, the equality of the Jews was a two-edged sword; it did not just bring enormous advantage but also very tangible dangers. More and more of Jewish foot soldiers were sick and tired of the guardianship of the rabbis and were attracted by assimilation. So the Jewish generals ran the risk of one day finding themselves without soldiers.
One of the most informative chapters in Douglas Reeds book is the eighth which deals with the emancipation and assimilation of the West European Jews in the 19th and early 20th century. Had this process been successfully completed, it would have brought both Jews and non-Jews endless blessings. The Jews would finally have thrown off the rabbinical yoke and would, before being completely absorbed into their host nations a couple of generations later, have put their indisputable talents and their above average level of education at the disposal of their homelands, as it actually happened in many cases during the period of assimilation (it suffices here to mention great doctors like Ignaz Semmelweis and Paul Ehrlich, important composers like Gustav Mahler and outstanding authors like Stefan Zweig).
If assimilation did not succeed, it was more than anything due to the majority of the Eastern Jews and their Talmudic leaders opposing it with tooth and claw. The strongest weapon in their counterattack became the reactionary and anachronistic Zionist ideology which aimed at isolating of the Jews and locking them into an invisible ghetto for all time. A large part of Reeds book is dedicated to the triumph of this ideology which met with unveiled sympathy of many Western politicians. On the 8th of February 1920 The Illustrated Herald brought an article by Winston Churchill titled “Zionism versus Bolshevism. A Battle for the Soul of the Jewish people.” Having demonstrated that the international communist movement was largely under Jewish control and that the October Revolution in Russia was largely the work of Jews, he expressed the hope that the Jewish masses would turn to Zionism as an alternative to Communism. (As Reed emphasizes in many places of his book, the contrast between the two ideologies was largely pretense; communists and Zionists operated according to the motto: “March separately, strike together.”
In order to prevent or at least delay the life threatening assimilation of the Jewish foot soldiers, the Jewish leaders of today use the psychological weapon of “Holocaust”. The incessant Holocaust-propaganda is meant for Jews as well as for non-Jews. The former are to be put into a state of permanent hysteria and persecution mania, so that they rally around their Zionist leaders who pretend to be their saviors from a new “Holocaust”. The non-Jews are to be filled with guilt complexes and made unable to resist the fate meant for them: to be mercilessly replaced by masses of immigrants from the third world and to disappear in a “multicultural” mixture of peoples, where only one people will remain unmixed – the one chosen by Jehovah.
5 The destructive Mission
“We Jews, the destroyers, will always remain the destroyers.”
Samuel Maurice, Jewish author 17
The catholic theologian, Johannes Rothkrantz, mentioned above, believes that during the nineteenth century a two-headed monster has risen from the depths, the two heads being Marx and Rothschild. Indeed, the Jewish Marxism and Jewish financial capitalism took the people of the Occident in a merciless stranglehold. “Revolution from below, corrupt governments from above”, that is how Reed describes this state of affairs which he mentions again and again. Here we have nothing to add to his description. Today, five and a half decade after the completion of “The Controversy of Zion” we can conclude that the battle against the Occident has certainly not been carried out in only this fashion. The white populations in Europe and North America are already fighting for their naked biological survival – or rather they ought to be fighting for it, but they don’t because their natural resistance to this planned biological extermination has been paralyzed by means of incessant lying propaganda and intensive brainwashing. Douglas Reed, who was a sharp observer but not clairvoyant could not have foreseen that in 1956.
In order to reach the sought-after goal – the supremacy over goyim promised them by Jehovah – the leaders of this subversive activity must destroy the most important pillars of the social order of their host nations: religion, family and ethnic homogeneity. Afterward everything else will follow.
In the struggle against the Christian religion, the main opponent was the Vatican and not the protestant church, even though the originally pro-Semitic Martin Luther, having read the Talmud which filled him with horror, a few years before his death wrote a book titled “The Jews and their Lies” (“Therefore you should know, dear Christ, and do not doubt it, that next to the devil you have not bitterer, more poisonous, more passionate enemy that a genuine Jew who sincerely wishes to be a Jew.”.) Especially the Calvinist varieties of Protestantism, according to which material wealth is a sign of being chosen, were and are so close to Judaism that no real resistance is to be expected from them. In the USA the various protestant churches and sects which still consider the Jews a chosen people, also after the coming of the Christ, are so unreservedly in favor of Israel and Zionism, that they put themselves at their service as the most “useful idiots” the world has ever seen.
The Catholic Church was a much tougher challenge that the protestants, the Baptists etc; all attempts to destroy it from the outside were in vain. The only possibility was to undermine it from within and it had to be done at the very top. If one wants to infiltrate a hierarchical, authoritarian led organization, one must strive to get its head under control, for the subordinates that are used to unconditional obedience will for the most part follow the new line. After the infiltration of the Catholic Church had largely succeeded at the second Vatican council anno 1965, Karol Wojtyla who became Pope thirteen years later, judaized it carefully but purposefully.
Any possible protest against this policy on the part of the catholic rank and file was nipped in the bud by an outright brilliant tactic. On issues such as celibacy, priestly ordination of women, homosexuality or abortion, Wojtyla always represented the traditional catholic stance, and as a consequence he was attacked by the media as well as by the “progressive theologians” as “conservative” or “reactionary” – with the result that the catholic foot soldiers identified with their “slandered pope” and did not or would not see how this “heroic champion of the pure, authentic catholic teaching” gradually subjected his church to Judaism. Wojtyla successor, Josef Ratzinger, continues this policy. To what degree the Vatican had capitulated to Judaism was made clear in 2008: After it became known that the British bishop, Richard Williamson, had questioned the existence of gas chambers in the National Socialist concentration camps, Frederico Lombardi, the spokesman of the Vatican declared to the press: “He who denies the Holocaust knows nothing about the secret of God or the cross of Christ.”18 So the mystery of Auschwitz is now considered equal to the mystery of Golgotha by the Vatican and will probably before long replace it. “Auschwitz is the refutation of Christ” said the Jewish film maker and Holocaust-propagandist, Claude Lanzmann already in 1993.19
With the destruction of the faith, the duty to obey the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” became immaterial. The logic consequence was free abortion with the result that during the last few decades many millions of unborn children have been dismembered in the wombs of their mothers. Only a small fraction of these abortions were done in cases, where it was morally justifiable, as in case of danger for the life of the mother or when the pregnancy was due to rape or incest. In most cases those murdered in the womb would have been born as healthy children had they been given the chance.
It has symbolic value that the Jewess Simone Veil, former inmate in Auschwitz, a so called “Holocaust-survivor”, had abortion legalized during her tenure as France’s “minister of health”, and upon the founding of the European Parliament was elected its “honorary president”. By this choice “Europe” (that is the criminal clique that rules over the old continent) initiated a culture of death which would necessarily lead to its downfall – unless this barbarism is halted in time.
The question of the driving force behind the industrial-scale child murdering is easily answered. From the Jew Lawrence Laden, co-founder of the American “National Abortions Right Action League”, who has “concentrated on supporting the right to abortion with such good results, and whom the feminist author, Betty Friedan called “the father of the movement”,20 to the Jew dr. Etienne Beaulieu (original family name: Blum), inventor of the abortion pill RU-486 – always we see the same deadly pattern. In the USA, where the percentage of Jews in the population is officially 2 percent and their percentage among doctors is 14 percent,21 every other abortion doctor is a Jew.22
In contrast to other doctors, who have engaged in this shameful craft, conscience awoke in Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who had carried out 5.000 of the 75.000 abortions that were performed under his guidance. In his film, “The silent Scream” and in his book “The Hand of God” he shed light on the murders of children in the womb, and later converted to Catholicism. In a paper with the title “Confessions of an ex-abortionist” Nathanson wrote:
“I am personally responsible for 5000 abortions. We convinced the media that legalizing abortion was liberal, enlightened and smart. As we knew, that we would have fallen short in an opinion poll, we simply manufactured fictive results. We let the media believe that we had carried out opinion polls and that 60% of Americans were in favor of free abortion. This is a deceptive tactics, which later comes true …. The real figures (of the illegal abortions carried out in one year) were less than 100.000, but to the media we talked of one million all the time. If a big lie is repeated often enough, the public will believe it. The number of women, who died because of an illegal abortion, was 200 to 250 a year, but in the media we insisted, that it was 10.000. Another myth, which we planted in the public via the media was, that free abortion would only mean, that the abortions that were now done illegally, would be carried out by competent doctors. The fact is that today abortion is the most important means of birth control in the USA and that the number of abortions per year has risen 15 times … We systematically slandered the Catholic Church and its reactionary ideas and portrayed the Catholics who were against abortions as the bad guys…. One of the pro-abortionists’ favorite arguments was that it is impossible to define when life begins, that the question is theological or moral or philosophical, but in no way scientific. But fetology has proven conclusively that life begins at conception … Here one might ask, why so many American doctors, who know the findings of fetology very well, compromise their ethical principles by performing abortions. The answer is a very simple piece of math: 300 dollar per operation multiplied by 1.55 million abortions that makes an industry which pays 500 million dollars; most of that going directly into the pocket of the abortion doctor.” 23
Blatant lies, fabricated statistics, suppression of scientific facts – for someone who has dealt with the official version of the history of the “Holocaust” the pattern seems very familiar. One last word on the subject of abortion: to the best of my knowledge, the only communist state which denounced this practice was Nicolae Ceausescus’ Romania. After the fall and execution of Ceausescu, his democratic successor, Petre Roman, son of the Jewish communist Ernest Neulander, alias Valter Roman,24 immediately abolished the prohibition. Give credit where credit is due.
A no less obvious sign of moral decay in the Western world is the propaganda for homosexuality with the repulsive “Gay Parades” (which Russia, to its honor, still forbids as the only European country). If someone had told Douglas Reed sixty years ago that a perverted mayor in Berlin would have used the expression “I am gay and it’s OK”25 and that the obscene blasphemy, “homosexual marriages” would be legalized in one country after another in the West, then Reed would certainly have declared this “prophet” insane. The pillar saint of the homosexual movement is the German Jew, Magnus Hirschfeld, formerly known from the Berlin transvestite club “Eldorado” as “Auntie Magnesia“, and founder of the “Institute for Sexual Science” which was razed to the ground in May 1933 by national socialist students.26 (Here I hope that the reader will shed some politically correct tears!) and the American Jewish poet, Alan Ginsberg, activist for the pedophile “Man-Boy-Love Association”, who has achieved the well-deserved fame through his grandiose poem “Howl” (“who let themselves be fucked in the ass by saintly motorcyclists, and screamed with joy”). If one makes a list of prominent spokespersons for movements for gays and lesbians in the USA, one finds names like Michael Aronowitz, Mariam Ben-Shalom, Jennifer Einhorn, Leslie Feinberg, Harvie Fierstein, Israel Fishman, David Goldstein, Ronald Gold, Len Hirsch, David Horowitz, Jonathan Katz, Moises Kaufman, Alan Klein, Larry Kramer, Bill Rubinstein, Leon Weinstein.27 We will omit comments.
That the mass immigration from the 3rd world is primarily led by Jews has been proven thoroughly by Professor Kevin MacDonald28 and David Duke29 with so many references and sources that any contradiction would have been futile – not to mention the fact that prominent Jews boldly boast of their leading role in this invasion. We will let the American Jewess, Barbara Lerner-Spectre, who has founded a “European Institute for Jewish Studies” in Stockholm with money from the Swedish state speak for herself:
“I think there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural and I think we are going to be part of the throes of that transformation which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the center of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role and without that transformation Europe will not survive.” 30
Why Europe cannot survive “without the leading role of the Jews” and “without that transformation” it did not please the lady to reveal, however it is obvious why the Europe Mrs. Lerner-Spectre and her coreligionists have in mind must be multicultural: A shapeless mass of every possible kind of ethnicity is much easier to manipulate and control that an ethnically homogeneous people.
They will not fight for their home, because they have no home – everywhere is Babylon. They will not reflect on their roots, for what roots can a human being have, when one of their grandfathers is European and the other African and one of their grandmothers is Indian and the other Chinese.
So the end-result, which is intended for the non-Jewish mankind, is degradation to a rootless caste of helots, a mixed population of white, brown, black and yellow, ruled over by the only unmixed people - the chosen one. To satisfy their cultural needs rap music, soap operas, porno films, Holocaust-memorials and Malewitsch' black square will have to suffice; They will be able to make themselves understood in primitive English, a kind of pidgin, like the one the various tribes on Papua-New Guinea use as a lingua franca, and with a vocabulary of about 2000 words. That will be sufficient to express any basic thoughts, which may be entertained at that time. It will truly be "The Sunset of Mankind", as Herbert Wells calls a chapter in his frightening utopia, "The Time Machine".
At the moment the controlled migration does not lead to massive mixing of races; most Europeans, but also most emigrants, especially from Muslim countries, prefer to stick to their own kind, just like most white Americans prefer a spouse with their own skin color. Thus the result is, at least in the first phase, not the formation of a mixed race, but an atomizing of society, which is falling apart in more and more separated and ethnically divided groups. This is also very useful for the Zionist and Talmudic Judaism, because it makes it possible to play one group against another according to the well-known principle "Divide and Rule". Furthermore this development has the advantage that the Jews are no longer noticeable as a unique religious and ethnic group. In the Middle Ages there was no doubt, who was a Christian and who was a Jew; in the multicultural and multiracial society the Jews are no longer noticeable and among the immigrants they pass simply for whites.
How is it possible that the indigenous peoples of Europe and the white Americans passively accept the gradual displacement of themselves by coloured and Muslim civilian invaders? Why do they not show the instinct of self-preservation, which is typical of any healthy Indian or Negro tribe? Because it has been hammered and pounded into them since childhood that, second only to "anti-Semitism", "racism" is the most horrific of all sins. Anyone is a "racist", if he wants to defend his home and identity. This shows that by systematic brainwashing one can make people act against their own interests and, as an extreme consequence, agree to their own demise. They behave like the red bird in the Danube Delta of which the Romanian author, Marin Preda, tells the following:
"Romanian ornithologists have discovered a red feathered bird in the Danube Delta, which showed an inexplicable behavior. Every year a fox stole its eggs and instead put stones into the nest, on which it sat all summer without noticing. In order to save the endangered species, the ornithologists chased the fox away. They observed it from a distance with their binoculars, and to their amazement the bird was seized by an inexplicable hysteria; it broke the eggs with its beak, flapped its wings violently and danced around insanely. What was the matter with it? What strange instinct drove it towards extinction? Why did it not want to live anymore? Who could know? Nature had doomed the red bird, and no one had the power to repeal the sentence." 31
In contrast to this red bird, the humanity of the West is not sentenced to death "by nature", but by quite different forces, and it is by no means certain that no one has the power to repeal the sentence. It is not yet the final evening.
During recent years it has begun to dawn on the more intelligent of the Jews that by its demand for mass-immigration Judaism is sawing off the branch, it itself is sitting on, and that Jews themselves risk falling into the abyss together with their host populations. It has been revealed that the Muslims, who are the majority of the migrants in Europe (but not in the USA), are resistant to brainwashing, that the "Holocaust"-propaganda does not impress them, and that they maintain their anti-Jewish worldview influenced by Islam. In order to get a grip on the Frankenstein monster, which Judaism has created, its right wing has recently tried to hijack the anti-immigrant movements in Europe and use them for their own purposes. They have apparently succeeded: Marine Le Pen in France, Geert Wilders in Holland, Vlaams Blok in Flandern and the Sweden Democrats in Sweden (as well as "the Danish People's Party in Denmark) follow a rigid pro-Zionist line, and praise Israel as an ally in the battle against "the Islamic danger". This “kosher right”, which serves as errand boys for the Zionists, has no objection whatsoever to mass immigration of colored non-Muslims. Among members of the “kosher right” is the mass-murderer, Anders Breivik, who on the 22nd July 2011 contributed considerably to the extermination of his own people and formulated himself as pro-Israel in his manifesto:
"Let us stop foolishly supporting the Palestinians, as we are encouraged to do by the Eurabians and let us start supporting our cultural cousin, Israel!" (p. 388) 32
6. The Henchmen
Douglas Reed has clearly recognized and underlined in "The Controversy of Zion", that the goal of the Zionists is to form a world government, which in the beginning will be led by puppets, before they are replaced with Jews. Subsequent events confirm Reeds evaluation. The Zionist and Talmudic Judaism have been using the USA - a golem with a Jewish head and a non-Jewish body, for attacking one country after the other with the most dubious excuses. The law of the fist has long ago replaced the law of the nations.
Maintaining and strengthening their power over the USA is an indispensable requirement for the realization of their plans. If they lose America, they lose everything. But as long as the political system of the United States is not changed, this danger does not exist.
At the end of his book Reed points out one of the most characteristic features of this system: In America there is an election coming up all the time - already two years after the presidential election is the congressional election - so that any president can be put under pressure at any time. If he deviates in the least from the prescribed line of action, he risks that the Jewish organizations start supporting the opposition party, which will automatically have as a consequence, that the mostly Jewish controlled media33 begin pounding on the president incessantly. So it is therefore understandable, that the president is careful not to irritate the Israel-lobby.
Clearly the most powerful part of this lobby is AIPAC (American-Israel Public Affairs Committee) which, unlike similar organizations, without any hypocrisy defines itself on its web page as "Americas Pro-Israel Lobby".34 Among its most prominent members are the republican George Bush senior, George Bush junior, Condoleezza Rice and John McCain, as well as the democrats Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry.35 Is there any need for more proof that democracy is nothing but a puppet show, where innocent children breathlessly follow, when the handsome Kasper chases away the evil crocodile without grasping, that one person is pulling all the strings behind the curtain and makes both puppets move? Whether it is the republican or the democratic candidate, who wins - the real winner is always American Jewry, which under the circumstances can afford the luxury of choosing the best suited of two servants. (The last US-president, which did not submit to Jewry unconditionally, was John F. Kennedy).
Barack Obama, who was previously completely unknown to the public, owes his election in 2008 to Jewish support. In an article with the title, "The Jews who made Obama’s election possible", an insider by the name of Moshe Feiglin wrote:
"Who are the Jews, who made Obama’s election possible? ... The leader of Obama’s campaign - the brain behind the brilliant campaign for the young candidate, who had never before held public office - is of course a Jew, David Pouffe. During every stage of the campaign, Jews played a decisive role."36
Considering his lack of qualifications for the highest public office, as well as the fact, that many white US-citizens did not really want a black president, Obama would under normal circumstances have had no chance whatsoever to move into the White House. But circumstances were not normal at the time; the exhausting, costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had made George Bush junior the most unpopular president in history. For Obama’s rival, the Republicans selected (on whose order, I wonder?) the most dreary candidate imaginable. They selected an even worse version of Bush junior, the hysterical warmonger John McCain, who by advocating a policy of open borders frightened many conservative and right-wing Americans to such a degree, that embittered, they stayed home on the election day. Thanks to this constellation Obama won over McCain as planned; that the latter was acting just as pro-Israel as his opponent, was of no use to him, as he was right from the beginning only meant to play the role of a decoy.
Why the powers in the background chose Barack Obama for president, cannot as yet be determined with certainty, and one can allow oneself some speculation. The planned establishment of One World Government cannot be achieved without great wars and when someone in whom one has placed one's hopes and a "left-pacifist" like Obama starts a war, he will of course meet much less resistance than a reactionary militarist like McCain. During the first two years of his presidency Obama has not started any new wars; not until the beginning of 2011 did he participate in French-British aggression against Libya, because strangely enough they had not attained the desired goal, the downfall of Muammar Gaddafi. It is very unlikely that Gaddafi will be able to endure the constant air terror in the long run, but his downfall and replacing him with a vassal government will not bring the New World Order much closer. On the road to the desired goal there are obstacles of a totally different caliber: Russia, China and Iran.
7. Three obstacles on the road to The New World Order
At this point, a more than cursory introduction to the recent history of Russia is appropriate. In 1918 Robert Wilton, a correspondent for The Times in Russia made a list of 384 Soviet top commissars, of which more than 300 were Jews.37 (Wilton did not know at the time that Lenin himself had Jewish roots.38) With a few exceptions such as the Pole, Felix Dzerzhinsky (the first chief of the Cheka secret service) and the Russian Nikolai Yezhov (organizer of the great purge 1937/38) the most bloodthirsty of the red terrorists were Jews, from Yakov Swerdlow and Yakov Jurowski, who planned and carried out the ritual murder of the Tsar family in Yekaterinburg (see Chapter 32) over the mass murderer Leo Trotzki, to Lazar Kaganowich, who supervised the hunger genocide of millions the Ukraine and in other areas of USSR in the beginning of the thirties, and had the Moscow Church of Our Savior blown up in 1931. In Gulag Archipelago, Alexander Solzhenitsyn presents portraits of the six leading architects of the Soviet system of concentration camps. Their names were Aron Solts, Nathaly Frenkel, Yakov Rappaport, Matvei Berman, Lazar Kagan and Genrich Yagoda.39 All six were Jews. The average citizen, who is constantly spoon fed Auschwitz-propaganda, have no idea about it.
During the first phase of his rule, the Georgian, Josef Stalin, was a faithful executor of the Talmudic policy of revenge over the Russian and the Ukrainian peoples. Besides religious persecution, his greatest crime was the "dekulakization", which cost millions of farmers their lives. However, later he continually limited the Jewish influence in the USSR; he had most of the old Bolsheviks liquidated during the great purge, and made sure that still more and more ethnic Russians were promoted to leading positions. At the same time he industrialized the Soviet Union at an unheard of speed. Regardless of the human suffering it cost, this was undoubtedly an enormous historic accomplishment. During the war against National Socialist Germany Stalin bet everything on the card of Russian nationalism declaring it "the great war for the fatherland". He put an end to the persecution of the orthodox religion, the destruction of churches and monasteries as well as imprisonment and murder of priests and nuns. After the death of Stalin the Soviet Union slowly but steadily transformed from a totalitarian to an authoritarian state; the oppression gradually decreased.
He who has experienced the Cold War as a Swiss citizen, like this writer, for him was the USSR a quintessential enemy. The Berlin wall, the tanks in Prague, the trials of dissidents, the long queues in front of the food shops – this was all that we did not want. We were right in not wanting it, but it was only one side of the Soviet reality; the other was withheld from us by the media. In fact, the USSR had been transformed into a conservative society in which virtues such as patriotism, discipline and honesty were in some cases held in higher esteem that in the West, and education, science and culture reached a very high level. This state was governed mostly by Slavs. In the Soviet elite the Jews were still overrepresented relative to their numbers in the population, but they had lost their dominant position. (From their viewpoint this loss was already considered "persecution"; hence the endless, wholly unjustified moaning in the Western media over the "persecution of Jews in Russia".)
During the nineteen seventies the Soviet Union appeared to be an invincible colossus, but it was a colossus on clay feet. What caused its ruin was the Marxist ideology, with which its leaders could not bring themselves to part. The Marxist dogma forbade them to dissolve the unproductive kolkhozes and give the land to the farmers. It prevented them from allowing free enterprise, whilst maintaining state control over raw materials and heavy industries. It forced them to invest enormous sums in supporting "socialist brother nations", send troops to Eastern Europe and meet the demands of revolutionary movements all over the world. It caused them to make the insane decision in December 1979 to march into Afghanistan to save a failed communist regime. For the Soviet Union this step was the beginning of the end.
As we have seen in the case of the Vatican, he who wants to infiltrate an authoritarian and hierarchic order from within, must begin at the top. In 1985 the Western agent, Michael Gorbachev, came to power in Moscow and started an unprecedented work of destruction, which was followed at an even increased speed by his successor, Boris Yeltsin - with horrific consequences for dozens of millions of people. The salaries and pensions from the Brezhnev era, which had been modest, but which did secure the bare necessities of life, now belonged to the past; bitter poverty was widespread; the Slav population shrank relentlessly; the health services were dismantled as was the industry; the wealth of Russia was thrown into the jaws of oligarchs like Gusinski and Berezovski; crime reached incredible proportions; Ukraine and White Russia were left as independent countries even though the majority of the population in both republics had voted for the continuation of the USSR; Eastern Europe was not neutralized after the pattern of Austria or Finland, which would have been the sensible thing to do and which would have created a buffer zone between Russia and NATO, but were pushed into NATO, that is the USA, with the result that a ring of hostile strong points was created around Russia. Yeltsin’s successor prevented the country from falling into the abyss, but Russia is still surrounded and its conventional forces are weak. Its only great trump card is an intact arsenal of nuclear weapons. If Russia is cornered, it is to be expected, that these weapons will be used.
An even worse headache to the one-world-gangsters must be the national-socialist China, which will in the foreseeable future overtake the USA as the leading economy of the world. This has been possible, because the Chinese leadership, while allowing free enterprise, has wisely distanced itself from democratizing, and thus prevented the country from slipping into chaos. In a conventional war the USA would not have the faintest chance against China’s enormous and well-equipped army; by means of atomic rockets they could turn China into a nuclear wasteland, but then they would have to calculate with the destruction of most of the larger American cities. That Peking has not put up any active resistance against the imperialism of the USA and of its British and French satraps (like the Russians, the Chinese did not prevent the pirate coup against Libya by means of a veto in the UN Security council) it is probably because they calculate, that a lot of local wars will hasten the decline of the USA.
The third obstacle on the road to world government for the one-world strategists is Iran - a country, which in the case of an attack would defend itself until the very end, and which thanks to its advantageous geographic position can at any time block the Street of Hormuz for tankers, and thus turn off the lights in all of the Western world. Although an attack on Iran would be sheer madness, everything indicates, that it will take place before Teheran succeeds in getting nuclear weapons as well as the carrier rockets. Israel does not intend to co-exist with a Persian atomic power and Washington always does as it is told by Israel. The pretext for such a fatal step will, in all probability, be a staged terror attack à la 11. September, for which Iran will be blamed, by means of manipulated evidence. It is reasonable to believe, that the Zionist puppet masters have selected their jumping jack, Obama, for this task.
8 He, who seeks the truth, finds it
A necessary precondition for such a scenario is that all the media play along, and they will do just that. Censorship in the West works almost as perfectly today as in the USSR under Stalin; all newspapers, TV channels and radio networks in North America and Europe speak in one voice on all issues importance to the string-pullers of the New World Order. (One exception is Russia, where, for example, the country's largest political TV program, Post Scriptum has already several times referred to the absolute impossibility of the official version of the events on 11. September).
Even the most brazen nonsense is faithfully parroted by the Western media, as long as it serves Zionist and American interests. The two most notable examples are the "Holocaust" (which I will not go into here, as I have done that elsewhere) and the collapse of the towers in New York. In one voice "the media professionals of the free world" serve up the mean Osama bin Laden, who in a cave in the mountains of Afghanistan planned the most perfect terror attack of all time. On his orders, amateur pilots, who could hardly fly a two motor propeller-driven aircraft, hijacked passenger planes, which they had entered without passports or boarding passes, flew them into New York’s twin towers with amazing precision with the result, that the towers burst in flames and soon thereafter collapsed, even though burning kerosene can under no circumstances reach temperatures, that can melt steel. It is carefully swept under the carpet, that a third building - "Building Seven" - collapsed in its own footprint, because the official story (that this building should have collapsed because it had been hit by burning debris from the other towers) can really only be believed by people, who have left their brains in the wardrobe. There are hundreds of websites, that describe the total impossibility of the official version. Hosts of architects, engineers and pilots testify that things could not have happened the way it is officially described; physicists point out, that the towers did not collapse because they were hit by the planes, but that they were blown up. But the media lie on shamelessly. After all, that is their real purpose. The height of impudence was the alleged liquidation of Osama bin Laden in the beginning of May 2011, which was followed in real time by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (greetings from Hollywood). The dead body of the most sought after man on Earth was then not even shown on the screen, but was thrown into the sea according to "Islamic tradition"(!). Probably this grotesque lie was calculated not only to improve the popularity of Obama, but also to test how far advanced the idiotizing of the Western, especially the American society, was. Would there be public protests? There were none.
It is a sad fact that most people cannot think independently or rather, they do not want to think independently. They prefer to trust the authorities. Under any political system, be it monarchy, fascism, communism or democracy, the majority of the population supports the powers that be, as long as they sit firmly in the saddle. When the system begins to falter, a fast growing part of the population will switch over to the opposition. Such a situation does not exist today in "the free world", but it can come about almost overnight as a consequence of war or economic collapse.
The peoples of the West cannot live under the Zionist controlled globalist system. It kills their soul and their culture; it strives for their biological extermination. Nothing can be changed through democratic methods and an armed resistance would under the present circumstances be suicidal. The only thing we can do is to expand the circle of those who know, by passing on the suppressed knowledge to the minority of people who are able and willing to think for themselves. Thanks to the internet this is now possible.
"Ce qu'il y a de terrible quand on cherche la verité, c'est qu'on la trouve" (The terrible thing is that, if you look for the truth, you will find it") a French proverb says. To those, who seek the truth about the present condition of the world and want to know, how it has come to that, Douglas Reed's "The Controversy of Zion" can be warmly recommended.
August 8th 2011
3) Dr. William Pierce, "Talmudic Judaism".
4) I. Shahak and N. Mezvinsky, Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel. Pluto Press, London 1999, p. 101.
5) Same, p. 100.
6) Washington Report of Middle East Affairs, March 1999, p. 84, 85.
8) Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, March 11. 1994.
9) Ha'aretz, October 20. 2010
10) Der Spiegel, No. 18/1992.
11) Nahum Goldmann, Das jüdische Paradox, Hamburg 1978, p. 171. (The Jewish Paradox Amazon and quotes here)
12) Babylonian Talmud, Gittin 56b-57a (from the Soncino-Edition of 1935), quoted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud
13) Israel Shahak. Jüdische Geschichte, Jüdische Religion. Der Einfluss von 3000 Jahren, Melzer Verlag, Neu-Isenburg 2009. (Jewish History, Jewish Religion) Amazon and e-book online)
14) Cecil Roth, A History of the Jews in England, The Clarendon Press, Oxford 1978, zitiert nach David Duke, Jewish Supremacism, Free Speech Press, Mandeville 2003, p. 166.
15) A. A. Neumann, The Jews in Spain, Octagon Books, New York 1969, quoted from David Duke, p. 166.
16) B. Pullan, The Jews of Europe and the Inquisition of Venice, 1550-1670, Basil Blackwell, London 1983, quoted from David Duke, p. 167.
17) Samuel Maurice, You Gentiles, 1924, quoted from Douglas Reed, The Controversy of Zion, Chapter 3, (e-book online)
18) Die Welt, February 2, 2008.
19) Les temps modernes, Paris, December 1993, p. 133.
20) New York Times, May 10, 2006.
23) http://www.aboutabortions.com/ (http://archive.is/www.aboutabortions.com)
24) http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petre_Roman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petre_Roman)
25) taz, June 12, 2001.
28) Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, 1stBooks, Long Beach 2002, Chapter 7, "Jewish Involvement in Shaping U.S. Immigration Policy".
29) David Duke, Jewish Supremacism, Chapter 13, "The Jewish led Alien Invasion".
31) Marin Preda, Delirul, Cartea Româneasc?, Bukarest 1975, p. 311.
32) http://mondoweiss.net/2011/07/breivik-manifesto-outlines-virulent-right-wing-ideology-that-fueled-the-massacre.html. and http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=89a_1311444384
33) On Jewish Media Power in the USA see David Duke, Jewish Supremacism, Chapter 5, "Jewish Media Supremacy". (review:http://davidduke.com/exposing-the-real-racists-a-review-of-dr-dukes-jewish-supremacism/
37) US National Archives (1919), "Record Group 120, Record of the American Expeditionary Forces, June 9", quoted from David Duke, Jewish Supremacism, p. 44.
38) Jewish Chronicle, July 26, 1991.
39) Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago, Harvill Press, London 1974, S. 79.