The Controversy of Zion



Slashes changed by "**".

yet, according to his obituary in The Times, he was a "virulent anti-Semite."
There is an edit to the article, quoting Reed, demonstrating he was not ani-Semite. A couple of extracts:

"At that period I, typical of Englishmen of my generation, had never thought of Jews as different from myself, nor could I have said what might make a Jew, in his opinion, different from me. If I later became aware of any differentiation, or of the desire of a powerful group to assert one, this was not the result of Hitler's deeds but of the new impediment to impartial reporting which I then began to observe."


"Nevertheless this false picture, by iteration, came to dominate the public mind during the Second War. At the time of my resignation, which was provoked solely by the "policy of appeasement" and the imminent advent of "the unnecessary war", this other hindrance to faithful reporting was but a secondary, minor annoyance. Later I discerned that the motive behind it was of major importance in shaping the course and outcome of the Second War". When I came to study the story of Mr. Robert Wilton I perceived that there was also a strong resemblance between my experience and his. He sought to explain the nature of an event in Russia and thus was inevitably led into "the Jewish question". Twenty years later I observed that it was in fact impossible to draw public attention to the misreporting of the nature of the persecution of Germany and to explain that the Jews formed only a small fraction of the victims."
And here: http:**

According to Social Research Methods, "Today, Reed's work is unread by mainstream thinkers, but continues to be much venerated by anti-Semitic and fascist groups on the extreme right." (p 16, Routledge, 2004)
"Routledge is one of the most important European imprints for social sciences."


Message from Edward Craig, Routledge's General Editor.

Beyond 2005 there are at present fewer certainties. But it can confidently be said that the main event will be a Political Philosophy update with ten or more new entries, directed once again by David Miller. (It is surprising, and pleasing, how many of our original Subject Editors are happy, or at least uncomplainingly willing, to come back for more!) If our plans come to fruition we shall have - to give a few examples - new material on International Justice, Human Rights, Secession, Humanitarian Intervention, and what one might call 'world perspectives' on political philosophy: Jewish, Islamic and Confucian. The intense politics of recent years have induced changes within political philosophy, and we hope to capture them for users of REP Online.
They do have a plan set!

Wikipedia on The Times: http:**
The Times is published by Times Newspapers Limited, a subsidiary of News International, itself wholly owned by the News Corporation group, headed by Rupert Murdoch. It has played an influential role in politics and shaping public opinion about foreign events. Though always a right-wing newspaper and a strong supporter of the Conservatives, it supported New Labour in the two last elections, after Murdoch allied himself with Tony Blair, and has also come to stress Murdoch's "neo-conservative" views over the broader and more balanced range of conservative views it has traditionally put forward.



Institute for Historical Review.

Douglas Reed
By: Mark Weber.

As Egyptian journalist Mohamed Heikal notes in his foreword to the Arabic edition of Garaudy's Founding Myths, Douglas Reed was a very influential writer who was later consigned to public oblivion for writing frankly about Zionist power.

Born in Britain in 1895, Reed began working at the age of 13 as an office boy. At age 19 he worked as a bank clerk until enlisting in the British army at the outbreak of the First World War. At the age of 26, and "relatively unschooled" (as he once described himself), he began working for the London Times as a telephonist and clerk. He reached journalism at the age of 30 as a sub-editor. Three years later he was the venerable paper's assistant correspondent in Berlin, before transferring to Vienna as its chief central European correspondent. He went on to report, as a Times correspondent, from Warsaw, Moscow, Prague, Athens, Sofia, Bucharest, Budapest and other European centers.

He left The Times in 1938, almost simultaneously with the publication of his book Insanity Fair, which sold very well (including its US edition), and brought him world fame. He later wrote: "I let off all this pent-up steam and said just what I thought about the coming war and the folks who were letting it happen in a book, Insanity Fair." A year later came another bestseller, Disgrace Abounding, and then others, including Prophet at Home, All Our Tomorrows, Lest We Regret, and Somewhere South of Suez. Reed also found time to write four novels and a play.

He provided readers with elegantly-crafted reporting and analysis based on seasoned but common-sense observations of the international scene. Although he addressed all the major issues of the day, it was his forthright writing on the machinations and impact of the Zionist movement that got him into trouble. In Somewhere South of Suez (London: 1950), for example, he wrote:

... During all that period and to the present time, it was not possible freely to report or discuss a third vital matter: Zionist Nationalism. In this case the freedom of the press has become a fallacy during the past two decades ... When I came to America I found that this ban, for such it is in practice, prevailed even more rigidly than in my own country.... In daily usage, no American or British newspaper, apparently, now dares to print a line of news or comment unfavorable to the Zionist ambition ... The inference to me is plain: the Zionist Nationalists are powerful enough to govern governments in the great countries of the remaining West!
In his next book Far and Wide (London: Jonathan Cape, 1951), Reed took a skeptical look at the much-hyped Jewish-Zionist claims of six million Jewish wartime deaths. He wrote:

During the Second World War I noticed that the figures of Jewish losses, in places where war made verification impossible, were being irresponsibly inflated, and said so in a book. The process continued until the war's end when the figure of six millions was produced (and the Arabs were immediately chastised). A transparently worthless estimate was not only being used for mass-delusion through newspapers, but even given official status!
... No proof can be given that six million Jews 'perished'; proof can be adduced that so many cound not have perished ... Certain mathematical rules govern destruction on such a scale; you need pursuers, jailers, prisons, camps, transport, executioners in numbers inconceivable ...

In a matter where nothing is verifiable, one thing seems sure: that six million Jews were never even contained in German-occupied territories ... Yet this massive assertion about the six millions was used by politicians in the highest places, by prosecutors at Nuremberg, and habitually by mass-newspapers which in lesser matters would print no statement unverified!

The familiar six million figure, Reed went on, is "one which not bear any scrutiny by independent investigators." Citing publicly available sources, he suggested that total Jewish wartime losses may have been between two and a half million and something more than three and a half million.

After the publication of Far and Wide, Reed was all but banned by establishment publishers. Still, he remained undaunted. His final book, The Controversy of Zion (Veritas [Australia] and Noontide [USA], 1985), provides a detailed and literate dissection of the origins and international impact of the Zionist movement, including its corrupting influence in Britain and the United States. Once again devoting several pages to the issue of Jewish wartime deaths, he concluded:

The starting point for consideration of this question [of Jewish wartime losses] is the fact that six million Jews, or anything approaching that number, cannot possibly have been 'done to death' or caused to 'perish' ... The very assertion, made before the Nuremberg court, was an affront to their 815,000 fighting-men, sailors and civilians, killed in all theatres of war, of which only the Western politicians of this century would have been capable.
However little known Douglas Reed may be today, his work -- as Mohamed Heikal's foreword to the Arabic edition of Roger Garaudy's book attests -- has not gone entirely unappreciated.


Jedi Master
re. the talmud: i've been tempted at times to procure for myself a copy of the complete talmud. the jewish bookstore in the city sometimes has the whole set (about 9000 pages in 12 tomes IIRC) in offer for about EUR300.

my problem with even buying it is this: i own a book with selected passages from the talmud translated into german, which i procured myself to 'get a taste' w/o shelling out lots of money for a book i'd probably never read thru. i was browsing thru this book trying to find some of the passages which are mentioned in writings critical of the talmud for exactly the reason mentioned above: extreme racism towards non-jews. i found exactly none of these passages in my book.

but, i found a passage from gittin 61a which i found incredibly beautiful when i first read it. here it is, quoted from the english translation of the babylonian talmud:
Talmud/Gittin 61a said:
THE POOR OF THE HEATHEN ARE NOT PREVENTED FROM GATHERING GLEANINGS, FORGOTTEN SHEAVES AND THE CORNER OF THE FIELD, TO AVOID ILL FEELING. Our Rabbis have taught: 'We support the poor of the heathen along with the poor of Israel, and visit the sick of the heathen along with the sick of Israel, and bury the poor of the heathen along with the dead of Israel, (10) in the interests of peace'.
this was some years ago. in that time i had loose email exchange with somebody from israel, and wrote him more or less this: how is it possible that there are people reading all manner of hateful things into a book which has so beautiful and compassionate passages ? he wrote back and told me that the interpretation of this passage is implied in that remark at the end: 'in the interests of peace'. i did not understand what he meant, and wrote back to ask. he explained to me that this fragment means to say that jews should show mercy to goys to the extent that it serves jewish interests. to help goys 'in the interest of peace' means to give them exactly as much as is needed to prevent them from going against jews, but not more. that explanation was more a shock than an eye-opener.

you may note that there is a reference a footnote for the quoted fragment, which i bolded. if it interests you, go and read all of gittin 61a at the link below. then check that footnote, and with that in mind, read the passage again. you'll probably read something that has nothing at all to do with misericordy or helping neighbours in dire straits or giving to the needy.

the talmud quote is from here:


re. censorship of the talmud. what i've read is that, once the talmud started becoming available more widely, due to invention of the press, interested people of course started reading it and drawing their own conclusions, not always favorable to jews, to put it mildly. most well-known among the critics of the talmud is one Johann Andreas Eisenmenger (1654-1704) with his book "Entdecktes Judentum" (roughly "Judaism Discovered"), in which he more or less quotes - with deep moral displeasure - passages from the talmud and other judaistic scripture which went pretty much against moral consensus in christian europe of the 1600s. things seem to have become so bad that the rabbis decided to revise their scriptures, to make versions "for official use" and others "for public dissemination", to use weasel words to hide the real meaning of certain passages, and all sort of things aimed at defense from the certain wrath of the goy society around them. The (probable) result of this is writings like above-quoted Gittin tractate, which reads almost the opposite of what it is supposed to say.

I have my own issues with some of the interpretations given to certain passages of the talmud by its critics. Two examples which come to mind are a) the tale of the gored ox, which is about who should compensate whom when the ox of one neighbor gores the ox of another, and b) the explanation of how, according to the talmud, it is another thing to rape an under-three-year-old than to rape an over-three-year-old. i read both passages online, and did either not understand the logic of the tractate in question or understood something else than those imputing 'badness'. let me just say that, to me, reading and trying to understand the talmud has been far more difficult than doing the same with either the bible, the quran and texts of civil and penal law. i am a layman in both religious matters and law, but i read enough in three languages to know how to understand most of what i read.

my personal conclusions about talmud reached long ago are that - first - i have better things to do than trying to understand texts obviously written to make it difficult to understand them. second, the old testament is vile, but it compares to the talmud as the neighborhood soccer team compares to the national league. not for nothing the talmud is seen among theologians as above the torah and the bible. it is said that in order to understand the bible, one must first have understood the talmud. third, people more qualified than I have engaged in criticizing judaic scripture, most probably on good grounds, and have not changed anything but made them engage in a giant excercise of PR and become more sneaky about their teachings. fourth, the whole talmud looks like a written-down example of epic proportions of what Lobaczewski calls conversive thinking.

On Eisenmenger: http://en_dot_wikipedia_dot_org/wiki/Johann_Andreas_Eisenmenger


Jedi Council Member
Here's a link to henry ford's comments on the subject of zionism



The Living Force
Reed said:
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 article s 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 [297] 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

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.
I found this passage (pgs 206-07) especially enlightening on their method of attack and how they "remove obstacles". I felt it was worth highlighting here.


The Living Force
The really interesting part of this story is:

Reed said:
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
Why am I not surprised?

Think about the laws. If you wanted to have *anyone* commited to an asylum, all you need is
a doctor willing to do it on your behalf (especially if you are a powerful man/woman) or two
family members, or anonymous callers (or confidential informants) from different sources
or plant incriminating evidence, and the list of dirty bag tricks goes on and on. It really does
not take much at all to get someone incarerated at all! This suits the PTB VERY WELL! If
you get in their way, woe be to you! ".... I will GET YOU, my little pretty!, eh heh heh
heh heeeeeeeeh!" :)

I also wanted to add something here, which indirectly shows what people can do, even
at powerful levels at corporations such as HP (Hewlett Packard). Ms. Dunn, chairman,
was really peeved about leaks (supposedly with a little indiscretion regarding hot-tubbing
revealation), seeked out a private eye to discover the leaker and she/company admitted
to using: "pre-texting", which means: impersonating the person as owner of the information
seeking and with data such as driver's license or SSN which is enough to allow the source of
this information to hand over otherwise confidential and private information.

OH!! THINK ABOUT THIS!!! IS this another SECRET that the NSA does not want to
reveal? This means that ALL INFORMATION ABOUT YOU IS KNOWN: YOUR CC information
at ANY store, workplace, credit card companies and so on can EASILY be gathered to
gain ANY INFORMATION including the stealing of your savings, manipulation of your
identity and there is no limit to what can be done!

But you already knew that, Right?


The Living Force
pg 211 said:
The fiasco of the "national home" was so clear that even the politicians began to hedge. Mr. Lloyd
George in 1925 told the Zionists publicly "any policy of expropriation or anything that suggests it will only
make difficulties in the path of Zionism". Dr. Weizmann at once replied: "Mr. Lloyd George will believe me
when I say that the Jews are the last people in the world to build their home on the back of somebody else. The Jews have suffered so much from injustice that they have learned their lesson and I can assure you that the Arabs will not suffer at our hands". Again "the word" invites comparison with "the deed" that ensued later.
Wow another good one. I'll stop after this, less ill be cutting and pasting the entire book!
foofighter said:
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.
Thanks foofighter, that makes sense indeed. Maybe I'm somewhat too fixated putting 'sensible' terms under a microscope, especially in a topic like this.


The Living Force
FOTCM Member
You may recall CBS News' piece "Zion's Christian Soldiers," a good overview of the US Christian Right's fanatical support of Israel, which now strikes me as perfectly fitting into Reed's hypotheses: http://www(dot)

And check out the third post of this thread to see what the leaders of this movement sent me in the mail this week:


The Living Force
Reed(C of Z) said:
The grouping of characters and the final denouement are alike in all three cases. On one side of the
stage is the foreign potentate who has oppressed and affronted the Judahites (or, today, the Jews). In Babylon
this was "King Belshazzar"; in the first World War it was the Russian Czar; in the second war, it was Hitler.
Confronting this "persecutor", is the other foreign potentate, the liberator. In Babylon, this was King Cyrus
of Persia; in the second case, it was a Mr. Balfour; in the third, it was a President Truman.
Oh my! Synchroncity!?!? Was it Prez Bush that referred to President Truman in his speech just a few days
ago? Is this some sly dog's tongue wagging who let the cat out of the bag!?!?!? Doe's anyone remember
what Bush said about Truman?


The Living Force
Chapter 10: The Man From Galilee

It seems to me, that Reed might be interpreting the New Testament as
the the truth surrounding the death of Jesus and continues along the
obvious path of the process from Pilate to death on the Cross.

But this is in direct contradiction to what the C's have said that the
man "Jesus" did not die on the cross but had a long life, had 3 wives,
children and so on. I will need to keep reading to see if Reed is an
objective observer or not.


The Living Force
dant said:
It seems to me, that Reed might be interpreting the New Testament as
the the truth surrounding the death of Jesus and continues along the
obvious path of the process from Pilate to death on the Cross.
We can't take either Reed or the C's as the final word on the matter. Reed is bringing forward a lot of useful data, but he has no idea about psychopathy or the pathocracy. However, he does try to be as objective as he can, within his own limits and blinders.

There is also his implied support for the existing order which the "world revolution" is attempting to destroy -- state, church, and property. The propagandists of the revolution, however, were able to rally people to their slogans because conditions were unjust. The existing states, be they the monarchies of the 18th centuries, or the new "democratic" forms of states of the 19th and 20th, were founded upon injustice and violence, and were supported by the Catholic Church and later by the Protestant churches. In other words, there are no "good guys". At least that is how it looks to me.

Reed and some of the writers he cites thought (from my reading of what they say) that the existing order could be reformed, some of the excesses could be curbed, while maintaining the power of the elites in place. However, we know that psychopaths are available in all sizes, shapes, and colours, and they were calling the shots from all sides. Reform is as impossible as revolution -- at least until everyone understands about psychopathy... and even then.... :)

Reed is focusing on the "Zion" aspect of the pathocracy, but we need to keep in mind that it is only one of the heads of the Hydra.

Mr. Premise

The Living Force
Glad you brought that up, Henry, I was also put off by the idea of a virtuous European "Old Regime" (pre-Revolution). Those regimes and social systems were pretty brutal and thoroughly ponerized.


Jedi Council Member
One of the main points, that is an undercurrent, is one that the C's have been promoting since the beginning of the experiment: namely, that of networking. Regardless of 'who' the main players are, one thing is certain: There is a network of individuals who (seemingly) are bent on changing the face of the world. I think the C's have been hinting, and at some points flat out saying, that creating a network in STO fashion is what will bring about "balance" to the STS network that has (again, seemingly) been functioning for millenia, as inspired by the 'lizzies', or so the working hypothesis states, as far as I can tell.

I'm still awaiting a copy of Ponerology, however, from the snippits posted, I don't think it's unimportant that there is a higher rate of psychopathy amongst the ashkenazim. Along that line, I think that perhaps the custom of circumcision is a way to prime the 'mind', what ever mind may be, for a potential psychopathic outlook, or, in the "best case" scenario, a very untrusting individual of anyone 'out there', thus starting the ponerization process. The argument of cleanliness is no excuse for such a brutal act on an infant, imho. Education of hygene can easily supplant the 'practice'.



FOTCM Member
henry said:
Reed is bringing forward a lot of useful data, but he has no idea about psychopathy or the pathocracy.
It's surely interesting to read the C of Z with a "ponerology lens", it gives more consistency/depth to the whole story. For example it clarifies the "paradoxes" that Reed emphasizes a couple of times :

CofZ page 63 said:
The singular paradox
remains: though their enchainment was devised by the Levites the chains were Persian.
CofZ page 77 said:
the suggestion being that, as Jesus was a Jew, none ought to object
to anything purporting to be done in the name of Jews. The irrelevance is obvious, but mobs
are moved by such phrases, and the paradoxical result, once again, is that a statement, most
offensive to literal Jews, is most frequently made by non-Jewish politicians and ecclesiastics
who seek Jewish favour.
CofZ page 202 said:
The mystery always was that at such junctures the Gentile rulers
allied themselves with the ruling sect of Judaism against the Jewish masses and thus against
their own peoples, among whom they fostered a disruptive force. This paradox repeated itself
in the 19th century and produced the climacteric of our present day, in which all nations are
heavily involved.
Top Bottom