The Controversy of Zion

[a.saccus]

Re: The Controversy of Zion

I think I found a glitch in the Matrix.

Douglas Reed mentions Max Nordau, and I was trying to get a clearer picture of him

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

(my emphasis)

OK. Now when I went here

http://www.wzo.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=2106

It's a speech by Max Nordau to the Fourth World Zionist Congress. The speech was given in London, August 13, 1900.

Check out the "Publish Date"  in the upper left-hand corner of the screen.

11 Sep 2006

!?!

Today is August 30, 2006. I found it yesterday. I don't know how long it's been up there.

--It can't be a typo -- hard to get "Sep" out of "Aug".

--If it's a "to be published on" date, then it's clearly wrong.

--Of all the dates of the year they could have chosen for a publish date, why September 11?

--Are they gloating? Or has someone got Sep 11 on their guilty consciences? But wait -- psychopaths can't have Freudian Slips because psychopaths don't have consciences. Ergo, they're gloating.

Odd, eh?

[tschai]

Even worse-could it be a warning history is about to repeat itself? Five years exactly-5 +1=6, 6+5=11

Does this make sense? If so what target-or maybe even target(s) (Really shake things up)

[Laura]

Okay, I looked... and yes, there it is, big as day.   So, I took a screen shot of it.  There MAY be a reasonable explanation for that, but it is quite strange.

I poked around a bit.  On this page:

http://www.wzo.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=180

There is this:

Address at the First Zionist Congress

and the publish date is:  29 - Aug - 1897

and it additionally says:

"Anonymous translation first published by the London Jewish Chronicle, ca. 1897
Taken from The Zionist Library "

Then, on this page:

http://www.wzo.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=2086

which is: ZIONISM By: Max Nordau

the "publish date" says:  19 - Jul - 2006

with the additional information:     

"Zionism: Its History and its Aims The English Zionist Federation, 1905, London, pp. 3-20 Translated by Israel Cohen, B.A."

So the "publish date" box seems to be oddly arbitrary...

[a.saccus]

Even worse-could it be a warning history is about to repeat itself? Five years exactly-5 +1=6, 6+5=11.

Does this make sense? If so what target-or maybe even target(s) (Really shake things up)

I don't know. I wonder about the 11's sometimes -- what with Laura's mention of the 11 house zodiac ("The Zelator"} and Charles A. Lindbegh's famous Des Moines speech of September 11, 1941. For example, here, for Lindbergh:

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1730518

There may very well be nothing beyond gloating in the above Matrix glitch. But just in case, I took another quick look around. Here's what I found on that site.

Other "Publish Dates" for Nordau

First World Zionist Organization (WZO)Congress speech by Nordau. No publish date given.

Third WZO Congress speech by Nordau. Publish date August 28, 2006

Fourth WZO Congress speech by Nordau. Publish date September 11, 2006

Sixth WZO Congress speech by Nordau. Publish date August 24, 2003

Zionism ["Authentic historical insight to Zionism"] long essay by Max Nordau.  Publish Date July 19, 2006

Zionism ["Causes of failure and conditions of success"] long essay by Max Nordau. Publish Date August 14, 2006

One thing seems clear: this site has felt a need to put out four Nordau items, i.e., items from the period of the public origin of Zionism, since the start of the Israeli attack upon Lebanon. And four of the six items on Nordau came out since the start of the recent conflict.

Content

I quickly read the "11 Sep" publish date speech -- Fourth World Congress -- to see if there was anything particularly noteworthy or suggestive about it's content, but nothing really jumped out at me.

There was, however, this remark by Nordau in this speech which reminded me both of Protocol No. 12, and of the Fox News Talking Heads and their "leftist-liberal control of the media" hooey:

The Roumanian anti-Semites viewed with regret the escape of their chosen victims. They also feared the painful impression which would be caused by the exposure of these methods upon the public opinion of the two hemispheres. They (the "Roumanian anti-Semites"), therefore, manipulated the Press, which is in their pay, so to spread false reports compiled with such a degree of mendacity that it takes away the breath of the most hardened. The absurd lie is cast into the world that the emigration of the Jews is only the work of a few swindlers and agitators. It is maintained that only a few hundred of Jews have crossed the borders, whereas the statistics of the, neighbouring States, as also of the Societies for relief in the Western ports prove the erroneousness and falseness of such statements. Declarations are composed and signed by a few unhappy and cowardly traitors which would apparently prove that the condition of the Jews in Roumania was of the brightest, and these are held up in answer to the cry of despair of those who have escaped across the borders. No difficulty is found in disseminating these statements in the anti-Semitic press, which flourishes in all "civilised" countries. Should an independent journal tear away the mask, and give the truth in all its nakedness, the reply is always ready to hand, and never fails to have its effect upon the masses: "These are Jewish papers which abuse Roumania because she seeks to protect herself against Jewish exploitation and domination." (my emphasis)

Later in his speech, Nordau tells a story. Remember, the context is Jewish complaints about the alleged mistreatment of Roumanian Jews:(please note --  I have not investigated the situation of the Roumanian Jews ; I only pass on Nordau's story to call attention to his comment after it, which strikes me as being liable to multiple interpretations.)

I had a dear friend in England who was taken from us last year. I allude to Dr. G. W. Leitner. I found in one of his works, describing the border tribes of the North-West of India, the following Afghan fable:

"A fox fell into a whirlpool. In his death agony he yelled out loudly, 'Alas! the world is coming to an end!' A peasant who stood on the banks of the rivulet replied smilingly, 'Thou art mistaken, friend, the world is not come to an end. I only see a poor fox drowning.' "

Let us beware of playing the part of the fox in this fable. It would be really too cruel were we to receive as sole answer to our cries for help the scoffing words of the peasant.[...] (my emphasis)

I don't know, but it seems to me that having another major false flag on a September 11 would cause more problems for the PTB than it would solve. It would be too much coincidence even for Joe Six-Pack to swallow. But

"Never ascribe to malice those things which may be explained by stupidity." [...]

(edit follows)
I was unaware of Laura's most recent posting as I was writing, but she seems to have some of the same questions I have. CS

[Laura]

Yes, it is a very strange thing to have that date posted there... and then the context of the Fox story.

On another note, in C of Z I have just noted an interesting passage as follows:

A later American comment on the part played by Mr. Brandeis in this affair is here relevant. Professor John O. Beaty of the Southern Methodist University of the United States says that the day when Mr. Brandeis's appointment to the Supreme Court was confirmed was "one of the most significant days in American history, for we had for the first time, since the first decade of the 19th Century, an official of the highest status whose heart's interest was in something besides the United States".

Mr. Brandeis "did more than press the idea of a Jewish Palestine under a British protectorate" (Dr. Weizmann). He and Mr. House issued (over the president's signature) the famous declaration repudiating secret treaties).

This declaration was popular with the masses, who heard in it the voice of the Brave New World rebuking the bad old one. The words evoked pictures of be-cloaked diplomats climbing dark backstairs to secret chancelleries; now that America was in the war these feudal machinations would be stopped and all done above the board.

Alas for a pleasant illusion; the noble rebuke was another submission to Zionism.

 Turkey had still to be defeated so that the French and British governments (whose fighting men were engaged) wished to win over the Arabs and with them had made the "Sykes-Picot agreement", which foresaw an independent confederation of Arab States and, among them, an international administration for Palestine.

Dr. Weizmann had learned of this agreement and saw that there could be no Zionist state if Palestine were under international control; exclusive British "protection" was essential. Pressure was applied and President Wilson's ringing denunciation of "secret treaties" was in fact aimed solely at the Arabs of Palestine and their hopes for the future. America insisted that England hold the baby.

Of this secret achievement Mr. Balfour's biographer happily records that it showed "a Jewish national diplomacy was now in being"; the words may be used as an alternative heading to this chapter, if any so desire. The British Foreign Office at last "recognized, with some slight dismay, that the British Government was virtually committed".

America, though in the war, was not at war with Turkey, and yet had been secretly committed (by Mr. Brandeis) to support the transfer of Turkish territory to an outside party. Therefore American participation in the intrigue had to remain publicly unknown for the moment, though Mr. Balfour had been informed of it in imperative tones.

The summer of 1917 passed while the Balfour Declaration was prepared, America thus having become secretly involved in the Zionist adventure. The only remaining opposition, apart from that of generals and a few high Foreign Office or State Department officials, came from the Jews of England and America. It was ineffective because the leading politicians, in both countries, were even more hostile to their Jewish fellow-citizens than were the Zionists. (The part played in all this by non-Jews was so great, even if it was the part of puppets, that one is constantly reminded of the need to regard with suspicion the attribution of the Protocols to solely Jewish authorship).

This last remark about the Protocols, considering the context, is quite interesting.  Back in August of 1998, I asked the C's about the Protocols and the answer was quite puzzling then:

Q: (L) Who was the author of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion?"

A: Source is "Aryan" in nature.

Q: (L) Was it written to make the Jews look bad, or to cast blame on them?

A: Some.

Q: (L) Was it also written as a disguised protocol for the Aryan plan to take over the world?

A: No.

Q: (A) I heard that the source was in Russia?

A: No, Turkey.

Now, keeping in mind that we cannot take this as a "truth," but rather as a clue to either be confirmed or denied, in whole or in part, this exchange has a couple of interesting features.  First, it says that the source was "Aryan in nature."  Notice the key term "nature."  

The word "nature" in this context reminded me of the following:

Sept 1995

Q: (L) So, what were the purposes of the STS forces that were controlling Hitler causing him to desire to annihilate an entire group of people?

A: To create an adequate "breeding ground" for the reintroduction of the Nephalim, for the purpose of total
   control of the 3rd density earth prior to elevation to 4th density, where such conquest is more difficult and less
   certain!

Q: (L) Do you mean "breeding ground" in the sense of genetic breeding?

A: Yes.  Third density.

Q: (L) Did they accomplish this goal?

A: No.

Q: (L) So, the creation of the Germanic "Master Race" was what they were going after, to create this "breeding
   ground?"

A: Yes.

Q: (L) And, getting rid of the Jews was significant? Couldn't a Germanic master race be created without
   destroying another group?

A: No.

Q: Why?

A: Because of 4th density prior encoding mission destiny profile.

Q: (L) What does that mean?

A: This means encoding to activate after elevation to 4th density, thus if not eliminated, negates Nephalim
   domination and absorption.  Jews were prior encoded to carry out mission after conversion, though on individual
   basis.  The Nazis did not exactly know why they were being driven to destroy them, because they were being   controlled from 4th density STS.  But, Hitler communicated directly with Lizards, and Orion STS, and was instructed on how to create the "master race."

Q: (L) And they were going to use this as their basis to introduce a new blend of the Nephilim... (RC) And the New
   World Order... their version of it.  (L) Well, what is the plan now?

A: We cannot tell you this yet, as you would seek to reveal it prematurely, leading to your destruction!!!!

Remark about Hitler hanging out with Lizzies brings up this from Aug 17, 2003:

Q: (A) I still want to know who or what is setting or popping these programs [this question was at the end of a discussion of various "agents" that were obviously sent in to destroy our lives and work, one of which was active at that moment, putting us in grave danger.]

A: Remember Carissas' story? It points to the source. Aided by 4D influences of course. [This story was about so-called "abductions" and programming going on in a military context though disguised as "alien."]

Q: (L) Wow, that rhymes!  (S) So is Mossad part of that?

A: Mossad is near the apex of the 3D consortium. The lines blur at that level.

Q: (JH) What's the relationship between the Mossad and the Rothschilds?

A: Mossad is a "brainchild."

(Laughter at the joke)

[Discussion as to whether the Rothchilds are part of the apex or if they are just useful idiots that are going to be double-crossed also. C's break in as Laura is saying she doesn't understand.]

A: The lines blur. Rothchilds are similar in a smaller way to Sargon. Deep level punctuator.

Q: (L) What is a deep level punctuator?

A: One who emerges from seeming obscurity to "make a mark" on history. Don't you wonder where they come from? Think "deep."

Q: As in underground bases?

A: Well, what a concept!

Getting back to the issue of the genetics, which we now suspect to be Aryan, Khazarian in origin, though tweaked through the centuries, and mainly concerned with psychopaths...

October 1995

Q: (L) I have thought about my question from the last session and I want to ask it this way: You have said that Hitler received instructions from higher density beings about creating a 'Master Race.'  Why were the Aryan genetic types seen to be more desirable for creation of this Germanic 'master race?'

A: Both, similarity and ancestral link most unblemished from Orion 3rd and 4th density stock.

Q: (L) So they were essentially trying to breed a group of people like themselves?

A: Yes.

Q: [Tape garbled, question apparently about how could it be efficient to try to genetically sort people  to create a master race... it would take a long time and since humanity is all so mixed, and genetic recombination so uncertain...]

A: Not point.  How would you suggest creation?

Q: (L) Okay.  They were preparing this breeding ground, so to speak.  Obviously this was for the introduction of some other genetic strain.  What was this?

A: Nephalim.

Q: (L) Well, if the Nephilim are coming in ships, 36 million of them, why bother to create half-breeds here?

A: Yes, but having an "advance party" makes 3rd density conquest much easier.

Q: (L) So, this Master Race was supposed to get everything ready...

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Okay, what is it about the Semitic genes that was considered to be so undesirable in the creation of this
   'Master Race?'

A: Would blemish genetic characteristics inclined to ruthlessness and domination.

Q: (L) So, you are saying that there is something, some genetic tendency or set of genes in the Semitic type that
   would counteract this?

[And that obviously relates to TRUE Semites and not the Khazarian Jews.  But even the term "Semites" is uncertain because we think that what we even know as Separdic Jews aren't really Semites either... but that's still to be sorted out.]

A: Close.

[Which more or less confirms my comments in brackets immediately above.]

Q: (L) But isn't the nature of a person determined by their soul and not the physical body?

A: Partially, remember, aural profile and karmic reference merges with physical structure.

Q: (L) So you are saying that particular genetic conditions are a physical reflection of a spiritual orientation?
   That the soul must match itself to the genetics, even if only in potential?

A: Yes, precisely.

Q: (L) So a person's potential for spiritual advancement or unfoldment is, to a great extent, dependent upon their
   genes?

A: Natural process marries with systematic construct when present.

Which brings us to another comment about the Protocols given in May 1998:

Q: They say that there is a subterranean chamber under the sphinx that leads to all the other pyramids.  Is this
   correct?

A: Yes.  But more importantly, there is a buried capsule of sorts.

Q: Has this buried capsule been found?

A: Not uncovered, but the evidence exists.

Q: Are those Egyptians over there who are banning all the other people from excavating aware of this?

A: They fear ramifications.

Q: One of the things I noticed in this book was that they said that there was a colony from the city of Harran in
   what is nowadays Turkey, and that this colony formerly resided on the Giza plateau.  Is there any connection
   between this colony they mention and the fact that you said that the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' were
   composed in Turkey by an 'Aryan' source?

A: Yes.

Q: What relationship is there?

A: One and the same.

So, all very mysterious but I feel we are closing in on the quarry.  Especially when considering the new material in our 911 book, part of which has been quoted in the forum here:

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=2313

[Puck]

The problem as i see it is there is so much information here that it takes serious effort to digest. The PTB are counting on the fact that most humans won't do the research to discover the truth, as they keep them occupied with pretty flashing objects. Even i have trouble getting through all the information, reading, assimalating, and then redistributing.

How can we disseminate the truth of the information, in a digestible form, that can spread in a non-linear dynamic fashion?

... the wachowski bro's? :-)

[a.saccus]

Re: The Controversy of Zion

Reed's book is sending off sparks in so many directions in my mind, I don't know where to begin! Here's one trajectory Laura started me on yesterday, but there's lots more.

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."

Laura then quotes extensively from Chapter 28, THE ABERRATION OF MR. BALFOUR. For purposes of brevity, I only reproduce snippets.

[...]
The shape which "the future world war" would take was then determined. Mr. Balfour stood guard over the new century and yielded the pass. [...]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.

Most certainly ponerological processes and psychopathic operators were at work in the Balfour incindent, as Laura suggests. Having stumbled onto the Nordau addresses to the World Zionist Congress, I found this -- from the First WZO Congress, here,

http://www.wzo.org.il/en/resources/print.asp?id=180

which seems to me is a perfect example of the kind of patter, con, flattery, and general garbage being poured into English ears, not only Balfour's, to get the cession of Palestine to Jews. It gives me the feeling of being behind the curtains in the Foreign Office and listening in on what's really being said behind those closed doors. No wonder the PTB don't want us to hear -- we'd die laughing! Date of address: 29 August 1897.

[...]In this manner Jews were emancipated in Europe not from an inner necessity, but in imitation of a political fashion; not because the people had decided from their hearts to stretch out a brotherly hand to the Jews, but because leading spirits had accepted a certain cultured idea which required that Jewish emancipation should figure also in the Statute book.

Only to one country does this not apply -- England. The English people does not allow its progress to be forced upon it from without; it develops progress from its inner self. In England emancipation is a truth. It is not alone written, it is living. It had already been completed in the heart before legislation expressly confirmed it. Out of respect to tradition, one hesitated in England to abolish the legal restrictions of the Nonconformists, at a time when the English had already for more than an age made no difference in Society between Christians and Jews. Because, a great nation, with a most intense spiritual life, does not allow itself to be guided by any spiritual current or blunder of the time; in England, anti-Semitism is only noticeable in a few instances, and then only it has the importance of an imitation of Continental fashion.

From this type of discourse and the result produced 20 years later in the Balfour Declaration, you can see that political judgment and just plain common sense judgment have deteriorated considerably, just as Lobaczewski says.

[Laura]

I'm still reading, having had to take a lot of time for other things.  Today I just finished the chapter about Lord Northcliffe and I'm just ... well, I can hardly find words.  This is a must-read example of how the Press in the world has been taken over and why it is that it is the press - the media - that must be retaken before anything else can be done...

By far the greatest obstacle to the Zionist ambition came from factual reporting in the press of what was happening in Palestine and from editorial comment adverse to Zionism. At any time up to the 1914-1918 war the American and British governments, before they went too far, would have had to reckon with public opinion, accurately informed by the newspapers. The corruption of the press (foretold by the Protocols) began with the censorship introduced during the First World War; the rise of the directing power behind the scenes had been shown by the cases of Colonel Repington, Mr. H.A. Gwynne and Mr. Robert Wilton in 1917-1918; experienced correspondents were driven to resign or to write books because their reports were ignored, burked, or suppressed; an editor who published the faithful report without submission to the censorship was prosecuted.

In 1919-1922 the censorship was ending and the newspapers naturally reverted, in the main, to the earlier practice of true reporting and impartial comment on the facts reported. This re-established the former check on governmental policies, and if it had continued would undoubtedly have thwarted the Zionist project, which could not be maintained if it were open to public scrutiny. Therefore the entire future for the Zionists, at this crucial moment when "the Mandate" still was not "ratified", turned on the suppression of adverse newspaper information and comment. At that very juncture an event occurred which produced that result. By reason of this great effect on the future, and by its own singular nature, the event (denoted in the heading to the present chapter) deserves relation in detail here.

At that stage in the affair England was of paramount importance to. the conspirators (I have shown that Dr. Weizmann and Mr. House both used this word) and in England the energetic Lord Northcliffe was a powerful man. The former Alfred Harmsworth, bulky and wearing a dank Napoleonic forelock, owned the two most widely read daily newspapers, various other journals and periodicals, and in addition was majority proprietor of the most influential newspaper in the world, at that time, The Times of London. Thus he had direct access to millions of people each day and, despite his business acumen, he was by nature a great newspaper editor, courageous, combative and patriotic. He was sometimes right and sometimes wrong in the causes he launched or espoused, but he was independent and unpurchasable. He somewhat resembled Mr. Randolph Hearst and Colonel Robert McCormick in America, which is to say that he would do many things to increase the circulation of his newspapers, but only within the limits of national interest; he would not peddle blasphemy, obscenity, libel or sedition. Re could not be cowed and was a force in the land.

Lord Northcliffe made himself the adversary of the conspiracy from Russia in two ways. In May 1920 he caused to be printed in The Times the article, previously mentioned, on the Protocols. It was headed, "The Jewish Peril, A Disturbing Pamphlet, Call for Enquiry". It concluded, "An impartial investigation of these would-be documents and of their history is most desirable . . . are we to dismiss the whole matter without inquiry and to let the influence of such a book as this work unchecked?"

Then in 1922 Lord Northcliffe visited Palestine, accompanied by a journalist, Mr. J.M.N. Jeffries (whose subsequent book, Palestine: The Reality, remains the classic work of reference for that period). This was. a combination of a different sort from that formed by the editors of The Times and Manchester Guardian, who wrote their leading articles about Palestine in England and in consultation with the Zionist chieftain, Dr. Weizmann. Lord Northcliffe, on the spot, reached the same conclusion as all other impartial investigators, and wrote, "In my opinion we, without sufficient thought, guaranteed Palestine as a home for the Jews despite the fact that 700,000 Arab Moslems live there and own it . . . The Jews seemed to be under the impression that all England was devoted to the one cause of Zionism, enthusiastic for it in fact; and I told them that this was not so and to be careful that they do not tire out our people by secret importation of arms to fight 700,000 Arabs. . . There will be trouble in Palestine. . . people dare not tell the Jews the truth here. They have had some from me".

By stating this truth, Lord Northcliffe offended twice; he had already entered the forbidden room by demanding "inquiry" into the origins of the Protocols. Moreover, he was able to publish this truth in the mass-circulation newspapers owned by him, so that he became, to the conspirators, a dangerous man. He encountered one obstacle in the shape of Mr. Wickham Steed, who was editor of The Times and whose championship of Zionism Dr. Weizmann records.

In this contest Lord Northcliffe had an Achilles heel. He particularly wanted to get the truth about Palestine into The Times, but he was not sole proprietor of that paper, only chief proprietor. Thus his own newspapers published his series of articles about Palestine but The Times, in fact, refused to do so. Mr. Wickham Steed" though he had made such large proposals about the future of Palestine, declined to go there, and denied publicity to the anti-Zionist case.

These facts, and all that now follows, are related (again, with surprising candour) in the Official History of The Times (1952). It records that Mr. Wickham Steed "evaded" visiting Palestine when Lord Northcliffe requested him to go there; it also records Mr. Wickham Steed's "inaction" following Lord Northcliffe's telegraphed wish "for a leading article attacking Balfour's attitude towards Zionism".

In what follows the reader' s attention is particularly directed to dates.

In May 1920 Lord Northcliffe had caused publication of the article about the Protocols in The Times. Early in 1922 he visited Palestine and produced the series of articles above mentioned. On February 26, 1922 he left Palestine, after his request, which was ignored, to the editor of The Times. He was incensed against the incompliant editor and had a message, strongly critical of his editorial policy, read to an editorial conference which met on March 2, 1922. Lord Northcliffe wished that Mr. Wickham Steed should resign and was astonished that he remained after this open rebuke. The editor, instead of resigning, decided "to secure a lawyer's opinion on the degree of provocation necessary to constitute unlawful dismissal". For this purpose he consulted Lord Northcliffe's own special legal adviser (March 7, .1922), who informed Mr. Wickham Steed that Lord Northcliffe was "abnormal", "incapable of business" and, judging from his appearance, "unlikely to live long" and advised the editor to continue in his post! The editor then went to Pau, in France, to see Lord Northcliffe, in his turn decided that Lord Northcliffe was "abnormal" (March 31, 1922), and informed a director of The Times that Lord Northcliffe was "going mad".

The suggestion of madness thus was put out by an editor whom Lord Northcliffe desired to remove and the impressions of others therefore are obviously relevant. On May 3, 1922 Lord Northcliffe attended a farewell luncheon in London for a retiring editor of one of his papers and "was in fine form". On May 11, 1922 he made "an excellent and effective speech" to the Empire Press Union and "most people who had thought him 'abnormal' believed they were mistaken". A few days later Lord Northcliffe telegraphed instruction s to the Managing Director of The Times to arrange for the editor's resignation. This Managing Director saw nothing "abnormal" in such an instruction and was not "in the least anxious about Northcliffe's health". Another director, who then saw him, "considered him to have quite as good a life risk as his own"; he "noticed nothing unusual in Northcliffe's manner or appearance" (May 24, 1922).

On June 8,1922 Lord Northcliffe, from Boulogne, asked Mr. Wickham Steed to meet him in Paris; they met there on June 11, 1922, and Lord Northcliffe told his visitor that he, Lord Northcliffe, would assume the editorship of The Times. On June 12,1922 the whole party left for Evian-les-Bains, a doctor being secreted on the train, as far as the Swiss frontier, by Mr. Wickham Steed. Arrived in Switzerland "a brilliant French nerve specialist" (unnamed) was summoned and in the evening certified Lord Northcliffe insane. On the strength of this Mr. Wickham Steed cabled instructions to The Times to disregard and not to publish anything received from Lord Northcliffe, and on June 13, 1922 he left, never to see Lord Northcliffe again. On June 18, 1922 Lord Northcliffe returned to London and was in fact removed from all control of, and even communication with his undertakings (especially The Times; his telephone was cut). The manager had police posted at the door to prevent him entering the office of The Times if he were able to reach it. All this, according to the Official History, was on the strength of certification in a foreign country (Switzerland) by an unnamed (French) doctor. On August 14, 1922 Lord Northcliffe died; the cause of death stated was ulcerative endocarditis, and his age was fifty-seven. He was buried, after a service at Westminster Abbey, amid a great array of mourning editors.

Such is the story as I have taken it from the official publication. None of this was known outside a small circle at the time; it only emerged in the Official History after three decades, and if it had all been published in 1922 would presumably have called forth many questions. I doubt if any comparable displacement of a powerful and wealthy man can be adduced, at any rate in such mysterious circumstances.

For the first time, I now appear in this narrative as a personal witness of events. In the 1914-1918 war I was one participant among uncomprehending millions, and only began to see its true shape long afterwards. In 1922 I was for an instant in, though not of the inner circle; looking back, I see myself closeted with Lord Northc1iffe (about to die) and quite ignorant of Zionism, Palestine, Protocols or any other matter in which he had raised his voice. My testimony may be of some interest; I cannot myself judge of its value.

I was in 1922, a young man fresh from the war who struggled to find a place in the world and had become a clerk in the office of The Times. I was summoned thence, in that first week of June when Lord Northcliffe was preparing to remove Mr. Wickham Steed and himself assume the editorship of The Times, to go as secretary to Lord Northcliffe who was at Boulogne. I was warned beforehand that he was an unusual man whose every bidding must be quickly done. Possibly for that reason, everything he did seemed to me to be simply the expression of his unusual nature. No suspicion of anything more ever came to me, a week before he was "certified" and, in effect, put in captivity.

I was completely ignorant of "abnormal" Conditions, so that the expert might discount my testimony. Anyway, the behaviour I observed was just what I had been told to expect by those who had worked with him for many years. There was one exception to this. Lord Northcliffe was convinced that his life was in danger and several time said this; specifically, he said he had been poisoned. If this is in itself madness, then he was mad, but in that case many victims of poisoning have died of madness, not of what was fed to them. If by any chance it was true, he was not mad. I remember that I thought it feasible that such a man should have dangerous enemies, though at that time I had no inkling at all of any particular hostility he might have incurred. His belief certainly charged him with suspicion of those around him, but if by chance he had reason for it, then again it was not madness; if all this had transpired in the light of day such things could have been thrashed out.

I cannot judge, and can only record what I saw and thought at the time, as a young man who had no more idea of what went on around him than a babe knows the shape of the world. When I returned to London I was questioned about Lord Northcliffe by his brother, Lord Rothermere, and one of his chief associates, Sir George Sutton. The thought of madness must by that time have been in their minds (the "certification" had ensued) and therefore have underlain their questions, but not even then did any such suspicion occur to me, although I had been one of the last people to see him before he was certified and removed from control of his newspapers. I did not know of that when I saw them or for long afterwards. In such secrecy was all this done that, although I continued in the service of The Times for sixteen years, I only learned of the "madness" and "certification" thirty years later, from the Official History. By that time I was able to see what great consequences had flowed from an affair in which I was an uninitiated onlooker at the age of twenty-seven.

Lord Northcliffe therefore, was out of circulation, and of the control of his newspapers, during the' decisive period preceding the ratification of "the mandate" by the League of Nations, which clinched the Palestinian transaction and bequeathed the effects of it to our present generation: The opposition of a widely-read chain of journals at that period might have changed the whole course of events. After Lord Northcliffe died the possibility of editorials in The Times "attacking Balfour's attitude towards Zionism" faded. From that time the submission of the press, in the manner described by the Protocols, grew ever more apparent and in time reached the condition which prevails today, when faithful reporting and impartial comment on this question has long been, in suspense.

Lord Northcliffe was removed from control of his newspapers and put under constraint on June 18, 1922; on July 24, 1922 the Council of the League of Nations met in London, secure from any possibility of loud public protest by Lord Northcliffe, to bestow on Britain a "mandate" to remain in Palestine and by arms to install the Zionists there (I describe what events have shown to be the fact; the matter was not so depicted to the public, of course).

[RflctnOfU]

Is there anyone in france, or who speaks french, near a library that has the following book(no local libraries have it), would be able to translate the section of the book "De l'Harmonie entre I'Eglise et la Synagogue (1844)" from which the following is quoted:

"the precepts of justice, of equity, or charity towards one's neighbour, are not only not applicable with regard to the Christian, but constitute a crime in anyone who would act differently. The Talmud expressly forbids one to save a non-Jew from death . . . to restore lost goods, etc. to him, to have pity on him" (the former Rabbi Drach, already quoted)

I googled for this book, two volume set hardcover, and a rare book dealer had it for 850 euro.  I CANNOT afford that.

These quotes are troubling, to say the least, and I'd like to see them in context, if possible.  Every search into the talmud, jewish texts etc online, yield nothing of the sort.  This quote has troubled me the most, so any assitance would be much appreciated.  

Thanks

Kris

[Keit]

I want to share with you something. Several years ago I was asked to look for Hebrew origin of several quotes.
So I looked them over.  Most of the quotes were either incorrect or with a wrong reference, but still, there was enough evidence to show that Jews were taught to treat non-jews (goim) as a secong class. Here, take a look:

****************************

This is what I've found during a search in a jewish law books.
Apparently even in an ancient times Jews knew how to manage
and take advantage of any situation in life. Those books shows
that  God and a law makers of a Jewish people were cruel
and somehow facistic toward aliens ,non jews  and toward
heretics, on the other hand they have created laws that
allowed their nation to survive in any situation.

Quotes from Jewish writings

1.  "On the house of the Goy, one looks as on the fold of cattle." Tosefta, Erubin
VIII.

The origin:
There is no such quote in Tosefta, Erubin VIII.

2.  "When one sees inhabited houses of the 'Goy' one says, 'The Lord will
destroy the house of the proud'. And when one sees them destroyed he
says, 'The Lord God of Vengeance has revealed himself." The Babylonian
Talmud,Berachot 58,6.

The origin: I believe that this quote exist somewhere but not in a mentioned
location. In the Babylonian Talmud there are only 2 pages to every  part.
This is not possible to have such location: Berachot 58,6

3. "Those who do not own Torah and the prophets must all be killed. Who
has power to kill them, let him kill them openly with the sword, if not,
let him use artifices till they are done away with." Schulchan Aruch: Choszen
Hamiszpat, 425,50.

The origin:
First of all there is no such thing as 425,50 but 425,5.
And here we find the origin that is slightly different from the quote.
The actual text describing a law about killing the "Apikoras" - jewish heretic

"אפיקורס מישראל והם עובדי עכו"ם ועושה עבירות להכאיס אפיקורס והכופרים בתורה ובנבואה
מישראל מצוה להעבירן, אם יש בידו להעבירן בפרהסיא מעבירן ואם לאו יסבב בסיבת העברתן
- כיצד - ראה אחד מהם שנפל לבאר והסולם בבאר קודם ומסלקו ואומר הריני טרוד
להוריד בני מהגג ולהחזירינו לך וכיוצא בדברים אלו -
אבל העכו"ם שאין ביניינו ובינם מלחמה ורואה בהמה דקה מישראל במקום שהשדות הם של
ישראל וכיוצא בהם, אין מסובבין להם המיתה ואסור להצילן.

Translation:
Israel heretics and they are idol worshippers and pagans, that are doing sins
on purpose to irritate, this is a commandment to kill those heretics to Torah
and Israel prophecies.If there is a possibility to kill them in public - so do it,
but if not, use artifices, for example - if you see a heretic that has fallen to a well
and you see a ladder inside a well - take it out with an excuse - I am worried about
my son that has stuck on a roof, I'll took him down and will return it to you, and so on.
But those who are not irritating us on purpose and doing sins for their pleasure -
don't kill them but don't rescue them either.

4.  "A Jew may rob a Goy, he may cheat him over a bill, which should not
be perceived by him, otherwise the name of God would become dishonoured."
Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat, 318.

The origin: I believe that this quote exist somewhere but not in a mentioned
location. The mentioned location is dealing with a trade laws.
The story is about a jewish trader and his jewish friend.

5. "Should a Goy to whom a Jew owed some money die without his heirs
knowing about the debt, the Jew is not bound to pay the debt." Schulchan
Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 283,1.

The origin: I believe that this quote exist somewhere but not in a mentioned
location. The mentioned location is dealing with inheritance laws.
In this case is dealing with heretics and procelytes.
For example, if the one is Procelyte and his father is a Goy, what are
the laws that need to be followed.

 6. "The son of Noah, who would steal a farthing ought to be put to
death, but an Israelite is allowed to do injury to a Goy; where it is written,
Thou shalt not do injury to thy neighbor, is not said, Thou shalt not do
injury to a Goy.' Miszna, Sanhedryn, 57.

The origin: I didn't find it in the Mishna but in Gemara, Gemara sometimes  using
quotes from Mishna. This part is dealing with robbery laws, and the quote
is mentioning only one opinion as a part of an ongoing discussion.

"...על הגזל בן נח נהרג
וכותי בישראל אסור וישראל בכותי מותר..."

Translation: Son of Noah who stole something should be killed.
Goy is forbidden to kill Jew but Jew is allowed to kill Goy" -
also in the case of a robbery.

7. "A thing lost by a Goy may not only be kept by the man who found it,
but it is forbidden to give it back to him." Schulchan Aruch, Choszen
Hamiszpat. 266,1.

The origin: This quote is actually the exact translation. But this is
only a first sentence in the paragraph, and  quoting only the first
sentences may cause misinterpratation.

אבידת העכו"ם מותרת שנאמר עבירת אחיך והמחזירה הרי זה עובר מפני שהוא
מחזיק ידי עובדי עבירה. ואם החזירה לקדש השם כדי יפארו את ישראל וידעו שהם
בעלי אמונה הרי זה משובח.
ובמקום שיש חילול השם אבידתו אסורה וחייב להחזירה ובכל מקום מכניסים
כליהם ככלי ישראל מפני דרכי שלום.

Translation: It is allowed to take a thing lost by the Goy but is forbidden
to give it back to him because that's mean that you are supporting
sinners. The one may return the thing if it will prase Lord's and Jews name
and they will know how good it's to be a believer.
It is forbidden to keep a thing if it can cause to profanation of a Lord's name
and  the one has to return it.
Anyway, if there is night and you find a thing left by Goy the one has to
take it to his house in order to prevent from thing being stolen by a robbers
and because of a mutual peace.

8.  "Who took an oath in the presence of the Goys, the robbers, and the
custom-house officer, is not responsible." Tosefta Szebnot, 11.

The origin: Couldn't find anything close to this quote.

[Approaching Infinity]

I found a site on the Talmud that seems pretty reliable. On the difference between Jews and Gentiles, there's the following series:

http://www.come-and-hear.com/supplement/so-daat-emet/en_gentiles2.html

Summary

1. One who kills a Gentile, and even a ger toshav, is not put to death for this by the Beit Din, even if he kills him with intent. This is clearly stated in the Torah and in the words of Chazal.
2. In the opinion of HaRa'aban, one who kills a Gentile transgresses the negative commandment of "You shall not murder," and in the opinion of Maimonides, the Yeare'im, and Rabbi David HaKochavi, the murder of a Gentile is not included in this negative commandment. However, according to all opinions there exists a prohibition in this matter, as is clear from the words of Chazal.
So the Torah differentiates between a Jew and a Gentile with regards to the killing of a man.

On censorship of the Talmud:

http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/censorship_1.html#appendix_a

Thus, we see, the full text reads just as the "anti-Semitic polemicists" allege: In the eyes of the Talmud Sages, a Gentile who studies the Torah deserves death. It is Abraham Foxman's staff at the ADL who have reversed the original meaning of the text.

[RflctnOfU]

I found a site on the Talmud that seems pretty reliable. On the difference between Jews and Gentiles, there's the following series:

http://www.come-and-hear.com/supplement/so-daat-emet/en_gentiles2.html

Summary

1. One who kills a Gentile, and even a ger toshav, is not put to death for this by the Beit Din, even if he kills him with intent. This is clearly stated in the Torah and in the words of Chazal.
2. In the opinion of HaRa'aban, one who kills a Gentile transgresses the negative commandment of "You shall not murder," and in the opinion of Maimonides, the Yeare'im, and Rabbi David HaKochavi, the murder of a Gentile is not included in this negative commandment. However, according to all opinions there exists a prohibition in this matter, as is clear from the words of Chazal.
So the Torah differentiates between a Jew and a Gentile with regards to the killing of a man.

On censorship of the Talmud:

http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/censorship_1.html#appendix_a

Thus, we see, the full text reads just as the "anti-Semitic polemicists" allege: In the eyes of the Talmud Sages, a Gentile who studies the Torah deserves death. It is Abraham Foxman's staff at the ADL who have reversed the original meaning of the text.

Thanks for this hkoehli

Kris

[Approaching Infinity]

It's funny how these Talmud quotes are mis-quoted, but in fact are very similar to real Talmudic quotes. "By way of deception..."

Quotes from Jewish writings

1.  "On the house of the Goy, one looks as on the fold of cattle." Tosefta, Erubin
VIII.

http://www.come-and-hear.com/supplement/so-daat-emet/en_gentiles4.html#f6

This verse is a parable to the Gentiles, as is explained there, and the verse compares them to animals. This comparison is not by chance, as we will see further on, and it represents the foundation for a number of Halachic laws.

For he [the ox] has merely injured a pregnant she-ass, as the Scripture says: 'Stay here with the ass,' -- the people who are like asses."

Plus many more...

In the book "Orot," Orot Yisrael chapter 5, article 10 (page 156), Rabbi Kook wrote: "The difference between the Jewish soul, in all its independence, inner desires, longings, character and standing, and the soul of all the Gentiles, on all of their levels, is greater and deeper than the difference between the soul of a man and the soul of an animal, for the difference in the latter case is one of quantity, while the difference in the first case is one of essential quality."

http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/gentile.html

3. "Those who do not own Torah and the prophets must all be killed. Who
has power to kill them, let him kill them openly with the sword, if not,
let him use artifices till they are done away with." Schulchan Aruch: Choszen
Hamiszpat, 425,50.

On the death penalty:

http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/capunish_4.html

4.  "A Jew may rob a Goy, he may cheat him over a bill, which should not
be perceived by him, otherwise the name of God would become dishonoured."
Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat, 318.

5. "Should a Goy to whom a Jew owed some money die without his heirs
knowing about the debt, the Jew is not bound to pay the debt." Schulchan
Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 283,1.

 6. "The son of Noah, who would steal a farthing ought to be put to
death, but an Israelite is allowed to do injury to a Goy; where it is written,
Thou shalt not do injury to thy neighbor, is not said, Thou shalt not do
injury to a Goy.' Miszna, Sanhedryn, 57.

7. "A thing lost by a Goy may not only be kept by the man who found it,
but it is forbidden to give it back to him." Schulchan Aruch, Choszen
Hamiszpat. 266,1.

8.  "Who took an oath in the presence of the Goys, the robbers, and the
custom-house officer, is not responsible." Tosefta Szebnot, 11.

On robbery from a Gentile:

http://www.come-and-hear.com/supplement/so-daat-emet/en_gentiles3.html#f1

This is also what is written in the Tosephta, Avodah Zarah chapter 8, halacha 5 (in the Zuckermandel edition; in the Vilna edition it is chapter 9, halacha 4): "...Regarding theft -- a thief, a robber, one who takes a [captive] beautiful woman, and the like -- these are things it is forbidden for a Gentile [to perpetrate] against a Gentile, or [against] a Jew, but it is permissible for a Jew [to perpetrate] against a Gentile."

[salleles]

Laura, what is your opinion about Eriksens and/or Reeds statement below?

Here, finally, I will relay Douglas Reeds own description of the problems of the banning of Disgrace Abounding - 'Aftertale' in the book), and in this way introduce this, his encyclopaedic masterpiece, The Controversy of Zion:  

" (...) I have no inferiority complex, but only the most normal longings for England to be better. I have a heavy foreboding for England, whose rulers have made every mistake they could. I want to see England safe at home and abroad. Safe at home for the British Derelict Aryans, not for the Foreign Non-Aryans. Safe abroad from Germany."

http://knud.eriksen.adr.dk/reedandthejews.htm

[foofighter]

Here, finally, I will relay Douglas Reeds own description of the problems of the banning of Disgrace Abounding - 'Aftertale' in the book), and in this way introduce this, his encyclopaedic masterpiece, The Controversy of Zion:  

" (...) I have no inferiority complex, but only the most normal longings for England to be better. I have a heavy foreboding for England, whose rulers have made every mistake they could. I want to see England safe at home and abroad. Safe at home for the British Derelict Aryans, not for the Foreign Non-Aryans. Safe abroad from Germany."

http://knud.eriksen.adr.dk/reedandthejews.htm

After having read the book and seen the context of what he speaks of, it simply means that rulers of England and the politics of said rulers should ensure that it supports the people of England first, and not some foreign force. This should go for all countries, and the principle holds in all contexts down to the family level. You ensure that your own family is safe, rather than endangering it because of the needs of some other outside force.

That being said, the devil is ALWAYS in the details, and there may be exceptions to this rule. But if the above was used as a rule in, for example, England, and then exceptions was made in extreme cases, that would be much better than the opposite.

Or so I think.