The Controversy of Zion

[Joshua]

I actually bought it off Amazon. I don't like to read online books because of the monitor screen.
I had easily found the .pdf you linked to though,. which is a good SOTT. LOL, I've been waiting
to do that.

[Puck]

Been reading it online, the work is phenominal as he strives for objective use of language and points out where labels have been mistakenly put on things that embody their opposite.

One example being the name of Israel and how the jew's of today are descended from the tribe of judah. The Israeli's at the time wanted nothing to do with the Judah's or Jews, as they were preaching theocracy at the time and the Israeli's wanted more open, less dogmatic form of governance. Ergo, the Jews of today are descended from the tribe of Judah, of which they get their namesake, however the Israeli's of that time period (500-1000BC) were dispersed by being conquored/migrating west, and therefore today no longer exist as a seperate people.

So naming Israel, Israel is a misnomer, it should be called Judah. As of chapter 3 the author has not suggested why there was a switch, but does mentioned it was done purposefully, with intent, likely to decieve.

Great work, parallels Laura's Who Wrote the Bible and Why, which is good b/c i like to cross-reference.

Highly Suggested.

[Laura]

there is one thing, a suspicion i have about the theme of zionism and jews. when analyzing the trouble and tribulations of humanity, anybody who dares to set aside taboos will ultimately find their way back to the tribe and their very peculiar history and what is known of their interactions with the rest of us. and anybody who comes so far as to wanting to analyze the political status-quo and including their influence will find themselves before that big wall of fire of disapproval on all levels. my suspicion is that in the greater design of things they are small fry. they are too visible and as a group they look too convenient a scapegoat to be the real baddies. to me they look as having been set up as a collective 'fall guy'.

Yeah, that is the feeling one gets... they are the "scapegoat" this cycle - keeping mind that cycles can be thousands and even tens of thousands of years long.

Lobaczewski mentions this also.  He says:

Any attempt to explain the things that occurred during the first half of our century by means of categories generally accepted in historical thought leaves behind a nagging feeling of inadequacy. Only a ponerological approach can compensate for this deficit in our comprehension, as it does justice to the role of various pathological factors in the genesis of evil at every social level.

And he discusses the problem again in another passage:

If a collection were to be made of all those books which describe the horrors of wars, the cruelties of revolutions, and the bloody deeds of political leaders and their systems, many readers would avoid such a library.

Ancient works would be placed alongside books by contemporary historians and reporters. The documentary treatises on German extermination and concentration camps, and of the extermination of the Jewish Nation, furnish approximate statistical data and describe the well-organized "labor" of the destruction of human life, using a properly calm language, and providing a concrete basis for the acknowledgement of the nature of evil.

The autobiography of Rudolf Hoess, the commander of camps in Oswiecim (Auschwitz) and Brzezinka (Birkenau), is a classic example of how an intelligent psychopathic individual with a deficit of human emotion thinks and feels.

Foremost among these would be books written by witnesses to criminal insanity such as Arthur Koestler's Darkness at Noon, from prewar Soviet life; Smoke over Birkenau the personal memories of Severina Szmaglewska  from the Oswiecim German concentration camp for women; The Other World, the Soviet memoires of Gustav Herling-Grudzinski ; and the Solzhenitsyn volumes turgid with human suffering.

The collection would include works on the philosophy of history discussing the social and moral aspects of the genesis of evil, but they would also use the half-mysterious laws of history to partly justify the blood-stained solutions.

However, an alert reader would be able to detect a certain degree of evolution in the authors' attitudes, from an ancient affirmation of primitive enslavement and murder of vanquished peoples, to the present-day moralizing condemnation of such methods of behavior.

Such a library would nevertheless be missing a single work offering a sufficient explanation of the causes and processes whereby such historical dramas originate, of how and why human frailties and ambitions degenerate into bloodthirsty madness.

 Upon reading the present volume, the reader will realize that writing such a book was scientifically impossible until recently.

The old questions would remain unanswered: what made this happen? Does everyone carry the seeds of crime within, or is it only some of us?

No matter how faithful and psychologically true, no literary description of occurrences, such as those narrated by the above-mentioned authors, can answer these questions, nor can they fully explain the origins of evil.

They are thus incapable of furnishing sufficiently effective principles for counter-acting evil.

The best literary description of a disease cannot produce an understanding of its essential etiology, and thus furnishes no principles for treatment.

In the same way, such descriptions of historical tragedies are unable to elaborate effective measures for counteracting the genesis, existence, or spread of evil.

In using natural  language to circumscribe psychological, social, and moral concepts which cannot properly be described within its sphere of utility, we produce a sort of surrogate comprehension leading to a nagging suspicion of helplessness. Our natural system of concepts and imaginings is not equipped with the necessary factual content to permit reasoned comprehension of the quality of the factors (particularly the psychological ones) which were active before the birth of, and during, such inhumanly cruel times.

We must nevertheless point out that the authors of such literary descriptions sensed that their language was insufficient and therefore attempted to infuse their words with the proper scope of precision, almost as though they foresaw that someone - at some point in time - might use their works in order to explain what cannot be explained, not even in the best literary language. Had these writers not been so precise and descriptive in their language, this author would have been unable to use their works for his own scientific purposes.

When I say that Ponerology is one of the most - if not THE most - important book ever written, I'm not kidding.  And I now think that it should be read in conjunction with this "Controversy of Zion" along with Secret History of the World.  I think that if a person read those three books and really assimilated what was in them, they would be well on their way to understanding the meaning of man's existence and how to maximize their own life and become free of the mass hypnosis that has been imposed on humanity by psychopaths.

[Laura]

Here's another interesting excerpt that suggests the the concept of COINTELPRO - which is what this excerpt describes - may actually be hard-wired into the defense mechanisms of the psychopath.

  

When the [French] revolution was ebbing, three men arose, in France, England and America, who saw three things plainly: that its course had followed the
    chart revealed by the Illuminati papers in 1787; that this secret society
    had been able, through Freemasonry, to instigate and direct it; and that the
    secret league of conspirators, with its continuing plan for world
    revolution, had survived and was preparing the further "violent and
    devastating explosions" foretold by de Luchet. These three men were the Abb�
    Baruel, a Jesuit and eyewitness of the revolution; Professor John Robison a
    Scottish scientist who for over twenty years was general secretary of the
    Royal Society of Edinburgh; and the Rev. Jedediah Morse, a New England
    clergyman and geographer.

    They were all distinguished men. The Abb� Baruel's
    and Professor Robison's books and Mr. Morse's published sermons (all 1797-8)
    went into many editions and are still indispensable to students of the time.
    Their works and words gained much public attention and they were supported
    from Philadelphia, in his Porcupine's Gazette, by William Cobbett, who seems
    to have been driven into exile by the same occult power which set out to
    destroy Messrs. Baruel, Robison and Morse.

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

      

". . . We shall demonstrate that, even to the most horrid deeds            perpetrated during the French revolution, everything was foreseen and resolved on,
        combined and premeditated; that they were the offspring of deep thought
        villainy, since they had been prepared and were produced by men, who alone
        held the clue of these plots and conspiracies, lurking in the secret
        meetings where they had been conceived . . .

        Though the events of each day may not appear to have been combined,
        there nevertheless existed a secret agent and a secret cause, giving
        rise to each event and turning each circumstance to the long-sought-for end . . .

        The grand cause of the revolution, its leading features, its atrocious
        crimes, will still remain one continued chain of deep laid and premeditated villainy".

    The three men came to the same conclusion:

    "An anti-Christian conspiracy . . . not only against kings,
    but against every government, against all civil
    society, even against all property whatsoever" (the Abb� Baruel);

    "An association has been formed for the express purpose of rooting out all the
    religious establishments, and overturning all the existing governments of
    Europe" (Prof. Robison);

    "The express aim is 'to root out and abolish Christianity and overthrow
    all civil governments'." (Mr. Morse).

    They agreed that what had happened was, not merely an episode in France,
    born of French circumstances, but the work of an organization with a
    continuing plan in all countries: a universal plan.

    They agreed that this organization was the
    secret society of the Illuminati, that it had inspired and controlled the
    terrorist phase of the revolution, that it had survived, and that it was
    established and strong in England and the United States. The Abb� Baruel in
    particular gave warning in this last respect.

    The words and writings of these three men were supported by the leading
    public men of their day, and have been so fully borne out by events,
    particularly in our century, that historically they simply serve to show
    that the world-revolution was recognized by some, and its future course
    foretold, at the moment of its second appearance in the West.

    The efforts of these three men were as vain in averting the havoc which the conspiracy later wreaked, and for that reason the case of Messrs. Barruel, Robison and Morse is of especial interest.

    What befell them proves more conclusively than any of their own words the
    very thing they strove to establish: the continued existence and strength of
    a secret society working, in all countries, for the destructive purpose
    which they described.

    Messrs. Barruel, Robison and Morse were smothered with
    vituperation. In their day newspapers were in their infancy, and were
    usually owned by one man, who also edited them. It must therefore have been
    much more difficult than it is today to gain control of a large proportion
    of them.

   The concentrated attack which was delivered against the three men
    from the moment when they said that Illuminism had brought about the French
    revolution and still existed shows that even in 1797 the Illuminatis were in
    effective control of the press in America and England.

    This was one of the most surprising discoveries yielded by the research
    which produced this book.

    In my own day I have been forced to realize that
    this control exists, and that a writer who writes about the world revolution
    in the vein of Edmund Burke will find all avenues of publication closing
    against him. Mrs. Nesta Webster relates the same experience. When she first
    began to write on revolution, in the early 1920's, a well-known London
    publisher said to her, "Remember that if you take an anti-revolutionary line
    you will have the whole literary world against you". She says she thought
    this extraordinary but then found through experience that the publisher was
    right and that has been my observation too.

    However, I thought it was a condition that had arisen during the last thirty
    years until I studied the story of Messrs. Barruel, Robison and Morse;
    then I saw that "the whole literary world" fell as one man on them in
    1798, when the Reign of Terror was recent. Nothing else so clearly
    showed, to me, that the line from Illuminism in 1789 to Communism
    today is but a line of inheritance; the same organization pursues
    the same aim with the same methods and even with the same words.

   That was another curious thing about the attack on those three writers who took "an anti-revolutionary line". Soon after they gained the public eye the attacks in the newspapers began; nearly always anonymous. They made use of exactly the same language (Doublespeak) as that which is employed in similar assaults today.

    The three men were accused of starting a "witch-hunt", of
    being bigots and alarmists, of persecuting "freedom of opinion" and
    "academic freedom", of misrepresenting "liberal" and "progressive" thought,
    and the like.

   From that, the attack continued to slander and scurrilous
    innuendo, and I often found phrases which recurred in the campaign waged
    against an American Cabinet member, Mr. James Forrestal, in 1947-9; their private lives were said to be immoral and their financial habits shady; and at the last came the familiar suggestion that they were "mad".

   This suggestion is often made today, in the culminant stages of a campaign against any anti-revolutionary figure; it is evidently held to be especially
    strong medicine in defamation.

    This particular form of attack might have its
    original source in the Talmud, which uses it against Jesus (the Jewish
    Encyclopaedia, in its article on Jesus, refers its readers to the work of a
    Jewish writer who "agrees that there must have been abnormal mental
    processes involved in the utterances and behaviour of Jesus").

   In short, these attacks on Messrs. Barruel, Robison and Morse made use of a limited political vocabulary which today is plainly recognizable as that of
    the revolution and its agents, and is now so hackneyed that it must be
    imparted to all initiates from some central place in the organization.

    The campaign against them was effective, so that their warnings, like those of
    Burke, were forgotten by the masses. However, the secret band (which must
    have the same horror of truth as the devil might have of the cross)
    continued to fear them, so that the defamation continued long after all
    three were dead!

    As recently as 1918 the Columbia University of New York
    allotted funds for a costly piece of research designed to show that the
    Illuminati truly died when they were proscribed in 1786 and thus could not
    have caused or survived the French revolution, and in this publication all
    the stock-in-trade epithets were brought out and used again, as if the three
    dead men were live "witch-hunters"!

Quite bizarre, eh?  The above describes exactly what we have gone through, exactly the kinds of attacks launched on Lisa Guliani, and it is shocking to see it described this way from such a long time ago.

Reed suggests that the mode of attack - a limited political vocabulary which today is plainly recognizable ... and hackneyed - must be imparted to all initiates from some central place in the organization. But what if it is just simply a symptom of psychopathy?

After all, Lobaczewski writes about it:

    

Pathocracy [rule by psychopaths] survives thanks to the feeling of being  threatened by the society of normal people, as well as by other countries  wherein various forms of the system of normal man persist. For the rulers,  staying on the top is therefore the classic problem of "to be or not to be".  ...

    Thus, the biological, psychological, moral, and economic destruction of the  majority of normal [NON genetic psychopaths]  people becomes, for the  pathocrats, a "biological" necessity.

He then mentions that terror - as Reed also suggests - is what is used to get and keep people in line:

    

Many means serve this end, starting  with concentration camps and including warfare with an obstinate, well-armed  foe who will devastate and debilitate the human power thrown at him, namely  the very power jeopardizing pathocrats rule: the sons of normal man sent out  to fight for an illusionary "noble cause." Once safely dead, the soldiers  will then be decreed heroes to be revered in paeans, useful for raising a  new generation faithful to the pathocracy and ever willing to go to their  deaths to protect it.

[Perceval]

Interesting that he mentions Forrestal, secretary of state under Truman  and original member of MJ12 (aliens and all that) who was "insaneified"  and then "suicided" out of the 16th floor window of the Bethesda Naval hosptial where he had been taken in 1949. Lots of allegations were made  about his state of mental health, including that he claimed that "Jews or Zionist agents" were following him:

 From Dolan's 'UFOs and the National Security State':

    Throughout 1948, Forrestal locked horns with Air Force Secretary
    Stuart Symington over defense spending. Truman demanded an
    impossibly balanced budget, and Forrestal's job was to keep the
    services in line. He could not do this and, to some degree, would
    not. The result was the erosion of Truman's confidence. It may not
    have mattered to Forrestal: like most of the country, he assumed
    Truman's political career was over and that by the end of the year a
    Republican, probably Thomas Dewey, would be in the White House.

    But Forrestal, not Truman, was the doomed man. His relationship with
    Symington went from bad to worse. For reasons still unclear,
    Symington embarked upon a kind of personal guerrilla warfare"
    against the Secretary of Defense. Throughout the fall and winter of
    1948, Forrestal's mental health, physical condition, and authority
    as Secretary of Defense deteriorated.

    When Truman shocked the world in November by winning the
    presidential election, Forrestal had still not obtained a budget
    consensus from the Joint Chiefs. Friends commented on his growing
    paranoia. He was convinced that "foreign looking men" were following
    him and that Symington was spying on him. Forrestal's belief
    eventually came to the attention of Truman and Secret Service Chief
    U. E. Baughman, who decided that Forrestal was suffering from "a
    total psychotic breakdown."

    On January 11, 1949, Truman informed Forrestal that Louis Johnson
    would soon be replacing him as Secretary of Defense. By now,
    Symington and Attorney General Tom Clark were feeding stories to
    journalist Drew Pearson, in particular that Forrestal complained of
    "being followed by Jews or Zionist agents." Forrestal accused Clark
    of having the FBI shadow him, which Clark denied, but which could
    well have been true. Forrestal finally left office in a formal
    ceremony on March 28, his last public appearance.

    What followed after the ceremony remains mysterious. "There is
    something I would like to talk to you about," Symington told
    Forrestal, and accompanied him privately during the ride back to the
    Pentagon. What Symington said is not known, but Forrestal emerged
    from the ride deeply set, even traumatized, upon arrival at his
    office. Friends of Forrestal

    lied that Symington said something that "shattered Forrestal's last
    remaining defenses." When someone entered Forrestal's office several
    hours later, former Secretary of Defense did not notice. Instead, he
    sat rigidly at his desk, staring at the bare wall, incoherent,
    repeating the sentence, "you are a loyal fellow," for several hours.

    Forrestal was taken home, but within a day the air force flew him to
    Hobe id, Florida, home of Bob Lovett (a future Secretary of
    Defense). Forrestal's  first words were "Bob, they're after me." He
    met with Dr. William Menninger, of the Menninger Foundation, and a
    consultant to the surgeon general of the army. Capt. George N.
    Raines, chief psychologist at the U.S. Naval Hospital at Bethesda,
    soon arrived.

    It is not exactly clear what transpired during Forrestal's brief
    stay in Florida. One story from Pearson was that Forrestal had
    several hysterical episodes and made at least one suicide attempt,
    certain that the Communists were planning an imminent invasion.
    Menninger, however, explicitly denied that Forrestal had attempted
    suicide while in Florida. Forrestal did tell him that on the day
    before Menninger' arrival, he had "placed a belt around his neck
    with the intention of hangin himself, but the belt broke."
    Menninger, however, saw no marks on Forrestal's neck or body. Nor
    did anyone find broken belts of any kind. Menninge considered it all
    a nightmare.

    On April 2, 1949, for security reasons," Forrestal's coterie flew
    him to Bethesda. During the trip from the air field to the hospital,
    Forrestal made several attempts to leave the moving vehicle and was
    forcibly restrained. He talked of suicide, of being a bad Catholic,
    and several times of those "who at trying to get me." He was
    admitted to Bethesda under care of Raines, who diagnosed Forrestal's
    illness as involutional melancholia, a depressive condition
    sometimes seen in people reaching middle age, often who saw their
    life as a failure. Upon arrival at Bethesda, Forrestal declared that
    he did not expect to leave the place alive.

    In a highly unusual decision for a possibly suicidal patient,
    Forrestal's doctor was instructed by "the people downtown" (e.g.,
    national security) to place him in the VIP sixteenth-floor suite.

    Mean while, Forrestal's personal diaries, consisting of fifteen
    loose-leaf bindings totalling three thousand pages, were removed
    from his former office and brought to the White House, where they
    remained for the next year. T White House later claimed that
    Forrestal had requested Truman to take custody of the diaries. Such
    a claim, frankly, is preposterous. Throughout 1949 Forrestal had
    become increasingly alienated from Truman. Prior to the election, he
    had even met privately with leading Republicans to help insure
    future with the Dewey administration. Truman then abruptly fired him
    replaced him with a man not even remotely qualified for the job.
    Forrest diaries contained very sensitive information that Truman's
    people wanted to know about. Presumably they had ample time to
    review them during seven weeks of Forrestal's hospitalization.

    During Forrestal's first week in Bethesda, he received a treatment
    narcosis, essentially sedatives and tranquilizers. Throughout
    Forrestal's at the hospital, access to him was severely restricted.
    His wife (with who was not close), his two sons, Sidney Souers,
    Louis Johnson, Truman, Congressman Lyndon Johnson each visited him
    once. Menninger visited twice. However, Forrestal was not permitted
    to see the several people repeatedly called for: his brother, a
    friend, and two priests. Henry Forrestal for example, had repeatedly
    tried to see his brother but was refused until he threatened to tell
    the newspapers and sue the hospital. He then visited his brother
    four times. Henry told Raines and the hospital's commandant, B. W
    Hogan, that James wanted to talk with a close friend, Monsignor
    Maurice Sheehy. Hogan acknowledged that the patient had requested
    this several times but said he still would not allow it. Indeed,
    Sheehy had tried seven times to see Forrestal, each time told his
    timing was "not opportune." Sheehan, a former navy chaplain, argued
    several times with Raines and received the impression that Raines
    was acting under orders. Another priest, Father Paul McNally of
    Georgetown University, was also barred from seeing Forrestal, as was
    at least one other friend of the former Secretary.

    By mid-May, observers and visitors agreed that Forrestal was
    improving. Henry said that his brother was "acting and talking as
    sanely and intelligently as any man I've ever known." On May 14,
    1949, Raines decided that he would leave Washington in four days to
    attend a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. After
    their last meeting on the morning of the eighteenth, Raines wrote
    that Forrestal was "somewhat better than on the corresponding day of
    the preceding week." Forrestal continued in good spirits throughout
    all of the twentieth and twenty-first. He showed no signs of
    depression, was well dressed, shaved, and in good appetite.

    The official account of Forrestal's death runs as follows. During
    the night of May 21-22, Forrestal was awake at 1:45 A.M., copying a
    chorus from Sophocles's Ajax from a book of world literature. A navy
    corpsman guarding Forrestal's room checked in, as was his job every
    fifteen minutes. Forrestal told the corpsman that he did not want a
    sedative, as he intended to stay up late and read. (A variation of
    this story appeared in the New York Times, which reported that
    Forrestal had been asleep at 1:30, then awake at 1:45.) The corpsman
    reported Forrestal's refusal to the psychiatrist-Raines's
    assistant-sleeping next door. They returned five minutes later to an
    empty room. The assistant later claimed that Forrestal had sent the
    corpsman out on a "brief errand."

    During this time, Forrestal walked to the diet kitchen across the
    hall, tied one end of his bathrobe cord to the radiator, the other
    end around his neck, removed a flimsy screen, and jumped from the
    sixteenth floor. The cord came untied, and he fell to his death
    after hitting part of the building on the way down. Forrestal's most
    recent biographers discounted the possibility of murder, calling the
    Secretary's death "a series of chance events." Yet, the
    discrepancies in the official suicide story were never clearly
    resolved, and several people close to Forrestal did not believe it.
    An early biographer of Forrestal, writing the 1960s, noted that
    "even now ... certain details have not been made public," and that
    some believed Forrestal's death to be "very much desired by
    individuals and

    groups who, in 1949, held great power in the United States." others
    went further and maintained that Forrestal was murdered. Henry
    Forrestal, for one, believed strongly that "they" murdered his
    brother- they being either Communists or Jews within the government.
    (Forrestal's geo politics gave him a pro-Arab disposition.) Indeed,
    Henry later said that the more he thought about his brother being
    shut up at Bethesda and denied the right to see Father Sheehy, the
    more it bothered him. He decided he was going to take his brother to
    the country to complete his recovery, and made train reservations to
    return to Washington on May 22. He also reserved a room at the
    Mayflower Hotel for that day, then phoned the hospital to announce
    that he would arrive on May 22 to take custody of his brother.

    Father Sheehy had reason to suspect murder. When he arrived at
    Bethesda Naval Hospital after learning of Forrestal's death, an
    experienced looking hospital corpsman approached him through the
    crowd. In a low, tense voice he said, "Father, you know Mr.
    Forrestal didn't kill himself, don't you?" Before Sheehy could
    respond or ask his name, others in the crowd pressed close, and the
    man quickly departed.

    There are several odd elements concerning Forrestal's final moments.
    First, the corpsman guarding Forrestal was a new man, a young man
    named Robert Wayne Harrison, Jr., someone Forrestal had never seen
    before. The regular guard during the midnight shift was absent
    without leave and, the story goes, had gotten drunk the night
    before. Harrison was the only person to have had direct contact with
    Forrestal in the moments before his death, and it was on his word
    only that the official account rested.

    Also, Forrestal never finished writing the chorus from Sophocles,
    and in fact stopped in the middle of a word. Quite possibly,
    Forrestal had not eve written the fragment that evening, especially
    if he had been asleep at 1:3 A.m. How reasonable is it to suppose
    that, sometime between 1:30 A.M. at 1:45 A.M., he woke up, got out
    some writing material, located a gloomy poe within a huge anthology,
    copied out seventeen lines, put on his robe, cross the hall to the
    diet kitchen, where he tightly wrapped and knotted bathrobe cord
    around his neck and presumably tied the loose end to the radiator
    under the window; then climbed up on the window sill and jumped

    There is also an odd juxtaposition of a tightly knotted bathrobe
    around Forrestal's neck and the assumption that he tied the other
    end loosely to a radiator that it immediately came untied and
    allowed him to fall to his death.

    This radiator was a rather improbable gallows: it was about feet
    long, the top was six inches below the sill, and it was attached to
    the with its base a good fifteen inches above the floor. But there
    was no evidence that the bathrobe cord had ever been tied to the
    small radiator in the, place. If the cord had snapped under
    Forrestal's weight, one end would, been found still fastened to the
    radiator. The -cord did not break, ho and there was not a mark on
    the radiator to indicate it had ever bee there. Moreover, if
    Forrestal wanted to hang himself, why choose a tiny  window by
    anchoring himself to a radiator when he much more easily could done
    the job from a door or sturdy fixture, such as the shower curtain
    his own bathroom?

    On the other hand, if Forrestal wanted to go out the window, why
    bother with a cord? Why not simply jump, a far easier proposition?
    In sum, we do not know that the cord was ever tied to the radiator,
    but we do know is it was tied tied tightly to Forrestal's neck,

    Later inspection found heavy scuff marks outside the window sill and
    cement work. Proponents of the suicide theory claim these were made
    by Forrestal's feet while he was hanging by the neck from the
    radiator, and perhaps that he belatedly changed his mind and tried
    to climb back in. But the scuff marks could just as easily have been
    made by his struggle with someone pushing him out the window.

    There are many other suspicious elements to this story, such as the
    decision to place Forrestal on the sixteenth floor, which was
    exactly opposite what medical opinion desired (the bottom floor of a
    nearby annex had been the first choice of his caretakers), but was
    pressed by unnamed individuals in Washington. Also, the official
    investigation of Forrestal's death was as much of a sham as that of
    President Kennedy would be fourteen years later. The hospital
    labeled his death a suicide before any investigation; the county
    coroner hurried over to confirm the hospital statements. In cases
    where there is even a slight possibility of murder, it is normal for
    a coroner to delay signing

    a death certificate until a thorough investigation, an autopsy, and
    an inquest have been made. This did not happen. Since the death
    occurred on a U.S. naval

    reservation, local police did not investigate. Instead, the head of
    the naval board of inquiry immediately announced he was "absolutely
    certain" that

    Forrestal's death "could be nothing else than suicide.

When we add this from Forrestal's personal diaries:

    "Played golf with Joe Kennedy (U.S. Ambassador to Britain). He says
    that Chamberlain stated that America and world Jewry forced England
    into World War II." - James Forrestal, Secretary of the Navy (later
    Secretary of Defense), Diary, December 27, 1945 entry.

we get the impression that Forrestal knew a little too much at the wrong  time in history and had the dangerous idea that he would tell people about it.

I find it really interesting that all of this was happening at the end  of the 40's when the "cold war" was being kick started amid allegation of "Jews" entrenched in the halls of power in the US. Put this together with the evidence for Jews being behind communism and throw in a little UFO coverup and you get the idea that this particular group  possesses some awesome power in terms of directing pretty much everything of importance here on the BBM.

Joe

[Mr. Premise]

I find it really interesting that all of this was happening at the end  of the 40's when the "cold war" was being kick started amid allegation of "Jews" entrenched in the halls of power in the US. Put this together with the evidence for Jews being behind communism and throw in a little UFO coverup and you get the idea that this particular group  possesses some awesome power in terms of directing pretty much everything of importance here on the BBM.

Joe

But couldn't you say that about Masons or Jesuits or Illuminati and the rest?  Isn't a monocausal conspiracy theory a red herring?  That's one thing I got out of Secret History, anyway.

Don

[Xman]

I find it really interesting that all of this was happening at the end  of the 40's when the "cold war" was being kick started amid allegation of "Jews" entrenched in the halls of power in the US. Put this together with the evidence for Jews being behind communism and throw in a little UFO coverup and you get the idea that this particular group  possesses some awesome power in terms of directing pretty much everything of importance here on the BBM.
Joe

But couldn't you say that about Masons or Jesuits or Illuminati and the rest?  Isn't a monocausal conspiracy theory a red herring?  That's one thing I got out of Secret History, anyway.
Don

Some of them probably were and are Masons. Some of them probably were and are Jesuits, some of them probably were and are Illuminati, some of them probably were and are Rosicrucians. The book itself gives a better background and it is not just Jews per se, once again. It is a select group of genetically tweaked psychopaths going back to the dawn of human struggle. One of their plans and cover is that of Zionism. I think what one of the things that Reed puts together is that Judah itself appears to have been a select tribal group different from others in that it appears that a high concentration of the conscienceless psychopaths via the Levites created or re-created a bloodthirsty vengeful God based on Racism (Chosen People) and set the deception forth to this day. Reed in my opinion even seems to be pointing out that the Talmudic Levitical imposition of Racism (Chosen People) and all the rights that come along with being set apart as The Chosen (everyone else can be killed because they are nothing) was an usurpation of existing religious thought. The Judah-ish tribe may not have even been part of that original religious movement. Once again it all goes back to Psychopathy and Psychopathy has no Race, no gender, it crosses all bounds. But it can be found concentrated in specific regions and specific groups at different times. Every once in a while they perform a great deed of deception and those deeds often become false rules of the reality. In these cases I think Jewish is the moniker for this sub-select group of psychopaths. And once again it is not what we commonly think of as the Jewish people.

[Laura]

On the subject of Masons there is also this from C of Z:

   

The plan to acquire control of Freemasonry through Illuminist agents, and the success achieved, is plainly stated in Weishaupt's papers. First he records that, "I have succeeded in obtaining a profound glimpse into the secrets of the Freemasons; I know their whole aim and shall impart it all at the right time in one of the higher degrees". At a later stage he gave a general order for his "Areopagites" to enter Freemasonry: "Then we shall have a masonic lodge of our own. . . we shall regard this as our nursery garden. . . at every opportunity we shall cover ourselves with this . . ." (i.e., Freemasonry).

    This device of advancing "under cover" (which is still basic in Communism today) was the guiding principle: "If only the aim is achieved, it does not matter under what cover it takes place; and a cover is always necessary. For in concealment lies a great part of our strength. For this reason we must always cover ourselves with the name of another society. The lodges that are under Freemasonry are in the meantime the most suitable cloak for our high purpose . . . a society concealed in this manner cannot be worked against. . . In case of a prosecution or of treason the superiors cannot be discovered. . . We shall be shrouded in impenetrable darkness from spies and emissaries of other societies".

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

       

". . . We see our edifice" (i.e., Freemasonry) "crumbling and covering the ground with ruins; we see destruction that our hands no longer arrest. . . A great sect arose, which taking for its motto the good and the happiness of man, worked in the darkness of the conspiracy to make the happiness of humanity a prey for itself. This sect is known to everyone; its brothers are known no less than its name. It is they who have undermined the foundations of the Order to the point of complete overthrow; it is by them that all humanity has been poisoned and led astray for several generations . . . They began by casting odium on religion . . . the plan they had formed for breaking all social ties and destroying all order was revealed in all their speeches and acts . . . they recruited apprentices of every rank and in every position; they deluded the most perspicacious men by falsely alleging different intentions. . . Their masters had nothing less in view than the thrones of the earth, and the government of the nations was to be directed by their nocturnal clubs. This is what has been done and is still being done. But we notice that princes and people are unaware how and by what means this is being accomplished. That is why we say to them in all frankness: the misuse of our Order . . . has produced all the political and moral troubles with which the world is filled today. You who have been initiated, you must join yourselves with us in raising your voices, so as to teach peoples and princes that the sectarians, the apostates of our Order, have alone been and will be the authors of present and future revolutions . . . So as to cut out to the roots the abuse and error, we must from this moment dissolve the whole Order. . . "

    In this quotation the present narrative has jumped five years ahead of events, in order to show that one of the leading Freemasons of that generation, himself a penitent, identified the Illuminati as the authors of the French revolution and of future revolutions. Weishaupt's success in his declared intention of capturing Freemasonry from within, and the part then played by Illuminist agents inside Freemasonry in directing the revolution, could not be attested by a better authority than the Grand Master of German Freemasonry himself.

    Under this injected influence Freemasonry, which was very strong in France, took an extreme course and produced the Jacobin c1ubs; these, again under Illuminist influence, presided over the Reign of Terror, when the masked authors of the revolution revealed its true nature by their deeds. Like the Russian revolution 130 years later, the one in France then displayed its hatred of the poor and defenceless more than of the rich, of the peasants of the Vendee more than their supposed oppressors, of all beauty as such, of churches and religion, of everything that might uplift the human soul above the level of animal needs and desires.

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

        "The Lodge Theodore de Bon Conseil at Munich, where there were a few men with brains and hearts, was tired of being tossed about by the vain promises and quarrels of Masonry. The heads resolved to graft on to their branch another secret association to which they gave the name of the Order of the Illuminatis. They modelled it on the Society of Jesus, whilst proposing to themselves views diametrically opposed".

    This is the exact intention and method described by Weishaupt in his own correspondence, and this is the proof that Mirabeau, the later revolutionary leader, knew of it at the time, that is in 1776. Moreover, his words suggest that the secret society of the Illuminati was founded with the express intention of gaining control of Freemasonry and of instigating and directing revolution through it.

    That Mirabeau was party to the whole undertaking from the start is suggested by the fact that the memoir of 1776 (the year in which the Illuminati were founded) ascribes to him the Illuminist "cover-name" of Arcesilas, so that he must have been a founder member, with Adam Weishaupt, and a leading Illuminate thereafter. Mirabeau, as the link between Weishaupt and the French Revolution, cannot be ignored. The editor of his Memoirs, M. Barthou, remarks that the "plan of reform" of 1776, found among Mirabeau's papers, "resembles very much in certain parts the work accomplished later by the Constituent Assembly" (the revolutionary parliament of 1789). That is another way of saying that the work of the Constituent Assembly very much resembled Adam Weishaupt's plan of 1776, when he and Mirabeau together were founding the Illuminati and planning together to gain control of Freemasonry.

    The other stages in Weishaupt's underground capture of Freemasonry are also clear in the record. At the general congress of 1782 (seven years before the revolution) at Wilhelmsbad the Illuminati gained so many recruits that the Order of the Strict Observance, previously the most powerful body in Freemasonry, ceased to exist. The way to complete victory in the Masonic world was opened when the Illuminati enlisted the two most important personages in German Freemasonry, Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick (the later penitent) and Prince Carl of Hesse.
    In 1785 Illuminst emissaries attended another general congress, in Paris, and from that moment the detailed planning of the revolution seems to have become the task of the Lodge of the Amis Reunis, which was a "cover" for the Illuminati. The blurring of traces at this point is the result of the notoriety which the order gained in Bavaria, its proscription in the following year, 1786, and the destruction of evidence. Nevertheless, in 1787, the same emissaries visited Paris at the invitation of the secret committee of the Lodge.

    Even before the revolution had really developed, the fact that it was instigated and directed by Illuminism was known and published. The indictment and the warning uttered by the Marquis de Luchet stands out today as an astonishingly accurate prediction, not only of the course which the revolution would take in France, but of the continuing course of the world revolution down to our day. As early as 1789 he wrote:

        "Learn that there exists a conspiracy in favour of despotism against liberty, of incapacity against talent; of vice against virtue, of ignorance against enlightenment . . . This society aims at governing the world . . . Its object is universal domination . . . No such calamity has ever yet afflicted the world . . . "

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

    The events of the last 165 years have not been better described than in these words of de Luchet, which foretold them.

[Laura]

The section of C of Z that discusses the Protocols is quite interesting.  As Reed points out, the source or origin is not as important as the fact that history can show us that it is certainly the plan that was created by some group, somewhere, that it definitely expresses the revealed intentions and philosophy of the Illuminait, and that it IS being carried out almost line by line.  I would like to quote this discussion in toto:

   

THE "PROTOCOLS"
    While Zionism thus took shape in the Eastern ghettoes during the last century and at the start of this one emerged as a new force in international affairs (when the British Government offered it Uganda), the world-revolution, in those same Talmudic areas, prepared its third "eruption". The two forces moved forward together in synchronization (for Zionism, as has been shown, used the threat of Communism in Europe to gain the ear of European rulers for its territorial demand outside Europe). It was as if twin turbines began to revolve, generating what was in effect one force, from which the new century was to receive galvanic shocks.

    According to Disraeli and Bakunin the world-revolution had come under Jewish leadership around the middle of the century, and its aims then changed. Bakunin's followers, who sought to abolish the State as such because they foresaw that the revolutionary State might become more despotic than any earlier despotism, were ousted and forgotten. The world-revolution therewith took the shape of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, which aimed at the super-State founded in slave-labour and in "the confiscation of human liberty" (as de Tocqueville wrote in 1848).

    This change in leadership and aims determined the course of the 20th Century. However, the methods by which the existing order was to be destroyed did not change; they continued to be those revealed by Weishaupt's papers published in 1787. Many publications of the 19th Century showed that the original Illuminist plan continued through the generations to be the textbook of the revolutionaries of all camps, as to method.

    These works propagated or exposed the destructive plan in various ways, sometimes allegorical, but always recognizable if compared with the original, Weishaupt's documents.

    In 1859 Cretineau Joly assailed Jewish Leadership of "the secret societies". His book reproduced documents (communicated to him by Pope Gregory XVI) of the Italian secret society, the Haute Vente Romaine; their authenticity is beyond question. The Haute Vente Romaine was headed by an Italian prince who had been initiated by one of Weishaupt's own intimates (Knigge) and was a reincarnation of the Illuminati.

    The outer circle of initiates, the dupes, were persuaded that "the object of the association is something high and noble, that it is the Order of those who desire a purer morality and a stronger piety, the independence and unity of their country". Those who graduated into the inner degrees progressively learned the real aims and swore to destroy all religion and legitimate government; then they received the secrets of assassination, poison and perjury first disclosed by Weishaupt's documents.

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

    In the same year Maurice Joly published an attack on Napoleon III, to whom he attributed the identical methods of corrupting and ruining the social system (this book was written in allegorical form).

    In 1868 the German Goedsche reproduced the same ideas in the form of an attack on Jewish leadership of the revolution, and in 1869 the French Catholic and Royalist Gougenot Des Mousseaux took up the same theme. In that year Bakunin also published his Polemic Against The Jews.

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

    After that came a pause in the published literature of the conspiracy first disclosed in 1787, until in 1905 one Professor Sergyei Nilus, an official of the Department of Foreign Religions at Moscow, published a book, of which the British Museum in London has a copy bearing its date-stamp, August 10, 1906. Great interest would attach to anything that could be elicited about Nilus and his book, which has never been translated; the mystery with which he and it have been surrounded impedes research. One chapter was translated into English in 1920. This calls for mention here because the original publication occurred in 1905, although the violent uproar only began when it appeared in English in 1920.

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

    In every other respect it is of inestimable importance, for it is shown by the conclusive test (that of subsequent events) to be an authentic document of the world-conspiracy first disclosed by Weishaupt's papers.

    Many other documents in the same series had followed that first revelation, as I have shown, but this one transcends all of them. The others were fragmentary and gave glimpses; this one gives the entire picture of the conspiracy, motive, method and objective. It adds nothing new to what had been revealed in parts (save for the unproven, attribution to Jewish elders themselves), but it puts all the parts in place and exposes the whole. It accurately depicts all that has come about in the fifty years since it was published, and what clearly will follow in the next fifty years unless in that time the force which the conspiracy has generated produces the counter-force.

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

    The destructive idea is presented in the form of a scientific theory, almost of an exact science, argued with gusto and eloquence. In studying the Protocols I am constantly reminded of something that caught my eye in Disraeli's dictum, earlier quoted. Disraeli, who was careful in the choice of words, spoke of "the destructive principle" (not idea, scheme, notion, plan, plot or the like), and the Protocols elevate the theory of destruction to this status of "a fundamental truth, a primary or basic law, a governing law of conduct" (to quote various dictionary definitions of "principle").

    In many passages the Protocols appear, at first sight, to recommend destruction as a thing virtuous in itself, and consequently justifying all the methods explicitly recommended to promote it (bribery, blackmail, corruption, subversion, sedition, mob-incitement, terror and violence), which thus become virtuous too.

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

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

    The response of official Jewry in 1920 and afterwards was different. It was aimed, with fury, at the entire substance of the Protocols; it did not stop at denying a Jewish plot, but denied that there was any plot, which was demonstrably untrue. The existence of the conspiracy had been recognized and affirmed by a long chain of high authorities, from Edmund Burke, George Washington and Alexander Hamilton to Disraeli, Bakunin and the many others mentioned in an earlier chapter. Moreover, when the Protocols appeared in English conclusive proof had been given by the event in Russia. Thus the nature of the Jewish attack could only strengthen public doubts; it protested much too much.

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

    The attack on the Protocols in the 1920's proved above all else the truth of their contention; it showed that the standing organization for suppressing public discussion of the conspiracy had been perfected in the intervening 120 years. Probably so much money and energy were never before in history expended on the effort to suppress a single document.

    It was brought to England by one of the two leading British correspondents of that day in Moscow, Victor Marsden of the Morning Post (the significant story of the other correspondent belongs to a later chapter). Marsden was an authority on Russia and was much under the enduring effect of the Terror. He was in effect its victim, for he died soon after completing what he evidently felt to be a duty, the translation of the Protocols at the British Museum.

    Publication in English aroused worldwide interest. That period (1920 and onward) marks the end of the time when Jewish questions could be impartially discussed in public. The initial debate was free and vigorous, but in following years the attack succeeded in imposing the law of lese majesty in this matter and today hardly any public man or print ventures to mention the Protocols unless to declare them "forged" or "infamous" (an act of submission also foretold in them).

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

    The Times (of London) on May 8, 1920 in a long article said, "An impartial investigation of these would-be documents and of their history is most desirable . . . Are we to dismiss the whole matter without inquiry and to let the influence of such a book as this work unchecked?" The Morning Post (then the oldest and soberest British newspaper) published twenty-three articles, also calling for investigation.

    In The Spectator on August 27, 1921, Lord Sydenham, a foremost authority of that day, also urged investigation:

       

"The main point is, of course, the source from which Nilus obtained the Protocols. The Russians who knew Nilus and his writings cannot all have been exterminated by the Bolsheviks. His book . . . has not been translated, though it would give some idea of the man. . . What is the most striking characteristic of the Protocols? The answer is knowledge of a rare kind, embracing the widest field. The solution of this 'mystery', if it is one, is to be found where this uncanny knowledge, on which prophecies now literally fulfilled are based, can be shown to reside".

    In America Mr. Henry Ford, declaring that "the Protocols have fitted the world situation up to this time; they fit it now", caused his Dearborn Independent to publish a series of articles of which a million and a half reprints were sold.

    Within two years the proprietor of The Times was certified insane (by an unnamed doctor in a foreign land; a later chapter will describe this episode) and forcibly removed from control of his publications, and The Times published an article dismissing the Protocols as a plagiarism of Maurice Joly's book.

    The proprietor of the Morning Post became the object of sustained vituperation until he sold the newspaper, which then ceased publication.

    In 1927 Mr. Henry Ford published an apology addressed to a well-known Jew of America; when I was in the United States in later years I was told by credible informants that he was persuaded to do this, at a moment when a new-model Ford automobile was about to be marketed, by hostile threats from dealers on whom the fortunes of his concern depended.

    The campaign against the Protocols has never ceased since then. In communized Russia all copies discoverable had been destroyed at the revolution and possession of the book became a capital crime under the law against "anti-semitism". In the direct sequence to that, though twenty-five years later, the American and British authorities in occupied Germany after the Second World War constrained the Western German government to enact laws against "anti-semitism" on the Bolshevik model; and in 1955 a Munich printer who reproduced the Protocols had his business confiscated.

    In England at the time of publication the sale of the book was temporarily stopped by authority, under the pressure described, and in the course of the years the attack on it continued so violent that publishers feared it and only small local firms ever ventured to print it. In Switzerland, between the wars, a Jewish suit was brought against the book as "improper literature"; the case was won, but the verdict was set aside by a higher court.

    The state of affairs thus brought about after 1920, and continuing today, was foretold by the Protocols in 1905:

       

"Through the press we have gained the power to influence while remaining ourselves in the shade . . .
        The principal factor of success in the political" (field) " is the secrecy of its undertaking; the word should not agree with the deeds of the diplomat. . .

        We must compel the governments . . . to take action in the direction favoured by our widely-conceived plan, already approaching the desired consummation, by what we shall represent as public opinion, secretly prompted by us through the means of that so-called 'Great Power', the press, which, with a few exceptions that may be disregarded, is already entirely in our hands. . .

        We shall deal with the press in the following way: . . . we shall saddle and bridle it with a tight curb; we shall do the same also with all productions of the printing press, for where would be the sense of getting rid of the attacks of the press if we remain targets for pamphlets and books? . . .

        No one shall with impunity lay a finger on the aureole of our government infallibility. The pretext for stopping any publication will be the alleged plea that it is agitating the public mind without occasion or justification . . .
        We shall have a sure triumph over our opponents since they will not have at their disposition organs of the press in which they can give full and final expression to their views owing to the aforesaid methods of dealing with the press . . ."

    Such is the history of the Protocols thus far. Their attribution to Jewish "Elders" is unsupported and should be rejected, without prejudice to any other evidence about Jewish leadership of the world-revolution as such. The Jewish attack on them was bent, not on exculpating Jewry, but on stopping the publication on the plea that it was "agitating the public mind without occasion or justification". The arguments advanced were bogus; they were that the Protocols closely resembled several earlier publications and thus were "plagiaries" or "forgeries", whereas what this in truth showed was the obvious thing: that they were part of the continuing literature of the conspiracy.

    They might equally well be the product of non-Jewish or of anti-Jewish revolutionaries, and that is of secondary importance. What they proved is that the organization first revealed by Weishaupt's documents was in existence 120 years later, and was still using the methods and pursuing the aim then exposed; and when they were published in English the Bolshevik revolution had given the proof.

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

    In one point I am able from my own experience to test Lord Sydenham's dictum about fulfilled prophecies. The Protocols, speaking of control of published information, say: "Not a single announcement will reach the public without our control. Even now this is already being attained by us inasmuch as all news items are received by a few agencies, in whose offices they are focused from all parts of the world. These agencies will then be entirely ours and will give publicity only to what we dictate to them".

    That was not the situation in 1905, or in Lord Sydenham's day, or in 1926, when I became a journalist, but it was developing and today is the situation. The stream of "news" which pours into the public mind through the newspapers comes from a few agencies, as if from half a dozen taps. Any hand that can control those valves can control "the news", and the reader may observe for himself the filtered form in which the news reaches him.
    As to the editorial views, based on this supply of news, the transformation that has been brought about may be comprehended by referring to the impartially critical articles published in The Times, Morning Post, Spectator, Dearborn Independent and thousands of other journals some twenty-five years ago. This could not happen today. The subjugation of the press has been accomplished as the Protocols foretold, and by the accident of my generation and calling I saw it come about.

    Comparative study of the Protocols and of the Weishaupt papers leads to the strong deduction that both derive from a common and much older source. They cannot have been the product of any one man or one group of men in the period when they were published; the "uncanny knowledge" displayed in them obviously rests on the cumulative experience of eras. In particular, this applies (in Weishaupt's papers and the Protocols alike) to the knowledge of human weaknesses, which are singled out with analytical exactitude, the method of exploiting each of them being described with disdainful glee.

    The instrument to be used for the destruction of the Christian nation-states and their religion is "the mob". The word is used throughout with searing contempt to denote the masses, (who in public are flattered by being called "the people").

       

"Men with bad instincts are more in number than the good, and therefore the best results in governing them are attained by violence and terrorization . . .

    The might of a mob is blind, senseless and unreasoning force ever at the mercy of a suggestion from any side".
    From this the argument is developed that "an absolute despotism" is necessary to govern "the mob", which is "a savage", and that "our State" will employ "the terror which tends to produce blind submission". The "literal fulfilment" of these precepts in communized Russia must be obvious to all today).

    This "absolute despotism" is to be vested in the international super-State at the end of the road. In the meanwhile regional puppet-despots are depicted as essential to the process of breaking down the structure of states and the defences of peoples:

       

"From the premier-dictators of the present day the peoples suffer patiently and bear such abuses as for the least of them they would have beheaded twenty kings. What is the explanation . . .?

        It is explained by the fact that these dictators whisper to the peoples through their agents that through these abuses they are inflicting injury on the States with the highest purpose - to secure the welfare of the peoples, the international brotherhood of them all, their solidarity and equality of rights. Naturally they do not tell the peoples that this unification must be accomplished only under our sovereign rule".

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

    The especial characteristic of the two 20th Century wars is the disappointment which each brought to the peoples who appeared to be victorious. "Uncanny knowledge", therefore, again seems to have inspired the statement, made in 1905 or earlier,

       

"Ever since that time" (the French Revolution) "we have been leading the peoples from one disenchantment to another", followed later by this: "By these acts all States are in torture; they exhort to tranquillity, are ready to sacrifice everything for peace; but. we will not give them peace until they openly acknowledge our international Super-Government, and with submissiveness".

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

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

    This very phrase, of 1905 or earlier, was made the chief slogan, or apparent moral principle, proclaimed by the political leaders of America and Britain in both world wars, and in this case the difference between "the word" and "the deed" of "the diplomat" has been shown by results.

    The chief result of the First War was to establish revolutionary-Zionism and revolutionary-Communism as new forces in international affairs, the first with a promised "homeland" and the second with a resident State.

    The chief result of the Second War was that further "territorial gains" accrued to, and only to, Zionism and Communism; Zionism received its resident State and Communism received half of Europe.

    The "deadly accuracy" (Lord Sydenham's words) of the Protocol's forecasts seems apparent in this case, where a specious phrase used in the Protocols of 1905 became the daily language of American presidents and British prime ministers in 1914-1918 and 1939-1945.

    The reason why the authors of the Protocols held this slogan to be so important, in beguiling the peoples, is also explained. If the nations embroiled in wars are denied "territorial gains", the only victors will then be "our international agentur. . . our international rights will then wipe out national rights, in the proper sense of right, and will rule the nations precisely as the civil law of States rules the relations of their subjects among themselves". To bring about this state of affairs compliant politicians are needed, and of them the Protocols say:

       

"The administrators whom we shall choose from among the public, with strict regard to their capacities for servile obedience, will not be persons trained in the arts of government, and will therefore easily become pawns in our game in the hands of men of learning and genius who will be their advisers, specialists bred and reared from early childhood to rule the affairs of the whole world".

    The reader may judge for himself whether this description fits some of "the administrators" of the West in the last five decades; the test is their attitude towards Zionism, the world-revolution and world-government, and subsequent chapters will offer information in these three respects. But "deadly accuracy" appears to reside even more in the allusion to "advisers".

    Here again is "uncanny knowledge", displayed more than fifty years ago. In 1905 the non-elected but powerful "adviser" was publicly unknown. True, the enlightened few, men like Disraeli, knew that "the world is governed by very different persons from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes", but to the general public the passage would have been meaningless.

    In the First and Second World Wars, however, the non-elected, unofficial but imperious "adviser" became a familiar public figure. He emerged into the open (under "emergency powers") and became known to and was passively accepted by the public masses; possibly the contempt which the Protocols display for "the mob" was justified by this submission to behind-the-scenes rule even when it was openly exercized. In the United States, for instance, "advisers on Jewish affairs" became resident at the White House and at the headquarters of American armies of occupation. One financier (who publicly recommended drastic measures for "ruling the affairs of the world") was adviser to so many presidents that he was permanently dubbed "Elder Statesman" by the press, and visiting prime ministers from England also repaired to him as if to a supreme seat of authority.

    The Protocols foretold this regime of the "advisers" when none understood what was meant and few would have credited that they would openly appear in the high places.

    The Protocols repeatedly affirm that the first objective is the destruction of the existing ruling class ("the aristocracy", the term employed, was still applicable in 1905) and the seizure of property through the incitement of the insensate, brutish "mob". Once again, subsequent events give the "forecast" its "deadly accuracy":

       

"In politics one must know how to seize the property of others without hesitation if by it we secure submission and sovereignty. . .

        The words, 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity', brought to our ranks, thanks to our blind agents, whole legions who bore our banners with enthusiasm. And all the time these words were canker-worms boring into the wellbeing of the people, putting an end everywhere to peace, quiet, solidarity and destroying all the foundations of the States. . .

        This helped us to our greatest triumph; it gave us the possibility, among other things, of getting into our hands the master card, the destruction of privileges, or in other words the very existence of the aristocracy . . . that class which was the only defence peoples and countries had against us. On the ruins of the natural and genealogical aristocracy . . . we have set up the aristocracy of our educated class headed by the aristocracy of money. The qualifications of this aristocracy we have established in wealth, which is dependent upon us, and in knowledge. . . It is this possibility of replacing the representatives of the people which has placed them at our disposal, and, as it were, given us the power of appointment .... .

        We appear on the scene as alleged saviours of the worker from this oppression when we propose to him to enter the ranks of our fighting forces; Socialists, Anarchists, Communists . . . By want and the envy and hatred which it engenders we shall move the mobs and with their hands we shall wipe out all those who hinder us on our way . . . The people, blindly believing things in print, cherishes . . . a blind hatred towards all conditions which it considers above itself, for it has no understanding of the meaning of class and condition. . .

        These mobs will rush delightedly to shed the blood of those whom, in the simplicity of their ignorance, they have envied from their cradles, and whose property they will then be able to loot. 'Ours' they will not touch, because the moment of attack will be known to us and we shall take measures to protect our own. . .

        The word 'freedom' brings out the communities of men to fight against every kind of force, against every kind of authority, even against God and the laws of nature. For this reason we, when we come into our kingdom, shall have to erase this word from the lexicon of life as implying a principle of brute force which turns mobs into bloodthirsty beasts. . . But even freedom might be harmless and have its place in the State economy without injury to the wellbeing of the peoples if it rested upon the foundation of faith in God. . . This is the reason why it is indispensable for us to undermine all faith, to tear out of the minds of the masses the very principle of Godhead and the spirit, and to put in its place arithmetical calculations and material needs . . ."

        ". . . We have set one against another the personal and national reckonings of the peoples, religious and race hatreds, which we have fostered into a huge growth in the course of the past twenty centuries. This is the reason why there is not one State which would anywhere receive support if it were to raise its arm, for every one of them must bear in mind that any agreement against us would be unprofitable to itself. We are too strong, there is no evading our power. The nations cannot come to even an inconsiderable private agreement without our secretly having a hand in it . . .

        In order to put public opinion into our hands we must bring it into a state of bewilderment by giving expression from all sides to so many contradictory opinions and for such length of time as will suffice to make the peoples lose their heads in the labyrinth and come to see that the best thing is to have no opinion of any kind in matters political, which it is not given to the public to understand, because they are understood only by him who guides the public. This is the first secret.

        The second secret requisite for the success of our government is comprised in the following: to multiply to such an extent national failings, habits, passions, conditions of civil life, that it will be impossible for anyone to know where he is in the resulting chaos, so that the people in consequence will fail to understand one another . . .

        By all these means we shall so wear down the peoples that they will be compelled to offer us international power of a nature that by its possession will enable us without any violence gradually to absorb all the State forces of the world and to form a Super-Government. In place of the rulers of today we shall set up a bogey which will be called the Super-Government administration. Its hands will reach out in all directions like nippers and its organization will be of such colossal dimensions that it cannot fail to subdue all the nations of the world".

    That the Protocols reveal the common source of inspiration of Zionism and Communism is shown by significant parallels that can be drawn between the two chief methods laid down in them and the chief methods pursued by Dr. Herzl and Karl Marx.

    The Protocols repeatedly lay emphasis on the incitement of "the mob" against the ruling class as the most effective means of destroying States and nations and achieving world dominion. Dr. Herzl, as was shown in the preceding chapter, used precisely this method to gain the ear of European rulers.

    Next, Karl Marx. The Protocols say,

       

"The aristocracy of the peoples, as a political force, is dead. . . but as landed proprietors they can still be harmful to us from the fact that they are self-sufficing in the resources upon which they live. It is essential therefore for us at whatever cost to deprive them of their land. . . At the same time we must intensively patronize trade and industry . . . what we want is that industry should drain off from the land both labour and capital and by means of speculation transfer into our hands all the money of the world.. ..."

    Karl Marx in his Communist Manifesto exactly followed this formula. True he declared that Communism might be summed up in one sentence, "abolition of private property", but subsequently he qualified this dictum by restricting actual confiscation to land and implying that other types of private property were to remain intact. (In the later Marxist event, of course, all private property was confiscated, but I speak here of the strict parallel between the strategy laid down before the event alike by the Protocols and Marx).

    A passage of particular interest in the present, though it was written before 1905, says,

     

  "Nowadays if any States raise a protest against us, it is only proforma at our discretion and by our direction, for their anti-semitism is indispensable to us for the management of our lesser brethren".

    A distinctive feature of our era is the way the charge of "anti-semitism" is continually transferred from one country to another, the country so accused becoming automatically the specified enemy in the next war. This passage might cause the prudent to turn a sceptical eye on today's periodical reports of sudden "anti-semitic" turns in communized Russia, or elsewhere.

    The resemblance to Weishaupt's documents is very strong in the passages which relate to the infiltration of public departments, professions and parties, for instance:

       

"It is from us that the all-engulfing terror proceeds. We have in our service persons of all opinions, of all doctrines, restorating monarchists, demagogues, socialists, communists, and utopian dreamers of every kind. We have harnessed them all to the task: each one of them on his own account is boring away at the last remnants of authority, is striving to overthrow all established form of order. By these acts all States are in torture; they exhort to tranquillity, are ready to sacrifice everything for peace; but we will not give them peace until they openly acknowledge our international Super-Government, and with submissiveness".

    The allusions to the permeation of universities in particular, and of education in general, also spring directly from Weishaupt, or from whatever earlier source he received them:

       

". . . We shall emasculate the universities . . . Their officials and professors will be prepared for their business by detailed secret programmes of action from which they will not with immunity diverge, not by one iota. They will be appointed with especial precaution, and will be so placed as to be wholly dependent upon the Government"

    This secret permeation of universities (which was successful in the German ones in Weishaupt's day, as his documents show) was very largely effective in our generation. The two British government officials who after their flight to Moscow were paraded before the international press in 1956 to state that they had been captured by Communism at their universities, were typical products of this method, described by the Protocols early in this century and by Weishaupt in 1787.

    Weishaupt's documents speak of Freemasonry as the best "cover" to be used by the agents of the conspiracy. The Protocols allot the function of "cover" to "Liberalism":

       

"When we introduced into the State organism the poison of Liberalism its whole political complexion underwent a change. States have been seized with a mortal illness, blood-poisoning. All that remains is to await the end of their death agony".

    The term "utopian dreamers", used more than once, is applied to Liberals, and its original source probably resides in the Old Testamentary allusion to "dreamers of dreams" with "false prophets", are to be put to death. The end of Liberalism, therefore, would be apparent to the student even if the Protocols did not specify it:

       

"We shall root out liberalism from the important strategic posts of our government on which depends the training of subordinates for our State structure".

    The "Big Brother" regimes of our century, are accurately foretold in the passage,

       

"Our government will have the appearance of a patriarchal paternal guardianship on the part of our ruler".

    Republicanism, too, is to be a "cover" for the conspiracy. The Protocols are especially contemptuous of republicanism, in which (and in liberalism) they see the weapon of self-destruction forged out of "the mob":

     

  ". . . then it was that the era of republics became possible of realization; and then it was that we replaced the ruler by a caricature of a government, by a president, taken from the mob, from the midst of our puppet creatures, our slaves. This was the foundation of the mine which we have laid under the peoples".

    Then the unknown scribes of some time before 1905 describe the position to which American presidents have been reduced in our century. The passage begins,

       

"In the near future we shall establish the responsibility of presidents". This, as the sequence shows, means personal responsibility, as distinct from responsibility curbed by constitutional controls; the president is to become one of the "premier-dictators" earlier foreseen, whose function is to be to break down the constitutional defences of states and thus prepare "unification under our sovereign rule".

    During the First and Second World Wars the American presidents did in fact become "premier-dictators" in this sense, claiming that "the emergency" and the need for "victory" dictated this seizure of powers of personal responsibility; powers which would be restored to "the people" when "the emergency" was past. Readers of sufficient years will recall how inconceivable this appeared before it happened and how passively it was accepted in the event. The passage then continues:

       

"The chamber of deputies will provide cover for, will protect, will elect presidents, but we shall take from it the right to propose new, or make changes in existing laws, for this right will be given by us to the responsible president, a puppet in our hands. . .

        Independently of this we shall invest the president with the right of declaring a state of war. We shall justify this last right on the ground that the president as chief of the whole army of the country must have it at his disposal in case of need. . . It is easy to understand that in these conditions the key of the shrine will lie in our hands. and that no one outside ourselves will any longer direct the force of legislation. . .

        The president will. at our discretion, interpret the sense of such of the existing laws as admit of various interpretation; he will further annul them when we indicate to him the necessity to do so, besides this, he will have the right to propose temporary laws, and even new departures in the government constitutional working, the pretext both for the one and the other being the requirements for the supreme welfare of the state.

        By such measures we shall obtain the power of destroying little by little, step by step, all that at the outset when we enter on our rights, we are compelled to introduce into the constitutions of states to prepare for the transition to an imperceptible abolition of every kind of constitution, and then the time is come to turn every government into our despotism".

    This forecast of 1905 or earlier particularly deserves Lord Sydenham's tribute of "deadly accuracy". American presidents in the two wars of this century have acted as here shown. They did take the right of declaring and making war, and it has been used at least once (in Korea) since the Second World War ended; any attempt in Congress or outside to deprive them of this power, or curb them in the use of it meets with violently hostile attack.

    So the Protocols continue. The peoples, on their progress "from one disenchantment to another", will not be allowed "a breathing-space". Any country "which dares to oppose us" must be met with war, and any collective opposition with "universal war". The peoples will not be allowed "to contend with sedition" (here is the key to the furious attacks of the 1790's, 1920 and today on all demands for "investigation", "Witch-hunting", "McCarthyism" and the like).

    In the Super-State to come the obligation will fall on members of one family to denounce dissident s within the family circle (the Old Testamentary dispensation earlier mentioned). The "complete wrecking of the Christian religion" will not be long delayed. The peoples will be kept distracted by trivial amusements ("people's palaces") from becoming troublesome and asking questions. History will be rewritten for their delusion (another precept since fulfilled in communized Russia), for "we shall erase from the memory of men all facts of previous centuries which are undesirable to us, and leave only those which depict all the errors of the national governments". "All the wheels of the machinery of all States go by the force of the engine, which is in our hands, and that engine of the machinery of States is Gold".

    And the end of it all:

       

"What we have to get at is that there should be in all the States of the world, beside ourselves, only the masses of the proletariat, a few millionaires devoted to our interests, police and soldiers. . . The recognition of our despot. . . will come when the peoples, utterly wearied by the irregularities and incompetence. . . of their rulers, will clamour: 'Away with them and give us one king over all the earth who will unite us and annihilate the causes of discords, frontiers, nationalities, religions, State debts, who will give us peace and quiet, which we cannot find under our rulers and representatives' ".

    In two or three of these passages I have substituted "people" or "masses" for "Goyim ", because the use of that word relates to the unproven assertion contained in the book's title, and I do not want to confuse the issues; evidence about the identity of the authors of the conspiracy must be sought elsewhere than in an unsupported allegation. The authors may have been Jewish, non-Jewish or anti-Jewish. That is immaterial. When it was published this work was the typescript of a drama which had not been performed; today it has been running for fifty years and its title is The Twentieth Century. The characters depicted in it move on our contemporary stage, play the parts foretold and produce the events foreseen.

    Only the denouement remains, fiasco or fulfillment. It is a grandiose plan, and in my estimation cannot succeed. But it has existed for at least 180 years and probably for much longer, and the Protocols provided one more proof in a chain of proofs that has since been greatly lengthened. The conspiracy for world dominion through a world slave state exists and cannot at this stage be abruptly checked or broken off; of the momentum which it has acquired it now must go on to fulfilment or failure. Either will be destructive for a time, and hard for those of the time in which the denouement comes.

[Perceval]

I find it really interesting that all of this was happening at the end  of the 40's when the "cold war" was being kick started amid allegation of "Jews" entrenched in the halls of power in the US. Put this together with the evidence for Jews being behind communism and throw in a little UFO coverup and you get the idea that this particular group  possesses some awesome power in terms of directing pretty much everything of importance here on the BBM.

Joe

But couldn't you say that about Masons or Jesuits or Illuminati and the rest?  Isn't a monocausal conspiracy theory a red herring?  That's one thing I got out of Secret History, anyway.

Don

When it comes down to it, we are talking about psychopaths, albeit ones with a particular agenda. There isn't really any other conspiracy theory needed as it is psychopathy that probably gives rise to all secret societies, at least the ones founded on self interest.

Joe

[Laura]

As I continue to read C of Z, carefully and making  annotations, I repeatedly come across things that simply cannot be explained  in ordinary concepts.

For example, the section that describes Balfour's subjugation to the  conspiracy is outstanding.  There just does not seem to be any rational  explanation for his submission.  There just wasn't any "weakness" in his  life which might cause him to succumb to "pressure."

Here is the passage:

 

THE ABERRATION OF MR. BALFOUR


    As the first decade of the 20th Century grew older the signs of the coming storms multiplied. In 1903 the British Government had offered Uganda to Zionism and Max Nordau had publicly foretold "the future world war", in the sequence to which England would procure Palestine for Zionism. In 1905 the Protocols prophetically revealed the destructive orgy of Communism. Then in 1906 one Mr. Arthur James Balfour, Prime Minister of England, met Dr. Weizmann in a hotel room and was captivated by the notion of presenting Palestine, which was not his to give, to "the Jews".

    The shape which "the future world war" would take was then determined. Mr. Balfour stood guard over the new century and yielded the pass. A different man, in his place, might have saved it; or another might have done the same, for by 1906 the hidden mechanism for exerting "irresistible pressure on the international affairs of the present" (Leon Pinsker, 1882) had evidently been perfected.

    Rabbi Elmer Berger says of that time, "that group of Jews which committed itself to Zionism . . . entered a peripatetic kind of diplomacy which took it into many chancelleries and parliaments, exploring the labyrinthine and devious ways of international politics in a part of the world where political intrigue and secret deals were a byword. Jews began to play the game of 'practical politics'."

    The era of the malleable "administrators" and compliant "premier-dictators", all furthering the great plan, was beginning. Therefore any other politician, put in Mr. Balfour's place at that time, might have acted similarly. However, his name attaches to the initial misdeed.

    His actions are almost unaccountable in a man of such birth, training and type. Research cannot discover evidence of any other motive than an infatuation, of the "liberal" sort, for an enterprise which he did not even examine in the light of duty and wisdom. "Hard-boiled" considerations of "practical politics" (that is, a cold calculation that money or votes might be gained by supporting Zionism) can hardly be suspected in him. He and his colleagues belonged to the oldest families of England, which carried on a long tradition of public service. Statesmanship was in their blood; understanding of government and knowledge of foreign affairs were instinctive in them; they represented the most successful ruling class in recorded history; and they were wealthy.

    Why, then, did instinct, tradition and wisdom suddenly desert them in this one question, at the moment when their Conservative Party, in its old form, for the last time governed England, and their families still guided the country's fortunes from great houses in Piccadilly and Mayfair and from country abbeys? Were they alarmed by the menace that "the mob" would be incited against them if they did not comply? They realized that birth and privilege alone would not continue to qualify for the function of governing. The world had changed much in the century before, and they knew that the process would go on. In the British tradition they worked to ensure continuity, unbroken by violence and eased by conciliation. They were too wise to resist change; they aimed at guiding change. Perhaps they were too eager on that account to shake hands with Progress, when it knocked, without examining the emissaries' credentials.

    Mr. Balfour, their leader, was a tall, aloof and scholarly bachelor, impassive and pessimistic; he was of chilly mien but his intimates contend that his heart was warm. His middle-aged love affair with Zionism might be a symptom of unwilling celibacy. In youth he delayed asking his ladylove until she became affianced to another; before they could marry her lover died; and as Mr. Balfour was about to make good his earlier tardiness she died. He then resolved to remain unmarried.

    Women may not be good judges of a distinguished bachelor who wears a broken heart on his sleeve, but many of the contemporary comments about him come from women, and I quote the opinions of two of the most beautiful women of that day. Consuelo Vanderbilt (an American, later the Duchess of Marlborough) wrote, 'The opinions he expressed and the doctrines he held seemed to be the products of pure logic. . . he was gifted with a breadth of comprehension I have never seen equalled"; and Lady Cynthia Asquith said, "As for his being devoid of moral indignation, I often saw him white with anger; any personal injustice enraged him[i/]".

    The italicised words could not more completely misportray Mr. Balfour, if the result of his actions is any test. The one thought-process which cannot have guided him, in pledging his country to Zionism, was logic, for no logical good could come of this for any of the parties concerned, his own country, the native inhabitants of Palestine, or (in my opinion) the mass of Jews, who had no intention of going there. As for injustice (unless Lady Cynthia intended to distinguish between "personal" and mass injustice), the million innocent beings who today have been driven into the Arabian wilderness (in the manner of the Levitical "scapegoat") offer the obvious answer.

    Anyway, there he was, Prime Minister of England, having succeeded "dear Uncle Robert" (Lord Salisbury, of the great house of Cecil) in 1902. Clearly he cannot at that instant have conceived, from nowhere, the notion of giving Uganda to the Zionists, so that "irresistible pressure" must have been at work before he took office. What went on in that earlier period is all mystery or, in truth, conspiracy ("labyrinthine intrigue"). When he became prime minister the mine was already laid, and to the end of his days Mr. Balfour apparently never realized that it was the mine of which all are today aware.

    Dr. Herzl, despairing of the Czar, the Kaiser and the Sultan (the three potentates had been amiable but prudent and non-committal; they knew, what Mr. Balfour never learned, that Zionism was dynamite) had declared: "England, great England, free England, England commanding the seas will understand our aims" (the reader will perceive for what purpose, in this view,  England had become great, free, and commander of the seas). When the Uganda offer showed the Talmudic directorate in Russia that Dr. Herzl was wrong in thinking that England would "understand" their needs, Dr. Weizmann was sent to London. He was preparing to overthrow Dr. Herzl and now becomes our chief witness to the hidden events of that time.

    A young Englishman, with some modest petition, would have great trouble even today in penetrating the janitorial and secretarial defences of a Cabinet minister's private room. Young Dr. Weizmann from Russia, who wanted Palestine, was quickly ushered into that of Lord Percy ("in charge of African affairs").

    Lord Percy was another scion of a great ruling family with an ancient tradition of public service and wise administration. According to Dr. Weizmann, he "expressed boundless astonishment that the Jews should ever so much as have considered the Uganda proposal, which he regarded as impractical on the one hand, and, on the other, a denial of the Jewish religion. Himself deeply religious, he was bewildered by the thought that Jews could even entertain the idea of any other country than Palestine as the centre of their revival; and he was delighted to learn from me that there were so many Jews who had emphatically refused. He added, 'If I were a Jew, I would not give a halfpenny for the proposition'."

    Presumably Dr. Weizmann did not inform Lord Percy of the unanimous longing of the Jews in Palestine to remove to Uganda. What he had heard, if his record is correct, was virtually an invitation to get rid of Dr. Herzl and a promise to support the claim to Palestine. He went away to prepare Dr. Herzl's discomfiture. He did not go empty-handed.

    Possibly, in the fifty years that have elapsed, British ministers have learned that official notepaper should be kept where only those authorized may use it. On leaving Lord Percy's room Dr. Weizmann took some Foreign Office notepaper and on it wrote a report of the conversation, which he sent to Russia (where, under the Romanoffs and the Communist Czars alike, government stationery is not left lying around). In Russia, this document, written on offical Foreign Office paper, must have aroused feelings akin to those which a holy ikon would cause in a moujik. Clearly it meant that the British Government had no further use for Dr. Herzl and would procure Palestine for the Zionists in Russia. Lord Percy, in today's idiom, had started something.

    All else followed as if arranged by Greek gods: the triumph of the Zionists from Russia over Dr. Herzl, his collapse and death, the rejection of the Uganda offer. Then Dr. Weizmann moved to England, "the one country which seemed likely to show a genuine sympathy for a movement like ours", and where he could "live and work without let or hindrance, at least theoretically" (any compilation of classical understatements might include this passage in first place).

    Dr. Weizmann chose Manchester for his residence. He says "by chance", but credulity balks. Manchester held Mr. Balfour's constituency; Manchester was the Zionist headquarters in England; the chairman of Mr. Balfour's party in Manchester was a Zionist (today the British Conservative Party is still enmeshed in these toils).

    The Greek drama continued. Mr. Balfour's prime-ministership ended in a fiasco for his party when in the 1906 election eight out of nine Manchester seats were lost to it. He then faded temporarily from office. At that moment another personage entered the present narrative. Among the triumphant Liberal candidates was a rising young man with a keen nose for political winds, a Mr. Winston Churchill. He also sought election in Manchester and commended himself to the Zionist headquarters there, first by attacking the Balfour government's Aliens Bill (which set a brake on large-scale immigration from such places as Russia) and next by supporting Zionism. Thereon "the Manchester Jews promptly fell into line behind him as though he were a kind of latterday Moses; one of their leaders got up at an all-Jewish-meeting and announced that 'any Jew who votes against Churchill is a traitor to the common cause' " (Mr. R.C. Taylor). Mr. Churchill, elected, became Under Secretary for the Colonies. His public espousal of Zionism was simply a significant episode at that time; three decades later, when Mr. Balfour was dead, it was to have consequences as fateful as Mr. Balfour's own aberration.

    To return to Mr. Balfour: his private thoughts were much with Zionism. At no time, as far as the annals disclose, did he give thought to the native inhabitants of Palestine, whose expulsion into the wilderness he was to cause. By coincidence, the election was being mainly fought around the question of the allegedly cruel treatment of some humble beings far away (this is an instance of the method of stirring up the passions of "the mob", recommended by Dr. Herzl and the Protocols). The electors knew nothing of Zionism and when they later became acquainted with it felt no concern for the menaced Arabs, because that side of the matter was not put before them by a press then "submissive". However, in 1906 their feelings were being inflamed about "Chinese slavery" and (Manchester being Manchester) they were highly indignant about it. At that time Chinese Coolies were being indentured for three years work in the South African gold mines. Those chosen counted themselves fortunate, but for electoral and "rabble-rousing" purposes in Manchester this was "slavery" and the battle was fought and won on that score. The victorious Liberals forgot "Chinese slavery" immediately after the counting of the votes, (and when their turn in office came outdid the Conservatives in their enthusiasm for Zionism).

    Thus, while shouts of "Chinese slavery" resounded outside his windows, Mr. Balfour, closeted with a Zionist emissary from Russia, prepared something worse than slavery for the Arabs of Palestine. His captivation was complete before the interview began, as his niece and lifelong confidante (Mrs. Dugdale) shows:

    "His interest in the subject was whetted. . . by the refusal of the Zionist Jews to accept the Uganda offer. . . The opposition aroused in him a curiosity which he found no means to satisfy . . . He had asked his chairman in Manchester to fathom the reasons for the Zionist attitude. . . Balfour's interest in the Jews and their history. . . originated in the Old Testament training of his mother and in his Scottish upbringing. As he grew up his intellectual admiration and sympathy for certain aspects of the Jews in the modern world seemed to him of immense importance. I remember in childhood imbibing from him the idea that Christian religion and civilization owed to Judaism an immeasurable debt, ill repaid" .

    Such was Mr. Balfour's frame of mind when he received Dr. Weizmann in a room of the old Queen's Hotel in dank and foggy Manchester in 1906. The proposition before him, if accepted, meant adding Turkey, in 1906, to England's enemies in any "future world war" and, if Turkey were defeated in it, engaging in perpetual warfare thereafter with the Arab world.

    But calculations of national interest, moral principle and statesmanship, if the above quotations are the test, had deserted Mr. Balfour's mind.

    He was in the grip of a "whetted" interest and an unsatisfied "curiosity"; it sounds like a young girl's romantic feeling about love. He had not been elected to decide what "debt" Christianity owed to Judaism, or if he decided that one was owing, to effect its repayment, from a third party's funds, to some canvasser professing title to collect. If there were any identifiable debt and any rational cause to link his country with it, and he could convince the country of this, he might have had a case. Instead, he decided privately that there was a debt, and that he was entitled to choose between claimants in favour of a caller from Russia, when the mass of Jews in England repudiated any notion of such a debt. History does not tell of a stranger thing.

    Dr. Weizmann, forty years later, recorded that the Mr. Balfour whom he met "had only the most naive and rudimentary notion of the movement"; he did not even know Dr. Herzl's name, the nearest he could get to it being "Dr. Herz". Mr. Balfour was already carried away by his enthusiasm for the unknown cause. He posed formal objections, but apparently only for the pleasure of hearing them overborne, as might a girl object to the elopement she secretly desires. He was much impressed (as Dr. Weizmann says) when his visitor said, "Mr. Balfour, supposing I were to offer you Paris instead of London, would you take it?" "But, Dr. Weizmann, we have London", he answered. Dr. Weizmann retorted, "But we had Jerusalem when London was a marsh".

    Mr. Balfour apparently felt this to be a conclusive reason why the Ashkenazic Jews from Russia should be removed to Palestine. However, the only body of Jews whose interest he had any right to consider, those of England, had been working hard to dissuade him from getting entangled in Zionism, and he made a last feeble objection: "It is curious, Dr. Weizmann, the Jews I meet are quite different". Dr. Weizmann replied, "Mr. Balfour, you meet the wrong kind of Jew".

    Mr. Balfour never again questioned the claim of the Zionists from Russia to be the right kind of Jew. "It was from that talk with Weizmann that I saw that the Jewish form of patriotism was unique. It was Weizmann's absolute refusal even to look at it" (the Uganda proposition) "which impressed me"; to these words Mrs. Dugdale adds the comment, "The more Balfour thought about Zionism, the more his respect for it and his belief in its importance grew. His convictions took shape before the defeat of Turkey in the Great War, transforming the whole future for the Zionists". He also transformed the whole future for the entire West and for two generations of its sons. In this hotel-room meeting of 1906 Max Nordau's prophecy of 1903 about the shape of "the future world war" was given fulfilment.

As you know, I really like to find ordinary explanations for things so as to  avoid the more controversial hyperdimensional aspect that often seems to be  the ONLY explanation for some events.  And this history certainly exposes a  number of situations that COULD be explained that way.  But yesterday, on  the Wing TV discussion of psychopathy, something came to my mind - and I  said it - that is now coming back again and again: the idea that psychopaths  - as distinctly different types of humans with a different instinctual  genetic substratum - might very well exude some sort of physiological signal  - either scent or something equally subtle - that literally affects the  whole hormonal system of a normal human.  And again, here I use the term  "normal" in the sense of non-psychopathic, as in having a "normal  instinctual substratum" as opposed necessarily being "normal" in the  psychological sense.

Now, of course we know that psychopaths are also masters of word usage so  that they can write things that engage the human mind in such a way that it  deceives itself, so to say.  And in that sense, they can achieve mastery  over the unaware victim at a distance.  As Lobaczewski writes:

   

The oversimplified pattern of ideas, devoid of psychological color and  based on easily available data, tends to exert an intense attracting  influence on individuals who are insufficiently critical, frequently  frustrated as result of downward social adjustment, culturally neglected, or  characterized by some psychological deficiencies of their own.

But surely, in such cases as Balfour's  (and others), we suspect that it  must have been perceived as necessary to have a physical representative for  some other reason.

Also, reading the Protocols as Reed reviews them, and noticing that he says  about them:

   

In all these works, in one form or another, the continuity of the basic  idea first revealed by Weishaupt's documents appears: namely, that of  destroying all legitimate govemment, religion and nationhood and setting up  a universal despotism to rule the enslaved masses by terror and violence.  ......

    It is informed by a mass of knowledge (particularly of human weaknesses)  which can only have sprung from the accumulated experience and continuing  study of centuries, or of ages.  ...
    What is the most striking characteristic of the Protocols? The answer is  knowledge of a rare kind, embracing the widest field. The solution of this  'mystery', if it is one, is to be found where this uncanny knowledge, on  which prophecies now literally fulfilled are based, can be shown to  reside".....

    Comparative study of the Protocols and of the Weishaupt papers leads to the  strong deduction that both derive from a common and much older source. They  cannot have been the product of any one man or one group of men in the  period when they were published; the "uncanny knowledge" displayed in them  obviously rests on the cumulative experience of eras. In particular, this  applies (in Weishaupt's papers and the Protocols alike) to the knowledge of  human weaknesses, which are singled out with analytical exactitude, the  method of exploiting each of them being described with disdainful glee. ...

    The authors may have been Jewish, non-Jewish or anti-Jewish. That is  immaterial. When it was published this work was the typescript of a drama  which had not been performed; today it has been running for fifty years and  its title is The Twentieth Century. The characters depicted in it move on  our contemporary stage, play the parts foretold and produce the events  foreseen....

    The conspiracy for world dominion through a world slave state exists and  cannot at this stage be abruptly checked or broken off; of the momentum  which it has acquired it now must go on to fulfilment or failure. Either  will be destructive for a time, and hard for those of the time in which the  denouement comes.

My guess is that it is a document revealing to us fully the world view and  "special psychological knowledge of normal people" possessed by psychopaths  that Lobaczewski exposes.

But that brings us back to the problem of how they actually get intelligent  and powerful people to do their bidding?  With ordinary uneducated people,  it seems to be quite simple.  As Lobaczewski writes:

   

As a result of ... naivete and an inability to comprehend the crux of a  matter, [the influence of the psychological deviant] easily anchors in human  minds, traumatizing our psyches, impoverishing and deforming our thoughts  and feelings, and limiting individuals' and societies' ability to use common  sense and to read a psychological or moral situation accurately.

But then, there is this other passage from Lobaczewski  that is going in the  direction of what is nagging at the back of my mind:

   

When the human mind comes into contact with  [the psychopath directly and  with this reality] so different from any experiences encountered by a person  raised in a society dominated by normal people, it releases  psychophysiological shock symptoms in the human brain with a higher tonus of  cortex inhibition and a stifling of feelings, which then sometimes gush  forth uncontrollably.

    The mind then works more slowly and less keenly because the associative  mechanisms have become inefficient.

    Especially when a person has direct contact with psychopathic  representatives of the new rule, who use their specific experience so as to  traumatize the minds of the "others" with their own personalities, his mind  succumbs to a state of short-term catatonia. Their humiliating and arrogant  techniques, brutal paramoralizations, and so forth deaden his thought  processes and his self-defense capabilities, and their divergent  experiential method anchors in his mind.

    In the presence of this kind of phenomenon, any moralizing evaluation of a  person's behavior in such a situation thus becomes inaccurate at best. Only  once these unbelievably unpleasant psychological states have passed, thanks  to rest in benevolent company, is it possible to reflect, always a difficult  and painful process, or to become aware that one's mind and common sense  have been fooled by something which cannot fit into the normal human  imagination.

The above suggests that there is more to this than meets the eye,  that  there is something psychophysiological that IS similar to the effect that a  serpent has on a mouse or bird... and derives from our own instinctive  substratum.  "When in the presence of a predator, freeze and maybe he'll go  away."

   

Meloy wrote:

    "The other clinical observation that supports the hypothesis of a reptilian  state among certain primitive psychopathic characters is the absence of  perceived emotion in their eyes.

    Although this information is only  intuitive and anecdotal, it is my experience in forensic treatment and  custody settings to hear descriptions of certain patients' or inmates' eyes  as cold, staring, harsh, empty, vacant, and absent of feeling.

    Reactions  from staff to this perception of the psychopath's eyes have included, "I was  frightened... he's very eerie; I felt as if he was staring right through me;  when he looked at me the hair stood up on my neck."

    This last comment is particularly telling since it captures the primitive,  autonomic, and fearful response to a predator.

    "I have rarely heard such comments as these from the same experienced  inpatient staff during highly arousing, threatening, and violent outbursts  by other angry, combative patients.

    It is as if they sense the absence of a  capacity for emotional relatedness and empathy in the psychopathic  individual, despite his lack of actual physical violence at the moment. ...

    "I have found little in the research literature, either theoretical or  empirical, that attempts to understand this act of visual predation in the  psychopathic process. ...

    The fixated stare of the psychopath is a prelude to instinctual  gratification rather than empathic caring.   The interaction is socially  defined by parameters of power rather than attachment."

Meloy gives an example of how a psychopath "gets under the skin":

 

  The psychopath is an imposter.  Shorn of any deep and abiding  identifications with others, much of his subsequent behavior as an adult  involves  the conscious imitation and simulation of other people's thoughts, affects, and activities.

    Unlike the person with narcissistic personality disorder who consciously  feels, at times, a sense of being a fake, the psychpathic character has no  awareness of this "false self" or the "as if" quality of his phenomenal  experience.  He does not merely play the role, observing the limits of his  character, but lives the part.  ... I am using the term imitation to  describe the intentional, conscious, mimicking of another person's attitudes  or behavior. ...

    The psychopathic process may also be expressed by individuals whose  simulations are so adept, whether they be cognitive, affective, or  behavioral, that there is absolutely no suspicion whatsoever that  pseudoidentifications may be occurring.  This is especially difficult to  assess in the socially engaging and intelligent psychopath. ... Any  successful assessment of the nature and genuineness of identifications in  these individuals must be largely dependent upon corroborative information  from relatives, family, acquaintances, and other clinicians.

    Case study:

    T.D., a probationer, was a 16-year-old Caucasian male of superior  intelligence.  He was currently held in juvenile custody, but was allowed  certain day trips with his probation officer to facilitate planning and  placement upon his release.  On one such day trip the probation officer was  amazed and pleased to find out that T.D. shared with her an interest in  metaphysics.  In fact, he displayed a remarkable intellectual command of the  writings of Alfred North Whitehead, one of her most favorite philosopher- theologians.  They conversed for several hours while riding in her  automobile, and subsequently the probation officer found herself much more  closely identified with and sympathetic toward the plight of T.D.  His  intellect also became a personal strength that she noted with high regard in  her written recommendation to the court.

    Several weeks following these events, the probation officer learned from a  colleague that T.D. had specifically inquired of others to find out her  personal interests; and when he learned of her metaphysical avocation, he  acquired numerous books which he read in preparation for his encounters with  her. She later found out that he was asking questions about his new resident  manager with ostensibly the same purpose in mind.

    The probation officer consciously felt hurt and angry toward T.D., but also  acknowledged to me her continuing admiration for his prowess and intellect!

    T.D. imitated the probation officer's intellectual interests to pursue his  own ends.  There was no coincidental, reciprocal sense of emotional  resonance and intelletual exchange between them.  [He set the whole thing up  to look coincidental.]

    The well-honed, imitative, and mirroring aspects of T.D.'s behavior, in this  case in the intellectual sphere, enhanced the probation officer's self- esteem.  Her narcissistic admiration of her own metaphysical knowledge  increased as she identified with, and consciously admired, the metaphysical  understanding of T.D.

    This case illustrates what I call malignant pseudoidentification.  It is the  process by which the psychopath consciously imitates or simulates a certain  behavior to foster the victim's identification with him/her, thus increasing  the victim's vulnerability to exploitation.  ... The psychopath simulates  the more subtle narcissistic characteristics (self-concepts) of the victim  at an earlier, and unconscious, developmental level.

    Mental health and legal professionals are most vulnerable to malignant  pseudoidentification during work with a psychopath when the interaction  includes matter relating to their competency, autonomy, or knowledge.

    The goal of the psychopathic character is to increase the professional's  general empathy for the psychopath's plight through pseudo-identification  with the professional's narcissism. [self-concept]

    The most common example of this is the psychopath who will complement the  professional for his competency or knowledge.  On a more subtle level, the  psychopath will simulate affects and mannerisms of the victim, (mirroring  and twinship).  It is not unheard of  for defense attorneys, enamored by the  perceived helpfulness and competence of intelligent psychopathic clients, to  find themselves considering ethical violations and perhaps, even illegal  behavior, in the service of their defendants.

    The victims "felt quality of perfection" [enhanced self-concept] is  enhanced, and a strong empathic bond is developed with the psychopath  through his/her imitation and simulation of the victim's own narcissistic  investments. [self-concepts]

    The victim will be deluded into thinking that the psychopath shares this  feeling of identification and bonding.  In a legal setting the adversarial  roles that attorneys play will foster ongoing processes of intrapsychic  splitting so that "twinship alliances" between attorney and psychopathic  defendant may render whole sectors or reality testing unavailable to the  attorney-victim.

    Individuals who deny their own narcissistic investments [do not have a good  idea of their own self-concepts and that they ARE concepts] and consciously  perceive themselves to be "helpers" endowed with a special amount of  altruism are exceedingly vulnerable to the affective (emotional) simulation  of the psychopath.

    Empathy is fostered in the victim through the expression of quite visible  affects... The presenation of tearfulness, sadness, longing, fear, remorse,  and guilt, may induce in the "helper" a strong sense of compassion, while  unconsciously enhancing the "helper's" narcissistic investment in self as  the embodiment of goodness.

    The psychopathic expresssion of such simulated affects may be quite  compelling to the observer and difficult to distinguish from deeply  cathected emotion.

    It can usually be identified by two events, however:

    First, the clinical observer who has analyzed his/her own narcissistic roots  and is aware of his/her own potential for being "emotionally hooked," will  be able to remain cool and unaffected by such emotional outpourings by the  psychopath.  As a result of this unaffected, cool, attitude, the Second  event will occur: The psychopath will recompensate much too quickly  following such an affective expression leaving the clinical observer with  the impression that "the play has ended, the curtain has fallen," and the  imposture, for the moment, has finished.

    The psychopath, in brief, has no capacity for empathy, but has an exquisite  capacity for simulation and imitation of others self-concepts (narcissistic  investments).

So there are several things going on at once in any interaction with a  psychopath.  But I suspect that Meloy's sample was that of the "failed  psychopath," the one that couldn't keep his cover... which means that we are  back to the problem of how they exert their influence over truly intelligent  and powerful people?

And short of hyperdimensional maneuvers (which I won't discount entirely),  the only logical thing seems to be that there IS some psychophysiological  element such as scent or something similar, that attacks us at the level of  the instinctive substratum.

[Puck]

It seems as if this book presents us with a unique look at the history of our secret gov't.

It amazes me that it was penned in the early 50s.

It I'm at chapter 15, and Reeds understanding seems almost flawless, his citations extensive. It's obvious now that Jehovah was not God, but a lesser god, who as imposter, manipulated ancient Judahites into believing they were "special" and "chosen to rule over all peoples". That over the centuries the heads of this psuedo-religion remained in contact with our reptilian friends, and tweaked the system according to their will.

In fact, i would surmise, their existence over the centuries would have been impossible, or rather, highly improbable without the aid of hyperdimensional reptiles.

More and more i'm learning why things are the way they are.

I would love to hear Reed's take on the C's material...

[Ruth]

who exactly are the levites, the priestly caste, in current times ? who were they then and where did they come from ? is there any known history of the levites and what they were up to before they stumbled upon the jews ?

Its strange how the levites remind me of the brahmins from here:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=2266

Its almost as if its same song, different verse.

[Belibaste]

Brahmins and Levites look like highly successful STS core agglomerators and developers within STO-potential collective dynamics.

There might be some similarities with the organisation ponerization process described by Lobaczewsky. Pyschopaths target a sane organisation (religious groups in those cases) and ponerize it. That's powerful because they can keep a non ponerized vanish (names, phrases, symbols,... i.e. legitimacy of the organization before ponerization).

[Puck]

Did G ever mention the Jews in this context? I haven't noticed it in my reading...