|
an article written some years ago in the Nixon era, by by E.D.Butler
Censored
History
- The Reality of Conspiracy - The Sutton Revelations
- BombShell Facts - The Truth About The Russian
Revolution -
Who are The Jews? - Financing The Soviet By Wall
Street - Soviet-Zionist Collaboration - Soviet
Real Victors In Six-Day War -
October 1973 - The Anti Semitic Smear - The
Myth of The Six Million - Towards The World State
In 1966 The Macmillan. Company, New York, and Collier-Macmillan
Limited, London, published a revealing history in which the author claimed,
in essence, that international financial groups, exercising power through
the creation and control of financial credit on an international scale, had
worked closely with Communists for the purpose of creating a New World Order.
The author was no 'Right-wing extremist', but the prestigious American historian,
Dr. Carroll Quigley, who formerly taught at Harvard and Princeton,
and who has done special research in the archives of France, Italy and England.
He subsequently became professor of history at the Foreign Service School of Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. Dr. Quigley's 1300-page Tragedy and Hope created little public interest until Mr. W. Cleon Skousen, who served with the American FBI for sixteen years and became publicly known with his best seller The Naked Communist, reviewed it in The Naked Capitalist (1970). As a highly trained investigator of Communism, Skousen had 'observed a number of strange developments which seemed to point to a conspiratorial control centre higher than either Moscow or Peking.' He had waited for someone 'on the inside' of the international power structure to talk, and was convinced that Quigley was a genuine insider. Quigley states that 'I know of the operations of this network (of the international power structure) because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted, for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records.' Why did Dr. Quigley write such a revealing book, documenting the links between Big International Finance and Communism?
Quigley makes it clear that he is a strong supporter of those striving to create a New World Order: 'I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and I have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies . . . but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known' (p. 950).
Dr. Quigley's thesis is that the men working towards a New World. Order are highly cultured, well-educated and have the best interests of the human race at heart. They offer the hope of the world. It is too late, anyhow, to turn back their progressive schemes, and therefore those who resist them represent tragedy. This is why he called his work Tragedy and Hope. The will-to-power has been a dominant feature of man's long history and while it is true, as Lord Acton said, 'That all power tends to corrupt,' it is also true that many of those who have sought power over their fellows have been pleasant individuals. Some of them have been great idealists convinced that the world would be a much better place if they had complete power.
The idea of World Government is as old as man. But whereas an Alexander the Great had to rely primarily on the force of the sword to gain power, over the past two-hundred years a new instrument has become available for centralising power that of financial credit creation, increasingly operating on an international scale. From the beginning of the famous Rothschild dynasty down to the present time Dr. Quigley gives a brilliant picture of the development of a closely-locked International Money Power. He quotes the famous statement made by Reginald McKenna, one-time British Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Chairman of the Midland Bank, who, in addressing a meeting of shareholders of the Bank on January 25, 1924, said, as recorded in his book, Post-War Banking, 'I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can, and do create and destroy money. The amount of finance in existence varies only with the action of the banks in increasing or decreasing deposits and bank purchases. We know how this is effected. Every loan, overdraft or bank purchase creates a deposit, and every repayment of a loan, overdraft or bank sale destroys a deposit.'
A number of public investigations have taken place since Reginald McKenna
publicly said what the operators of credit creation had known for centuries,
all demonstrating that trading banks create new finances when making loans
and advances. Giving evidence before the New Zealand Royal Commission on monetary
systems in 1955, Mr. H. W. Whyte, Chairman of the Associated Banks
of New Zealand, readily agreed to the realities of credit creation. 'They
have been doing it for a long time, but they didn't quite realise it, and
they did not admit it. Very few did. You will find it in all sorts of documents,
financial text-books, etc. But in the intervening years, and we must be perfectly
frank about these things, there has been a development of thought, until today
I doubt very much whether you would get many prominent bankers to attempt
to deny that banks create credit.' The real credit of a community is its productive
capacity and real wealth. But if this real credit can only be used on terms
dictated by those who have a monopoly of creating and issuing financial credit,
a mere bookkeeping arrangement, then it is elementary that if this monopoly
can be developed on an international scale, those controlling such a monopoly
have a major instrument for imposing a World State. Just as trading banks,
whether called private or Government, have progressively become the mere instruments
of Central Banks, so are Central Banks now becoming instruments of the International
Monetary Fund, which now creates a form of international credit called 'Paper
Gold' or Special Drawing Rights. One of the principal architects of the International
Monetary Fund, and the World Bank, was Harry Dexter White, Under-Secretary
of the U.S. Treasury during World War II, and subsequently discovered to
have been one of the Soviet
Union's top agents in the United States Administration.
When the White House was informed about White, he was neither - removed nor arrested,
but appointed as the new Executive Director of the U.S. Mission to the International
Monetary Fund. And his salary was substantially increased! The power to create
financial credit is the power to control all forms of economic activity, including
the media. Once the nature of this power is grasped, and how present methods
of credit creation generate increasing debt, heavier taxation and accelerating
inflation, the nexus between International Finance and International Communism
can be readily seen. Credit loans are the instrument which has been used to
move massive quantities of Western production and technology from the West
to the Soviet Union. Irrespective of Dr. Quigley's intentions in revealing
the news that those international groups with the credit power were working
to produce an international millenium, the publicity given to his history
by Skousen, and later by Gary Allen in his best seller None Dare Call it
Conspiracy, had a most revealing effect: Tragedy and Hope soon
became almost impossible to purchase! It disappeared from some libraries and
today an original copy is a collector's item.
Governments do not govern, but merely control the machinery of government, being
themselves controlled by the hidden hand. This provocative statement was made
by a character in one of Benjamin Disraelis's novels. The famous British Conservative
Prime Minister of Jewish background used his novels to shed light on the suppressed
realities of the world. Disraeli clearly was convinced that even in his times
the 'hidden hand' was that of an international money power associated with revolutionary
groups to subvert traditional society.
Controllers of the news media of the world insist that there is no such thing as a conspiracy operating behind national and international events, but themselves provide evidence of conspiracy by the manner in which they attempt to suppress or distort information which provides a strikingly different picture of world affairs to that generally presented. When a senior South African Cabinet Minister, Mr. P. W. Botha, attacked the notorious American Council on Foreign Relations ' praised by Quigley in his work' in 1973, stressing that it was dominated by Socialist-minded individuals and was subverting South Africans associated with it, there was a howl of rage and indignation from both the Afrikaans and English press of South Africa. The Pretoria News of September 6, 1973, said that it was ridiculous that an organisation chaired by Mr. David Rockefeller, the well-known international financier, could be pro-Communist. The Pretoria News said that 'A London report said that Western diplomats had received the Botha charge with a mixture of mirth and sorrow.' And then came the comment that Mr. David Rockefeller 'can safely be presumed to have no interest in supporting an organisation dedicated to world socialism.' Shortly afterwards, while visiting South Africa, Mr. Rockefeller described the Botha charges as 'absurd' but as will be seen in this examination of censored history, Mr. David Rockefeller and other international financiers have played a major role in financing Communism. When he opened his Chase National Bank in Moscow in May, 1973, it was at the most prestigious address in Moscow: 1 Carl Marx Plaza. The Rockefellers have for a long time been financing and urging closer cooperation with the Communists. On November 25, 1959, Study No. 7, published by the Council on Foreign Relations, advocated 'building a new international order which must be responsive to world aspirations for peace and for social and economic change... a new international order including states labelling themselves as 'Socialist''
In May of 1973 David Rockefeller was urging American Congress to grant favoured nation status to the Soviet. As far back as 1955 David Rockefeller was saying that it was 'politically foolish' to ignore Communist China. In July, 1974, the Rockefeller Manhattan Bank started doing business with Red China, the first Western Bank to do this for 24 years.
A former K.G.B. agent, Colonel Michael Golleniewski, has been quoted as charging that Kissinger was at one time a secret unit of Communist intelligence. In spite of former State Department officials and security officers charging that Sonnenfeldt was a security risk, one charge being that he had leaked highly classified information to the Israel Embassy in Washington, Sonnenfeldt was employed by Kissinger as one of the top aides on the National Security Council staff. He accompanied Kissinger on all his trips to Peking and Moscow and is therefore familiar with all secret deals made by Kissinger.When a group of American Congressmen proposed that Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the famous exiled Russian writer, be brought to America to address the American Congress on the oppression inside the Soviet Union, Kissinger strongly opposed this, arguing that it would jeopardise detente. But Solzhenitsyn warned that massive American economic aid to the Soviet was enabling the Soviet to expand its military strength; detente was a myth.
Paul Scott, distinguished American commentator, in The Wanderer, March 26, 1974, states that 'In his testimony before the Senate Finance Committee Kissinger clearly indicated that the Nixon Administration policy of accommodating the Russians now has priority over U.S. relations with Western nations . . . The signing of 67 bilaterial U.S. Soviet agreements, ranging from political consultation to joint space exploration, since President Nixon took office is cited as proof that the NixonKissinger policy puts relationships with Russia ahead of proven allies.'Like the international power groups he is serving, Dr.
Kissinger takes a detached approach to the suffering of the millions of victims of Communism in both the Soviet Empire and Red China. These noble advocates of a New One World are opposed to any policies which might free the victims of Communist tyranny. They are prepared to ensure that Soviet military strength is maintained with financial and economic blood transfusions from the U.S.A. and other Western nations. They may be well-educated, as Dr. Quigley asserts, but they are traitors to Civilisation.
100 000 Americans have been killed in Korea and Vietnam 'by our own technology.
The only response from Washington and the Nixon Administration is the effort
to hush up the scandal.' This is the explosive indictment, not of some 'neurotic
right-wing extremist',-but of Antony C. Sutton, the Western world's most outstanding
academic on Western technological and economic aid to the Soviet Empire.Antony
Sutton's carefully documented studies shatters completely the most dangerous
myth ever presented to a gullible mankind; a myth accepted by non-Communists
as well as Communists and their fellow-travellers. The myth was once stated
to me as follows by a young first-year school teacher: 'Communism has certainly
been responsible for brutalities with which we cannot agree. But starting
with an impoverished Russia in 1917, Communism has in the face of bitter opposition
from the capitalist world, progressively built the Soviet Union up to the
stage where it is one of the great super-powers in the world. We must admit
its tremendous industrial and technological achievements and now learn how
to co-exist with the Soviet Union.' Like tens of millions of other people,
that teacher was reflecting an image created by the instruments of modern
centralised propaganda. A false image can be created by a combination of both
distortion and suppression.
Although Sutton's studies are of the greatest significance, they were only
publicised in reviews in a few conservative and anti-Communist publications.
But the media generally ignored what is beyond doubt the most significant
work of the last 50 years. However, a few Members of the Republican
Party grasped the vital importance of Sutton's research work with the result
that he was invited to testify before a sub-committee of the Platform Committee
of the Republican Party at Miami Beach, Florida, on August 15, 1972.
I am informed that many of those who heard Sutton found it a most shattering
experience, which is not surprising when they were told that President Nixon,
the man they were planning to re-elect in November, was permitting American
troops in Vietnam to be killed with American technology. If it had been adequately
publicised, Sutton's testimony would have caused a national sensation and
had a major impact on the elections.
Antony Sutton summarised his testimony with his charge that 100 000 Americans
had been killed with American technology, adding “The only response
from Washington and the Nixon Administration is the effort to hush up the
scandal. No wonder the Republicans listening felt chilly! While they could
not argue against Sutton's charge that 'You do not subsidise an enemy', they
also feared that Sutton was right when he said that 'when this story gets
out and about in the United States, it's going to translate into a shift of
votes.' It was therefore essential to ensure that as far as possible the story
did not get publicised. Political survival and party loyalties were much more
important than trying to expose a treacherous policy of aid to an enemy killing
American troops.
But what about the news media? Surely the Sutton exposure was news by
any standard? Both the two major American wire services UPI and AP received
copies of the Sutton testimony. Both suppressed it! And the media generally
has ignored Antony Sutton's book, National Suicide (1973) in which
he tells the whole dreadful story of how the Soviet has been built up by the
West over fifty years.
At the conclusion of an address to a British audience in 1972, during which
I had mentioned the emerging policy of Western nations openly providing the
Soviet with increasing credits on a long-term basis and at low interest rates,
a member of the audience took me aside and introduced himself as an oil technologist
whose work took him throughout much of Soviet Russia. He stressed the appalling
state of much of the Soviet economy, particularly agriculture. He also told
me of how in Moscow he had met with a number of American computer experts
who had come to the Soviet to instruct the Russians on the latest American
computer equipment being supplied on credit. Sutton points out that computers
are now indispensable in modern warfare. And so are heavy, multi-axle trucks
for transporting both troops and heavy equipment. The huge Soviet Kama organisation,
the biggest in the world, has been virtually a gift from the United States.
The American Export-Import Bank has advanced direct loans of $86.5 million
for the project, while the Rockefeller Chase National Bank of New York anticipates
making loans up to $192 million. The Kama organisation is projected to manufacture
100,000 trucks per year, more than all the American truck manufacturers put
together.
In
a testimony presented to the United States of America House International
Trade Sub-committee of the Banking and Currency Committee, on April 24, 1974,
Sutton said that 'About 1968 I became concerned with our policy of technical
assistance to the Soviet military-industrial complex, a policy denied by the
State Department, and some Members of Congress. This technically
This was in October, 1973.National Suicide published as an appendix
Sutton's testimony before the Republican Party Platform Committee in August,
1972. Also given are the specifications of the ninety-six Soviet ships identified
transporting weapons and supplies to North Vietnam, 1966-1971. Sutton tells
the whole dreadful story of how the Soviet has been built up over fifty years.
He names firms, organisations and Presidents. National Suicide has
been generally ignored by the media. It is too explosive, even for those self-proclaimed
'fearless' journalists who are allegedly always searching for the truth. National
Suicide was also too much for some professed anti-Communists. ln his Testimony
before the American Banking and Currency Sub-committee, Sutton revealed how,
after National Suicide came to the attention of the Hoover Institution,
'Immediately and I mean immediately'
came under considerable criticism
and hostility for publishing the book.
My name was removed from my position as Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution.
My hasty conversion into a non-person was so complete that the third volume
of my Hoover series, which was then in press, had its dust jacket changed
to read 'was a Research Fellow at the Hoover Institute from 1968 to 1973'.'Sutton
has commented that his shameful treatment by the Hoover Institution because
of his protests against American military aid to the Soviet Union 'parallels
the
Sutton effectively disposes of the argument that it is possible to have 'peaceful'
trade with the Soviet Union. Automobile manufacturing organisations can also
be used for producing a variety of military vehicles. The Gorki organisation,
for example, built under the guise of 'peaceful trade', produced in 1964 the
first Soviet wire-guided anti-tank system. Western-provided tractor plants
have been used to produce Soviet tanks. Technological assistance to the Soviet
to produce chemicals for agriculture has in fact meant vital assistance to
the Soviet munitions industry. Antony Sutton says 'let's take a look at the
Soviet industry that provides the parts and materials for Soviet armaments:
the guns, tanks, aircraft. The Soviets have the largest iron and steel plant
in the world. It was built by McKee Corporation. It is a copy of the U.S.
steel plant in Gary, Indiana. All Soviet iron and steel technology comes from
the U.S. and its allies. The Soviets use open hearths, American electric furnaces,
American wide strip mills, and so on, all developed in the
West and shipped in as peaceful trade.' The Soviets have the largest tube
and pipe mill in Europe, one million tons a year. The equipment is
Fretz-Moon, Salem, Aetna Standard, Mannesman, etc. All Soviet tube and pipe
making technology comes from the U.S. and its allies. If you know anyone in
the space business, ask him how many miles of tubes and pipes go into a missile.
Perhaps the classical example of what 'peaceful' trade with the Soviet means
was provided by the U.S. State Department's approval that Burmeister and
Wain of Copenhagen, Denmark, should provide the Soviet with technical assistance
for the manufacturing of diesel engines. These engines were used in the ships
which carried Soviet nuclear missiles to Cuba!
Early this century the Baku oil field in Russia was producing more than a half of the total world output of crude oil, but the Bolshevik Revolution resulted in a halt to all drilling. As Sutton points out, by 1922 half the wells were idle and the others were producing increasing quantities of water. The Soviet imported 'massive quantities of equipment from the American firms of International Barnsdall Corporation and Lucey Manufacturing Company. Rotary drilling methods introduced by Barnsdall increased speed of drilling by a factor of ten and reduced costs by more than one-half between 1924 and 1928.' The Soviet granted a number of foreign companies concessions to develop Soviet oil fields.
Nineteen large oil refineries were constructed in the Soviet between 1917
and 1930, but only one of these contained units manufactured in the Soviet.
The electrical equipment was supplied largely by General Electric. By 1923
a number of foreign oil companies, including Standard Oil, were purchasing
Soviet oil. In 1927 Standard of New York built a kerosene factory at Batum,
leasing it back from the Soviet to supply Standard markets in the Near and
Far East markets. Standard was one of John D. Rockefeller's creations. Closely
associated with Standard Oil and other Rockefeller concerns was Jacob Schiffi
of the Wall Street banking firm of Kuhn, Loeb and Company.
Sutton observes in National Suicide that Stalin could have added that
the 'remaining third of Russia's industrial enterprises and military plants
have been built with German, French, British, Swedish, Italian, Danish, Finnish, Czech, and Japanese help or technical assistance.' Any realistic examination
of the long-term motives of those responsible for financing the Soviet Union,
thus enabling Soviet strategists to maintain. an international programme of
revolution and subversion, backed by an expanding military and naval power,
must start with the First World War.
Two events of the greatest significance took place during this war: the establishment
of the Bolshevik regime in Russia and the British Government's agreement to
the Political Zionist policy of establishing a 'National Home' for Jews in
Palestine. Both events were closely linked. They were two major preliminary
events in a course of events which have brought man-kind to the present world
crisis. They were a dramatic demonstration of the power of credit creation
exercised by international banking groups operating across national borders
even during times of world wars.
During World War I the international banking organisation of Kuhn, Loeb and
Company, and a number of associates, based upon Wall Street, New York, were
pro-German, anti-Russian and anti-British right up until the Czarist Government
was overthrown in Russia and the British Government signed what was known
as the Balfour Agreement, promising the Zionists a 'National Home' in Palestine.
Well-known Zionist writer, Professor Norman Bentwich, wrote in Wanderer
in War that 'The Russian Revolution and the Declaration concerning the
Jewish National Home were born in the same month, November.
1917. Soviet Russia and Palestine represent the most striking achievements
in our time of reconstruction for peaceful needs.' In Judea Lives Again
(London 19~), Bentwich said that the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks
and the British Declaration on Palestine 'might seem to have little direct
connection, but there was a deeper relation between them than that of chronological
coincidence. In origin . . . they are related to twin aspects of man's
perpetual effort to establish God's kingdom on earth, although one claims
to be godless. They go back to that millenial vision of the Prophets for whom
the return of the people of Israel of Zion was bound up with a just order
and peace on earth. For Russia inherited, too, a Messianic faith, and a passion
for the regeneration of mankind. And she established the first Socialist State
on the principles of a Jewish thinker (Marx)'.
Bolshevism was not in March, 1917, a viable force capable of taking over Russia
with its own limited resources. First Lenin was sent from Switzerland into Russia
in a sealed train along with at least 50 of his fellow Bolsheviks. As Winston
Churchill graphically described this remarkable episode, Lenin was sent into
Russia 'in the same way that you might send a phial containing a culture of
Cholera to be poured into the water supply of a great city . . . No sooner did Lenin arrive than he began beckoning a finger here and
a finger there to obscure persons in sheltered retreats in New York.. .'
In a
revealing article written in 1920, Churchill wrote about 'This world-wide conspiracy'.
Trotsky lost no time responding to the beckoning finger of Lenin, boarding a
ship in New York and taking with him 275 fellow Bolshevik revolutionaries. But
when his ship, the S.S. Christiana, reached Halifax, Nova Scotia, the Canadian
Government promptly arrested him and impounded the large sum of money he was
carrying. The Canadian Government very logically took the view that as Trotsky
and his fellow Bolsheviks had openly proclaimed that when they took control
of Russia they were going to make a separate peace with Germany, and that as
this would mean the use of all German troops against the Western Front where
large numbers of Canadians were fighting, they should prevent Trotsky from continuing
on his revolutionary mission. Trotsky was held for five days, but then allowed
to proceed by a Canadian Government forced to yield to the 'world-wide conspiracy'.
The core of this conspiracy was the international financial groups linked with
Kuhn, Loeb and Company. One of the principal figures was Jacob Schiff, whose
own grandson has admitted he had invested at least $20 million in a revolution
which in fact was imposed upon the unfortunate Russians from outside their country.
Trotsky later married the daughter of one of the wealthy bankers who backed
the Bolshevik Revolution, Jivotovsky.
A leading member of Kuhn, Loeb and Company was Mr. Paul Warburg, who together with his brother Felix left Germany for the United States in 1902, leaving behind brother Max to run the family bank of M. N. Warburg and Company, Frankfurt. Paul Warburg married Solomon Loeb's daughter, and Felix married Jacob Schiff's daughter. Mr. Paul Warburg was the architect of the Federal Reserve Board, one of the early steps towards developing what later became known as Central Banking.While millions of troops were locked in battle in Western Europe during the First World War, the international financiers were operating on both sides of the fighting lines. Max Warburg, for example, was playing a vital role in Germany while brothers Felix and Paul were doing likewise in the U.S.A.
A very cosy type of family arrangement! Sir Cecil Spring-Rice, British Ambassador
to Washington during the first part of World War I, complained on numerous occasions
about the pro-German attitude of these groups. In a letter to Sir Edward Grey,
British Foreign Minister, on November 15, 1914, Sir Cecil Spring-Rice
wrote, 'The Jews have a strong preference for the (German) Emperor, and there
must be some bargain . .'
The desperate British later did make a bargain, a major part of which
was outlined in a letter dated November 2, 1917, from Lord Balfour, the British
Foreign Secretary, to Lord Rothschild, informing him that the British Cabinet
was in favour of 'the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the
Jewish people'. Lord Rothschild was requested to bring the British Cabinet's
decision to the knowledge of the Zionisi Federation. Some of those members of
the British Government which agreed to the 'Balfour Declaration', including
Winston Churchill, subsequently recorded quite frankly that the promise was
made to the Political Zionists in order that they would use their enormous international
influence on the side of the Western Allies at a time when their military situation
was so desperate that failing assistance from the United States, there
was no real alternative to making some type of peace agreement with Germany.
Probably bearing in mind that the promise to the Political Zionists conflicted
with an earlier promise made to Arab leaders, who were promised Arab independence
if they would join against their colonial masters, the Turks, one of Germany’s
main allies, the British Cabinet did declare in the Balfour agreement that the
establishment of a National Home for the Jews must not “prejudice the civil
and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine . .
When Great Britain was given the Mandate over Palestine at the end of the First
World War, the population was 95 per cent Moslem and Christian Arabs,
and only 5 per cent Jews, many of these coming in from Russia under various
Zionist colonising schemes. The Palestinians could trace their history back
over two thousand years. They had a far greater rightful claim to Palestine
than have, for example, the Europeans to the United States. But the imposition
of the Political Zionist programme upon Great Britain set in motion a chain
of explosive events leading to the expulsion of the Palestinians from their
country, a frightful Palestinian refugee problem, the cynical exploitation of
that problem by the Soviet Union, and a Middle East crisis which has resulted
in periodic major military explosions between the Arab nations and the Zionist
State of Israel.
One of the most potent emotional arguments used by the Political Zionists to establish a State in another people’s country, is that they have a special moral and religious claim to “the land of their forbears”. The great majority of those called Jews, probably at least 85 per cent, have no racial relationship whatever with Palestine.
The Universal Jewish Encyclopaedia gives the history of the great Khazar
Empire of Middle Asia, the people being of mixed stock with Mongol and Turkish
affinities. They were an extremely warlike but able people. It was probably
towards the end of the eighth century that King Bulan, having called representatives
of Judaism, Christianity and Mohammedanism, decided upon Judaism as a State
religion. The eminent Jewish history Professor H. Graetz, in his History
of the Jews deals with the progressive Judaising of the Khazars, relating
how it became the fundamental law of the State that only Jewish rulers could
ascend the throne. The Khazars were the first population of people to be called
Jews in Eastern Europe. Eventually they were dispersed throughout Russia, Eastern
Europe and then through to Western Europe. Obviously there has been considerable
mixing with other peoples over the centuries, but this group of Jews, broadly
described as Askenazims, can claim no racial relationship with Palestine. The
small minority group of the Jews, the Sephardim, have lived in peace and harmony
with the Arab peoples over the centuries. They are different from the Askenazim
Jew in may ways, including appearance.
One of the most distinguished members of this group was the British Prime Minister,
Benjamin Disraeli, whose novels revealed that he had a great understanding of
the power exercised by international finance. He said that “the world is governed
by very different people from what is imagined by those who are not behind the
scenes”. The famous writer, Dr. Oscar Levy, was also a Sephardic Jew, and persecuted
by the Zionists because of his critical anti-Zionist writings.
Political Zionism was born amongst Eastern European (Askenazim) Jews, its philosophical
power concept being first outlined in The Jewish State, by Theodor Herzl,
a work originally entitled An Address to the Rothschilds. Political Zionism
was strongly opposed by prominent Jews in the West. The distinguished American
Jew, Henry Morgenthau, Snr., summarised the feelings of his fellow anti-Zionist
Jews with his comment that “Zionism is the most stupendous fallacy in Jewish
history . . . It is a retrogression into the blackest error and not progress
towards the light . . it is a betrayal; it is an Eastern European proposal,
fathered in this country by American Jews which if it were to succeed, would
cost the Jews of America most that they have gained of liberty, equality and
fraternity.”The first Australian-born Governor-General, Sir Isaac lsaacs, was
badly smeared by the Zionists because of his anti-Zionist stand. Not even the
status of that cultured Jew, Moshe Menuhin, father of the famous violinist,
Yehudi Menuhin, saved him from the hatchet attacks of the Political Zionists
when he wrote his classic work, The Decadence of Judaism in Our Times (1965)
in which he described Political Zionism as “A monstrous historical crime and
curse.”
The views of the many prominent Jews who have warned about the long-term dangers
of the policies of the Political Zionists, have been almost completely drowned
out by international propaganda supporting Zionist policies. Or the non-Zionist
Jews are given the silent treatment.
Following the imposition of the Bolsheviks upon the Russian peoples, and the British acceptance of the Zionist project for Palestine, the Schiffs, Warburgs and their international associates took the necessary steps, including the entry of the United States into the conflict, to bring the First World War to an end. They were represented on both sides at the Versailles Peace Conference. British Prime Minister Lloyd George later wrote, “The international bankers swept statesmen, politicians, journalists and jurists all on one side and issued their orders with the imperiousness of absolute monarchs . . .“ American President Woodrow Wilson changed his attitude on a vital issue following the receipt of a telegram from Jacob Schiff. At Versailles Schiff and associates insisted upon the recognition of the Bolshevik Government in Russia. They also supported the first step towards trying to create a World Government, the League of Nations.
But although American public opinion revolted against accepting the Bolsheviks,
the international financiers took every possible step to ensure that the newly
established Bolshevik regime did not collapse. Credits were furnished through
Germany, these enabling the Bolsheviks to obtain the Western economic assistance
they desperately needed to keep control of Russia. Communism as a production
system is an abject failure, as demonstrated in the Soviet Union over half a
century.
The Great Depression of the ‘thirties, eventually becoming world-wide, was precipitated
by the Wall Street international financiers. They demonstrated the truth of
the statement attributed to the first Rothschild, Mayer Amschel, of Frankfurt,
that so long as he could issue the credit of a nation he did not care who made
the laws.
Congressman Louis McFadden, Chairman of the American House Banking and Currency
Committee, and former President of the Pennsylvania Bankers’ Association, bluntly
said in the U.S. Congress on December 15, 1931, that the Great Depression
“was not accidental. It was a carefully contrived occurrence — the International
Bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so that they could
emerge as rulers of us all.”
The sudden drastic curtailment of credit in the United States produced the necessary
conditions for the election of President Roosevelt. Desperate Americans were
urged to recognise the Soviet Union so that loans could be openly granted to
them. This would be “good for American business,” was the theme. This is the
same theme being used today to justify massive credit and economic blood transfusions
not only to the Soviet Empire, but also to the Red Chinese. The international
financiers have an excellent public relations man developing this theme with
an added emphasis: the building up of both the Soviet Union and Red China will
lead to the creation of an “international order.” This public relations man
is Dr. Henry Kissinger. Those thrusting towards the age-old dream of a World
State today are using a variety of policies and techniques, including economic
centralism. Also essential is a continuing state of crisis, with each new crisis
being exploited to develop centralised power still further.
Consider how Political Zionism and the Soviet Union have combined to produce
a series of Middle East crises, the October, 1973, crisis resulting in a “solution”
by Dr. Henry Kissinger. This met with the warm approval of the Soviet leaders,
who look forward to the reopening of the Suez Canal so that they can easily
move their growing naval forces from the Mediterranean Sea into the Indian Ocean.
The Middle East crisis started to develop from the moment the British permitted the Zionists to start establishing a “National Home” in Palestine after the First World War. Growing Zionist immigration, the overwhelming majority of the migrants being Askenazim Jews, produced inevitable friction with the indigenous people, the British trying to preserve peace. As the Second World War approached, the British decided to revise their policy and in the White Paper of 1939 announced a drastic curtailment of Zionist immigration to Palestine. There was a storm of protest from the Zionists and violent anti-British threats. The British declaration of war on Hitler’s Germany temporarily ended the Zionist threats, but as the war proceeded there was a growing Zionist drive to use Jewish refugees from Europe to breach British immigration laws for Palestine. Steps were also taken to establish a Zionist underground terrorist movement, ready to strike against the British when the war ended. In a world where terror tactics have become almost commonplace, it is easy to forget that the Zionist terrorists were responsible for some of the most shocking crimes. There was the blowing up of the King David Hotel, the murdering of British soldiers and police. Some were kidnapped, flogged and then hanged. The deadly letter bomb was used.
The British Minister-Resident in Cairo, Lord Moyne, was murdered in cold blood.
The British who had exhausted themselves in the war against Hitler, were now
vilified internationally, particularly in the United States, as being “worse
than Hitler”— merely because they were attempting to ensure that a balance was
maintained in Palestine.
The co-operation of the Soviet leaders with the Zionist drive on Palestine was
dramatically highlighted when the British Chief of the United Nations Relief
and Rehabilitation Organisation, Lieut.-General Sir Frederick Morgan, publicly
charged that there was a “secret organisation to further mass movement of Jews
from Europe” and that this movement was being used as “an umbrella for Russian
secret and criminal agents”. The Soviet not only provided Jewish manpower for
the Zionist Palestinian campaign, but when the Zionist forces looked like being
defeated militarily by the Arab armies following the Zionist conquest of Palestine,
following the British withdrawal in May, 1948, Stalin personally ordered that
the Zionists be provided with the best available military equipment.
Pressured by both the Communists and the Politicial Zionists the United Nations
had previously decided that when the British left, Palestine should be partitioned
under the UN supervision. But the Zionists launched a terror campaign which
resulted in hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fleeing from their own country.
This was the beginning of the dreadful Palestinian refugee problem which predictably
led to what has taken place since: exploitation of the situation by the Soviet
strategists, experts in exploiting problems they have helped to create.The assassination
on September 17, 1948, of Count Folke Bernadotte is another generally-forgotten
example of Zionist terror tactics to establish themselves in Palestine. Former
President of the Swedish Red Cross and noted internationally for his humanitarian
works, Count Bernadotte was appointed as United Nations mediator in Palestine.
Arriving immediately following the Zionist campaign against the Palestinians
and the proclamation of the State of Israel on May 14, 1948, Count Bernadotte
was shocked to see the tens of thousands of Arab families scattered all over
Palestine and neighbouring Arab countries.
In his report to the UN, he said that the new State had been born “in violence
and bloodshed.” When Count Bernadotte’s proposed solution for fixing boundaries
was presented to the UN on September 18, 1948, the Zionists were hostile that
they should be asked to hand back territories occupied in excess of what they
had been allocated under the UN Partition Plan. The Count was murdered in Jerusalem
on September 17, his murderers never brought to justice by Israel. Zionist writer
Ben Hecht, author of the statement that “One of the finest things ever done
by the mob was the crucifixion of Christ”, commented that Count Bernadotte’s
assassination was “that of an ass who wasn’t worth so fine a death."
When eventually fighting was brought to an end between Israel and the Arab States
by Armistice agreements, Israel held all of Galilee and the northern part of
the Negev, thus enlarging Israeli-held territory by 22 per cent in excess of
that allocated by the UN Partition plan.
The Armistice agreement contained a paragraph stating that “The Armistice Demarcation
lines should not be considered as the permanent boundary between Israel and
her neighbours.” This was only an armistice, not a peace settlement, and the
longer the stalemate continued without settlement the deeper became the bitterness
amongst the Arabs and the greater their determination to attempt to recover
the homeland of Palestinian Arabs.
In three oustanding works, Mr. Alfred Lilienthal, the American Jewish expert
on the Middle East, warned of what must happen as the result of forcing the
Zionist “thorn” into the Moslem world.
What Price Israel?, There Goes the Middle East,
and The Other Side of the Coin,
are essential source works for those wishing to study a terrible story by
a non-Zionist Jew. Mr. Liienthal has been threatened and smeared and his books
are now very difficult to obtain. Events have confirmed Mr. Lilienthal’s central
warning: that uncritical Western support for the Zionist State of Israel must
assist Soviet strategy in penetrating the Middle East and influencing the whole
of the Moslem world. A constant state of crisis has been punctuated by three
major military explosions, the first in 1956, when the British under
Prime Minister Eden decided, together with the French, to make an effort to
re-establish their authority over the Suez Canal area. They were forced to retreat
in a major loss of face, not by Egyptian military force, but by combined threats
from Moscow and Washington. Washington threatened severe finance-economic sanctions
if the British refused to retreat. Soviet influence increased enormously.
Then came the Six-Day War of May, 1967. Superficial anti-Communists, encouraged by Zionist propaganda, enthusiastically proclaimed that as Soviet Russia was backing the Arabs, the devastating defeat of the Arabs by the Israelis was a major set-back for the Soviet strategists. Israel, allegedly threatened with extinction by the Communist-backed Arabs, was presented as a courageous David showing the whole world how to defeat the Communist Goliath. The truth was exactly the opposite.
The real winners were the Soviet strategists, subsequently revealed to have
triggered the conflict by providing Egypt with a false report that Eygpt’s ally
Syria was about to be attacked by Israel.
So far from the Soviet strategists believing that Egypt had the capacity to
defeat the Israelis on the battlefield, they knew, as did every real authority
on the Middle East, that the Egyptians and their allies were in a hopeless position.
One of the real experts on the Middle East, the famous Sir John Glubb, (“Glubb
Pasha”) who spent much of his life in the Middle East training Arab troops,
analysed the 1967 Arab-Israeli conflict in a booklet, The Middle East Crisis.
Sir John Glubb pointed out all those with military experience in the Middle
East over the previous twenty years knew that “the Egyptian Army had not the
faintest chance against the Israelis”. He observed that he had predicted that
the duration of any battle in the Sinai would only be forty-eight hours. The
Egyptians were defeated in sixty hours.
As Sir John Glubb points out, the Soviet strategy had two main objectives: To
lure the Arabs into a catastrophic defeat, with the United States and the British
completely committed to Israel. If the two objectives were achieved, the Arab
States would be convinced that the West had no sympathy whatever for them and
that, however resentful the Arabs might be that the Soviet had not actively
entered the conffict to prevent their defeat, they have no alternative but to
rely solely on the Soviet for reconstruction. The Soviet strategy worked out
perfectly. Israel expanded enormously its occupation of Arab territories, including
the West Bank of Jordan, this resulting in a new flood of Arab refugees into
neighbouring Arab countries.
Sir John Glubb remarked, “If Soviet leaders ever laugh, this must have been
the moment.” Yes, indeed. And while dupes of Political Zionist propaganda were
believing the story that the Soviet was backing the Arabs to destroy Israel,
the Communist press of the world was reminding the Communists everywhere that
Soviet policy had played a decisive role in creating Israel and that there was
no intention of allowing Israel to be destroyed.
Two Israeli Communist leaders visiting Moscow after the 1967 ArabIsraeli conflict
were given the same assurance. The truth is that the retention of Israel is
essential for Soviet strategy not only in the Middle East, but right throughout
the Moslem world.
Under cover of the 1967 Arab-Israeli war the Soviet strategists increased their
naval build up in the Mediterranean and subsequently continued to exploit the
aftermath of the war, which saw the Middle East crisis deepening. At the United
Nations the Soviet happily supported the resolution demanding that Israel give
back Arab territories conquered in the 1967 war, confident that the Western
nations were not going to apply any pressure to Israel to do this, while at
the same time pouring more military equipment into those Arab nations prepared
to accept Soviet “assistance”. Blinded by their fear and hatred of Israel, which
they have been led to believe is but an instrument of “Western imperialism”
in the Middle East, few Arabs have considered the significance of the fact that
if it were not for the massive economic blood transfusions from the “Western
imperialists” to the Soviet Empire, the Communists would not be in the position
to play their dialectical game in the Middle East. If the Arabs examine the
long-time financing of the Soviet Union from the West, by the same people ensuring
that Israel is sustained by external assistance, they must logically reach the
conclusion that they, along with their oil, and the Israelis are regarded as
but pawns in a much bigger game—one with the ultimate objective of establishing
a World State.
As the Arab nations watched Israel consolidating its control of Arab territory conquered during the 1967 war and became increasingly desperate that apart from supporting pious resolutions at the United Nations requesting Israel to return the Arab territories, the non-Communist nations were not going to do anything to assist them, they became receptive to the Soviet suggestion that if they could not regain their territory in another military effort, they should attempt to use oil sanctions.
All Western nations and Japan had become increasingly dependent upon Arab Middle
East oil. The October, 1973, conflict was the signal for oil sanction against
those nations who would not openly condemn Israel. And the price was substantially
increased. The oil strategy not only shattered relations between Western Europe
and the United States, but dramatically brought home to the Japanese their perilious
plight. But even more serious was the explosive impact of higher oil prices
on an inflation already starting to create economic chaos in all non-Communist
nations, including Japan, struggling with an inflation rate of over 30 per cent.
The Soviet had cynically obtained cheap Arab oil (they have their own independent
oil supplies) from the desperate Arabs in exchange for Soviet munitions and
then later resold it to West Germany and other European nations at 300 per cent.
profit!
But in spite of past massive Soviet military assistance, some of the Arab leaders,
including President Sadat of Egypt, were becoming increasingly concerned about
the growing open relations between Moscow and Washington.
An article in The Jewish Observer and Middle East Review of August 17,
1973, stated that Israeli intelligence had obtained secret Arab documents showing
that Sadat was convinced that because of the policy of detente arranged
by Dr. Kissinger and the Soviet leaders, the Arabs could no longer depend upon
the Communists. The article quotes Egyptian papers as saying that America would
now be “more daring in consolidating Israel politically, economically and militarily
. . .“ The article then gloats over the fact that the Soviet Union was now helping
the Israelis with manpower by permitting 35.000 Soviet Jews to migrate to Israel
annually.
Then The Jewish Observer and Middle East Review made the highly significant
statement that detente would allow the Soviet Union and the U.S.A. “to
tighten” the ‘‘grip on the Arab world.’’
On June 7, 1974, Dr. Henry Kissinger said in Washington that the U.S.A. had
no intention of eroding Soviet influence in the Middle East. The Kissinger statement
could only mean that the U.S.A. and the Soviet were going to share their influence
in the Middle East. Dr. Kissinger said that President Nixon’s tour of the Middle
East was designed to put American relations with Arab countries as well as Israel
on a new basis.
Following the Middle East tour President Nixon and Dr. Kissinger went on to
the Soviet Union where they had friendly discussions with the Soviet leaders
about the creation of a new world. Further massive economic aid to the Soviet
Union was one of the major subjects discussed.
While many people now realise that “independent” Israel could not survive for
more than a short period without the massive external financial credits provided
by the international Political Zionist Movement, and the military equipment
virtually given by the United States, comparatively few ask about the source
of Israel’s migrants, desperately necessary to maintain a population of which
a big percentage is constantly trying to migrate out of Israel. Israel is described
as a “National Home for the Jews”, but there is no rush, for example, of Jews
from New York to settle in Israel.
A Zionist weekly newspaper, The Australian Jewish News of February 7,
1974, carried the headlines “FLOW OF SOVIET JEWS CONTINUED DURING WAR”. Underneath
was a story from New York confirming what informed observers have been pointing
out for some time, that the Soviet Union is the source of the overwhelming majority
of migrants to Israel: “The flow of Soviet Jews to Israel continued unabated
during the last part of 1973, despite the (October) war, bringing the total
for 1973 to 35,000, officials of the Greater New York Conference on Soviet Jewry
said last week”.
The Australian Jewish News of June 14, 1974, quotes Mrs. Rachelle Leibler,
President of Mizrachi Women’s Organisation in Australia, “recently returned
from a visit to Israel”, as saying that during the height of the October War
4,000 immigrants per month had been coming in from the Soviet. She said, “Our
women provided not only financial and material help but were instrumental in
the integration of the new settlers.”
An Arab hijacking in 1973 revealed to an astonished world that Austria was providing,
near Vienna, a staging camp for Soviet Jews being sent to Israel. In spite of
the Arab terrorists’ pressure on the Austrian Government, the Austrian transit
camp is still being used, but Soviet Jews can now only stay for 48 hours.
While Christians and others wishing to get out of the Soviet Union must risk
their lives crawling under barbwire protected by machine guns and land-mines,
the Soviet has been sending out trainloads of Soviet Jews for Israel.
-Even more astonishing is the fact that this mass movement of people is being
financed by Washington with the clear understanding that Soviet Jews must go
to Israel and nowhere else. No doubt many of these Jews from Russia are Communist
agents. The remainder are unfortunate raw material required to ensure that the
Moscow-Washington strategy for creating the World State is advanced.
There Goes The Middle East (1957), Alfred Lilienthal prophetically wrote
that “. . . the Russians believe they have devised a super and surer method
of penetrating the area (the Middle East). The as-yet-non-ingathered Jews are
always held in reserve as a trump card for a tour de force via Israel should
the Arab route fail.”
Both the Communists and the Political Zionists need Israel for their own ends.
It is now too late to turn the clock back and remove three million Israelis
from what most now regard as their home. This would be yet one more injustice.
But moderate Arab leadership would accept the permanency of Israel as an independent
State in the Middle East if conquered Arab territory were returned, the Palestinians
provided with a guaranteed State of their own, and adequately recompensed for
territories taken from them by the establishment of Israel. But such a settlement
requires agreement between the Soviet and the Political Zionists.
A massive exodus of Russian Jews to Israel is the surest way to keep the Middle
East crisis alive.
Jewish protests in the West against Soviet “anti-Semitism” would be much more
worthwhile if directed against the international financiers who sustain the
Soviet tyranny with economic aid. For example, there has been no organised protest
against the activities of Armand Hammer of Occidental Petroleum Corporation,
which in June, 1974, concluded the biggest trade deal ever with the Soviet Union.
The Hammer association with the Soviet has been permanent since the days of
Lenin. In 1919 Dr. Julius Hammer, father of Armand, was an executive member
of the American Communist Party.
All references to the historical relationship between Political Zionism and Communism is met with the “antiSemitic” smear. Anti-Zionist Jews are also smeared. Both Communists and Zionists use the smear, which has over a long time been used primarily against the rank and file of Jews.
A massive book could be written on this subject, showing how many “anti-Semitic”
acts have been promoted by the Zionists themselves. Mr. Sussman of the American
Council of Judaism, as quoted in Moshe Menuhin’ s classic, The Decadence
of Judaism in Our Time, observes that “The Zionist Movement wants to picture
Jews constantly in trouble. It is bad for fund-raising and bad for immigration
to Israel if Jews are not in trouble. But ‘trouble’ must be of a particular
kind. It must be ‘Jewish’ trouble. It must fit the Zionist pattern of inevitable
anti-Semitism just as surely as the ‘inevitable’ class war fits classic Marxism.’’
A striking example of how the Zionists work was provided in Canada in 1965,
when three young students candidly admitted on a CBC programme that they had
worked for the Canadian Jewish Congress as agents pro vocateurs, fostering
the impression that the Canadian Nazi Party — consisting of three members
at the time, was much stronger than it was.
In The Other Side of The Coin (1965), Alfred Lilienthal devotes considerable
space to an examination of Zionist-fostered “anti-Semitism”, and quotes the
following very candid advice given in Davar, the official journal of
the Mapai, former Israel Prime Minister Ben-Gurion’s party: “I shall not be
ashamed to confess that, if I had the power, as I have the will, I would select
a score of efficient young men . . . and I would send them to the countries
where Jews are absorbed in sinful self-satisfaction. The task of these young
men would be to disguise themselves as non-Jews, and plague Jews with anti-Semitic
slogans, such as ‘Bloody Jew’, ‘Jews go to Palestine’, and similar intimacies!
I can vouch that the results in terms of considerable immigration to Israel
from these countries would be ten thousand times larger than the results brought
by thousands of emissaries who have been preaching for decades to deaf ears."
From time to time there are Zionist-inspired campaigns concerning alleged “anti-Semitism"
in the Soviet Union, but there is no reliable information suggesting that religious
Jews are treated any worse than Christians or Moslems. Some Christian Churches
have even passed resolutions condemning alleged “anti-Semitism” in Russia but
apparently do not feel that they should protest against the plight of the Christians
in Russia. Following a 1965 campaign concerning alleged “anti-Semitism” in Russia,
even the President of the World Jewish Congress, Dr. Nahum Goldman told officials
of Jewish orgamsations in the United States that accusations of anti-Semitism
against the Soviet were grossly exaggerated and that such unjustified accusations
do more harm than good.
American Examiner, of December 9, 1965, described as “New York’s largest
Jewish family weekly newspaper”, quoted Dr. Goldmann as saying that Jewish communities
throughout the world “should seek closer liaison with the Soviet Union.” He
stressed that they should not alienate the Soviet. “Red China, he emphasised,
is the real danger and not the Soviet Union.”
If Political Zionism is opposed to the Communism being imposed upon the victims
of the Soviet Union, then it should be leading an international campaign to
have strict economic and other sanctions imposed against the Soviet. Dr. Henry
Kissinger should be a number one target!
The Zionists’ greatest propaganda asset has, of course, been National Socialist Adolf Hitler and the story of the gassing of six million Jews. Hitler was a curse to Germany, and to Western Civilisation. But it is important to remember that Hitler came to power backed by International Finance, as some of his closest associates admit, and because the German Communists were directed by Stalin to permit Hitler to come to power in order to advance Soviet long-term strategy. (See The Red Pattern of World Conquest).
One of the most illuminating documents not presented at the Nuremberg Trials,
was that with Hitler’s signature next to Max Warburg’s appointing Dr. Schacht
as director of the Nazi banking system.
The collaboration between the Nazis and Political Zionists to use European Jews
against the British in Palestine, is a matter of record, most of the record
being provided by Jewish writers. Eichmann dealt with the Zionist representative,
Dr. Rudolph Kastner, and was offered inducements to let thousands of young Jews
immigrate illegally into Palestine to help fight against the British. Mr. Ben
Hecht provides evidence in his book Perfidy that the Zionists could have
saved more Jews -from the Nazis but deliberately refrained from doing so.
J. Klatzkin, a leading Zionist in pre-Hitler Germany, said in 1925: “Instead
of establishing societies for defence against the anti-Semites, who want to
reduce our rights, we should establish societies for defence against our friends
who desire to defend our rights.” (quoted by R. Matuvo in “The Zionist Wish
and Nazi Deed”, Issue, Winter, 1966-67).
Professor Norman Bentwich, Zionist writer previously quoted, made the following
observation in 1938 in his book, ‘The Promised Land (1917-1937)’: “Seen
with the eyes of Providence, Hitler was like Cyrus, a divine instrument to bring
back to their land Western Jews who could make a contribution of order and method.”
Sisley Huddleston, the English writer, quotes the “Jewish leader” who told him
that “when Hitler comes to power I hope he will persecute the Jews — we thrive
on persecution” —
In My Times.Dr. Solomon Goldman, Vice-President of the Zionist Palestine
Appeal, said in an address at the Hotel Aster, New York, in 1937: “Hitler is
a passing phenomenon. German Jewry would have disappeared in less than a century
if Hitler had not come into power.”
Mr. Douglas Reed, the famous British writer and Central European correspondent
for The Times, described in Lest We Regret how he was told of
the Prague Rabbi who was preaching in the synagogues before the Second World
War that Hitler was “the Jewish Messiah.”
Further confirmation of Zionist collaboration with the German National Socialists
is provided by the well-known Jewish writer, Hannah Arendt, in her book, Eichmann
in Jerusalem (1963). She reveals how in the early days of the Hitler regime
the Zionists were the only Jews associating with the German authorities. They
were responsible for the slogan, “Wear the yellow star with pride”, as part
of the campaign to discredit non-Zionists. The Zionist policy was to exploit
the National Socialists’ declared anti-Jewish sentiments to make an agreement
between the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the Germans for illegal Jewish immigration
into Palestine in defiance of British policy. Both the Gestapo and the SS were
helpful with this project.
Another well-known Jewish writer, a Zionist, states that Zionist agents in Europe
regarded the British as “the chief enemy”, not Germany. He comments that “Eichmann
may go down in history as one of the arch murderers of the Jewish people, but
he entered the lists as an active worker in the rescue of the Jews from Europe.”
(The Secret Roads: “Illegal” Migration of a People, 1938 to 1948, Jon
and David Kimche, 1954.) Just how many Jews did die during the Second
World War has become a question of increasing doubt as objective examinations
have shown conclusively that the much-publicised figure of six million was a
blatant fabrication. But Zionist propagandists have used the alleged mass massacre
of Jews during the Second World War, not only to create a guilt complex amongst
non-Jews, particularly concerning the method of establishing and maintaining
the State of Israel, but also to intimidate Jews everywhere into supporting
Zionist demands. The propaganda built around the story of the six million is
mind-numbing. The best-known is undoubtedly The Diary of Anne Frank, a
work which has been a major best-seller, over 40 editions having been published.
It was also made into a highly successful Hollywood film. Otto Frank, Anne Frank’s
father, made a fortune out of a highly emotional work which has influenced millions
of people.
But The Diary of Anne Frank was established as a hoax in a New York case
only seven years after first being published. The Diary has been presented
as the work of a Jewish girl of 12 whose father “found” her diary after being
released from the German concentration camp in which his daughter Anne allegedly
died. The Swedish journal Fria Ord revealed the truth about the Frank
Diary in 1959. The Swedish articles observed that any informed literary
inspection of the work would have shown it to have been impossible as the work
of a teenager. This was confirmed when the well-known American Jewish writer,
Meyer Levin, was awarded $50,000 by the New York Supreme Court, to be paid by
Otto Frank for Levin’s work on the Anne Frank Diary. Levin was awarded
the $50,000 because Frank had used the dialogue of Levin just as it was and
“implanted” it in the diary as being his daughter’s intellectual work.
One of the first to challenge the propaganda picture about the six million Jews
was the well-known French Socialist, Mr. Paul Rassinier who, although himself
a victim of the German National Socialists, having been interned at Buchenwald,
said after the war that his concern for truth compelled him to say that he had
neither seen nor heard of mass gassings. He subsequently conducted intensive
researches, lecturing throughout Germany calling for first hand witnesses to
come forward. His works are models of thorough documentation. In his Le Drame
des Juits europeen Rassiier shows with exhaustive cross-checked statistics
that the total number of Jewish casualties, from all causes, during the Second
World War could not have exceeded 1,200,000 noting that this was accepted as
valid by the World Centre of Contemporary Jewish Documentation at Paris. Rassiier
stresses that this is the maximum figure and refers to a lower figure of 896,892
given by the well-known Jewish statistician Raul Hilberg.
But Zionist Israel has maintained the figure of six million casualties, with
an indemnity of 5,000 marks for each one.
One of the most objective reports on the conditions of Jews under the National
Socialists has been provided by the International Committee of the Red Cross.
So effective has been the historical blackout on the question of the six million
Jews, that comparatively few have ever heard of the Red Cross Report. The International
Committee of the Red Cross consisted mainly of neutral Swiss nationals.
The Red Cross Committee issued in three volumes in 1948 in Geneva the Report
of the International Committee of the Red Cross on its Activities during the
Second World-War. This definitive report incorporated and supplemented two
previous reports. When the first reports appeared in 1942 that Germany was implementing
a policy of mass internment of Jews, the ICRC felt that previously satisfactory
conditions in German civilian internment camps might be affected, and eventually
persuaded the German Government to grant them supervisory authority. From the
latter part of 1942 right through until the last chaotic days of the war in
1945, the ICRC maintained a massive food relief programme. Letters of thanks
from Jewish internees poured in. On October 2, 1945, the ICRC first warned
the German Foreign Office that Allied bombing was threatening to collapse the
German transport system and that starvation conditions were becoming inevitable.
The ICRC attempted to set up its own improvised transport system and its role
was so important in the latter stages of the war that it was ICRC representatives
who displayed the white surrender flags at Dachau and Nauthausen.
The ICRC made their last visit to Theresiebstadt (Terezin) in April, 1945, and
praised the conditions under which the large Jewish community, enjoying complete
autonomy under a Jewish Council of Elders, was living. The ICRC praised the
attitude of the Ion Antonescu administration in Rumania towards the 183,000
Rumanian Jews, whom the ICRC was able to provide with special relief up until
the Russian occupation. The ICRC had contact with Auschwitz until the time of
the Soviet occupation. Nowhere in the ICRC’s comprehensive reports is there
any mention that ICRC representatives at the internment camps or anywhere else
in German-controlled Europe found any evidence of a policy of exterminating
the Jews. There are no reports of gas chambers. It is true that many
Jews, and other internees, died in German camps during the final months of the
war, when food supplies had broken down and when most of the Jewish doctors
from the camps were being used to assist the German armed forces.
Stephen F. Pinter, an attorney for the War Department of the United States Government
and with the American Occupation Forces in Germany and Austria for six years
after the Second World War, gave the following expert testimony on the subject
in a statement which appeared in the well-known American Roman Catholic publication
Our Sunday Visitor, on June 13, 1959: “I was in Dachau for 17
months after the war, as a U.S. War Department Attorney, and can state that
there was no gas chamber at Dachau. What was shown to visitors and sightseers
there and erroneously described as a gas chamber was a crematory. Nor was there
a gas chamber in any of the other concentration camps in Germany. We were told
that there was a gas chamber at Auschwitz, but since that was in the Russian
zone of occupation, we were not permitted to investigate since the Russians
would not permit it. From what I was able to determine during six postwar years
in Germany and Austria, there were a number of Jews killed, but the figure of
a million was certainly never reached. I interviewed thousands of Jews, former
inmates of concentration camps in Germany and Austria and consider myself as
well qualified as any man on this subject.”
But the most striking proof of the myth of the six million figure has been the
steadily increasing number of Jews who claim that they are survivors of the
Nazi horror and who have been claiming indemnities from West Germany. By March
31, 1956, West Germany had paid indemnities to 400,000 Jews and at that
time 852,812 claims were pending. (Vide Jewish Aufbau, July 12, 1956).
But by June, 1965, the number of Jews claiming indemnities from West
Germany had almost tripled, 3,375,020 claiming that they had suffered under
the Nazis. Assuming that Jewish claims are authentic, this means that of the
total number of European Jews who came under Nazi control, at least three and
a third million are alive and have been subsidised by West Germany!
Among the many prominent Jews who did not die in German wartime camps was the
former French-Jewish millionaire Popular Front Socialist Premier, Leon Blum,
who spent his time writing a book advocating a United States of Europe. The
German National Socialists also advocated this policy. And, of course, there
was the Nazi General who handed back the famous French Rothschild mansion in
Paris in impeccable condition, with nothing destroyed or removed, remarking
that the Hitlers may come and the Hitlers may go, but the Rothschilds continue
on — so should be treated with proper respect!
Since the end of the Second World War there has been an inspired campaign to
blacken the name of Pope Pius, the charge being that he did not publicly condemn
the Nazis' campaign to ‘‘exterminate’’ the Jews under their control. The Pope
declined to protest because he had no evidence of such an extermination programme.
The Vatican’s representative working with The International Red Cross certainly
could provide no such evidence.
The difficulty in discovering the exact number of Jews who died during the Second
World War is the fact that the major casualties allegedly took place in the
concentration camps like Auschwitz, which Western observers were not permitted
to inspect. From Nuremberg onwards the Soviet has supported the Zionist claims
about Jewish “extermination”.
The Soviet leaders, themselves notorious for gigantic propaganda hoaxes to serve
their own purposes, made the astonishing claim that after they had "investigated”
Auschwitz, that no less than four million Jews had been gassed there! Commonsense
and firsthand evidence to the contrary have exploded this monstrous fabrication
in the eyes of objective observers.
There is no doubt whatever that large numbers of Jews did die during the Second
World War. But today no honest person can deny that the numbers have been grossly
exaggerated, to suit the purposes of both the Communists and the Zionists. It
is significant that the Soviet Communists, in spite of their verbal anti-Zionism,
have done nothing to deprive the Zionists of their most valuable propaganda
myths.
Political Zionism and Soviet Communism grew out of the Askenazim Jewish communities
of Russia.
A fascinating picture of the development of Political Zionism. side by side,
and also at times in conflict, is provided by the Zionist leader Dr. Chaim Weizmann
in his Trial and Error. Dr. Weizmann’s description of a typical Jewish
community does not tally with the propaganda stories about pogroms of the Jews
by the Russians. A typical Jewish family is depicted as having a house of seven
rooms, a garden and some acres of land, with the father employing fifty or sixty
Russians at different times throughout the year.
Russian servants were employed. But there was ferment about the future. Jewish
families were divided between themselves. The cleavage amongst the younger Jews
was about whether they should overthrow the Czars and gain power in Russia,
or work to recreate a Jewish nation in Palestine. The matriarch of the family
said that if the revolutionary son were right, then all would be well in Russia,
but if the Zionist son was right she could go to Palestine. All would be well
irrespective of who proved to be right.
Theodor Herzl had expressed the view in his basic work, A Jewish State that
“When we sink, we become a revolutionary proletariat, when we rise, there
rises also our terrible power of the purse.”
The common philosophy of the Communists and the Political Zionists was expressed
by Theodor Herzl in his Diary: “My Russian Jews, who constitute the great
reservoir of unskilled labourers, will be organised as a labour camp. Labour
to be organised on army lines, perhaps with uniforms.” The Israel Kibbutz has
been described as “Communism without the machine gun.”
Israel is a Socialist State. and in spite of public differences with the Soviet
Union, has a consistent record of pro-Communist voting at the United Nations.
On November 21, 1951, Prime Minister Ben-Gurion told the Soviet that Israel
would never be “a member of any kind of union or agreement which pursues aggressive
aims against the Soviet Union.” Writing in Jewish Chronicle (Canada)
of February 8, 1974, Dr. Nahum Goldmann observes that “Israel was the main instrument
of Soviet penetration into the Middle East”, and that “To believe, therefore,
that the Soviet Union is the implacable and permanent enemy of Israel, keen
on its liquidation, is one of the many nonsensical and hysterical notions which
contribute to this atmosphere of gloom and despair.” Dr. Goldmann goes on to
say that after a “peace settlement” in the Middle East, “relations between Israel
and the Soviet could even become friendly, certainly as long as the Brezhnev-Kissinger
policy of detente prevails and especially if Jewish emigration continues
.
The two great international movements which provide the main driving force behind
the movement towards the World State are Political Zionism and International
Communism, both rooted in non-Semitic Russian Jewry, often in conflict, but
generally running in double-harness towards a common objective. The Russian
Jews who flooded into the United States before the First World War produced
an extraordinary number of subverters of the American tradition. But while many
non-Jews have co-operated enthusiastically in the grand design promoted by Political
Zionism and International Communism, it has been a number of courageous anti-Zionist
Jews, some of them former Communists, who have played a major role in exposing
the most incredible conspiracy in the recorded history of mankind.
The Russian Jew Mr. J. Anthony Marcus said to an American Senate Committee in
1949 that “Reluctantly, I must confess that too many of my fellow immigrants
. . . are largely responsible for the subversive movements plaguing this country
today.” Dr. Henry Kissinger, the Askenazim Jew, is acceptable to both International
Finance and International Communism. The distinguished Semitic Jew Dr. Oscar
Levy warned in 1920: “Jewish elements provide the driving force for both Capitalism
and Communism for the material as well as the spiritual ruin of the world.”
The full wrath of the conspirators was heaped upon the conservative part-Jew,
Senator Barry Goldwater, when he contested the American Presidency in 1964.
The man who said he was proud of his Jewish ancestry gained but a handful of
the big Jewish vote.
Political Zionism and International Communism are united in their hatred of
traditional Christianity with its philosophy of elevating the individual over
the group and its stress upon diversity and decentralisation of power. Practical
Christianity is the complete answer to the exploitation of human beings by the
exponents of centralised power, whoever they may be. The real tragedy of the
Jews, irrespective of their racial background, is that they have suffered more
than most from the imposition of the philosophy of centralised power.
The major results of the October, 1973, Arab-Israeli conflict were the pressuring of the Israelis to move back sufficiently to allow the Suez Canal to be re-opened, and the Arabs’ use of oil sanctions, these resulting in no real advantage for the Arabs, but creating the conditions so helpful for the next development of the grand design for the establishment of the World State. Dr. Kissinger and his associates were ready with a United Nations project for an international “economic rights charter”. The well-informed American journalist, Paul Scott, wrote in The Wanderer of February 21, 1974:“It is Kissinger’s contention that no one nation can cope with the energy and food problems and that new international machinery and political organizations must be set up to handle them. In private White House discussions, Kissinger takes the position that the time is now ripe for the Nixon Administration to take the lead in using the energy, financial, food, and population problems of the world to develop a ‘World Community’ or ‘new international order’.
The President’s chief foreign-policy adviser sees the development of a new international
currency under control of the International Monetary Fund as a way of helping
to finance the ‘new international order’. He believes the soaring cost of oil
has set the stage for such a revolutionary monetary development.
The drafting of the charter for economic rights and duties of states was discussed
at length with Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko during his recent White
House meeting with President Nixon and Kissinger. The Russian official was told
that the charter would guarantee his country’s rights to access to Middle East
oil, U.S. technology and food, and financing.Both Moscow and Peking participation
in the charter’s drafting and the development of the world community is being
sought . . .“ (Emphasis added.)Apart from what Dr. Kissinger has written and
said concerning his work to further the World State. his close friend, Dr. Richard
N. Gardner, professor of Law and International Organisation at Colombia University,
and former deputy Assistant Secretary of State for international organisations
during the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations, has outlined very clearly the
grand strategy of the international bankers’ principal public relations man.
Dr. Garner says that Dr. Kissinger is evolving a more “indirect strategy” for
creating World Government by first building “new international structures”.
Dr. Garner is frank: “The hopeful aspect of the present situation is that even
as nations resist appeals for ‘world government’ and ‘the surrender of sovereignty’
technological, economic and political interests are forcing them to establish
more and more far-reaching institutions to manage their mutual independence.”
Dr. Garner also predicts that the growing international monetary crisis will
require much greater powers for the International Monetary Fund, a product of
the Bretton Woods Conference of the Second World War, at which the dominating
figure was Harry Dexter White, subsequently exposed as a top Soviet agent in
the American Treasury Department. Dr. Garner is specific about the key role
of the IMF in creating the World State: “We are embarked on an ambitious negotiation
for the reform of the international monetary system, aimed at phasing out the
dollar standard . . . The accomplishment of those objectives will inevitably
require a revitalization of the International Monetary Fund, which will be given
unprecedented powers to create new international reserves and to influence national
decisions on exchange rates and on the domestic monetary and fiscal policies.”A
rigid international credit monopoly, international control of the basic raw
materials of the world, and an international economic system-the multinational
corporations are paving the way—are essential for the establishment of the World
State.At a New York dinner he gave on October 4, 1973, Dr. Kissinger said in
honouring delegates to the U.N., that “I pledge you that the United States is
ready to begin the journey towards a world community... I ask you to join me
in toast to the United Nations—the treasury of man’s noblest aspirations.”
Just prior to the formal establishment of the United Nations Organisation in
San Francisco, 1945, the American Assistant Secretary of State, Mr. Nelson Rockefeller,
was provided with documentary evidence by representatives of the FBI proving
that the senior State Department official acting as Organising Secretary for
the Conference, Mr. Alger Hiss, was a top Soviet agent. Rockefeller destroyed
the FBI documents.
Later when Hiss was publicly exposed, he was supported by representatives of
the international financiers.
No doubt Commentary, the official magazine of the American Jewish Committee
in New York, wrote with inside” knowledge when it said in 1958 that “The international
government of the United Nations, stripped of its legal trimmings then, is really
the international government of the United States and the Soviet Union acting
in unison.”
If the policy makers of the United States and other Western nations were genuinely
anti-Communist, they could have collapsed the Soviet Empire “Without”, in the
words of Antony Sutton, “using a single gun or anything more dangerous than
a piece of paper or a telephone call. We have Soviet technical dependence as
an instrument of world peace. The most humane weapon that can be conceived.”
But when the Soviet dictators were in serious domestic trouble in 1972, resulting
from yet one more failure of Communist farming, there was no suggestion of applying
pressure to force the release of the millions in the Soviet concentration camps,
or freedom for the “Captive Nations”.
Dr. Kissinger went to Moscow and arranged to provide the massive credits which
enabled the Soviet to remove one third of America’s wheat reserves. Since then
there has been a flow of credits and loans for even bigger Soviet purchases
of American machinery and technology.
Andrei Sakharov, the famous Soviet scientist and friend of Alexander Solzhenitsyn,
has warned that Western technological assistance to the Soviet Union liberated
the Soviet leaders from the problems the Communist system cannot solve, enabled
them to concentrate upon building up Soviet military strength, “and as a result
the whole world would be disarmed and facing our uncontrollable bureaucratic
apparatus”.
The self admitted liar Richard Nixon has resigned, and even Dr. Kissinger will
eventually leave American administration to continue to work elsewhere. But
those replacing them will, unless prevented by sufficient opposition, carry
on serving the One World programme.
Dr. Bella Dodd, a former member of the National Committee of the U.S.A. Communist
Party, has expressed the opinion, based upon years of experience, that “I think
the Communist conspiracy is merely a branch of a much bigger conspiracy”.
The Communist conspiracy, with its world-wide revolutionary and subversive programmes,
is but a most essential front and instrument for those international financial
groups obsessed with the One World concept.
The frightful results to date of the policies of these international power fanatics
are nothing compared with what now threatens mankind. It is no use suggesting
that they can be appealed to, pointing out that their policies of centralising
power run so contrary to reality, that the end result must be the complete collapse
of what remains of Civilisation and their own destruction.
Hitler did not think that he was going to be forced to commit suicide in the
rubble of destruction his policies produced.
What is required is that all power be progressively decentralised everywhere,
particulary credit power, enabling the individual to have effective control
over his own affairs. One of the first major policies necessary for salvation
is that the documented facts concerning the financing of Communism be circulated
as widely as possible and Western Governments forced to end what Antony Sutton
has correctly described as a policy of National Suicide.
![]()