Trumpdom No. 3. The source of Jewish hatred for the “other”.

In Trumpdom No.2 I closed on the issue of the individual torn between thinking in sync with his clan or as an individual unencumbered by racial, religious, and clan obligations. Education in the humanities should bring freedom of thought to the individual. Most philosophically educated people absorb the reasoning of philosophers who are not beholden to a religion in their thinking. Jewish authors knowledgable in the humanities for seeking truth, which is the object of study and research, stand against the religious and political claims of “orthodox” and racially motivated Jews. Shlomo Sand, whose background and works are on the internet, exemplifies the free-thinker. One of his books is How I Stopped Being a Jew. The same is true of thinkers who have divorced themselves from Pakistan clans or Mormon strictures or Roman Catholic rules. How easy it is to fall in line with an established ideology and accept whatever belief it demands of its followers! How hard it is sometimes to escape from that Ideology! Conan Doyle’s first story featuring Sherlock Holmes, “A Study in Scarlet” dramatizes an escape from Mormonism. 

I mentioned in Trumpdom No 2 the dismay that the journalist Thomas Friedman expressed when facing the savagery of the far right leaders of Israel. If he and many others shocked by the ruthlessness of the Zionist Israelis in continuing genocide against a defenceless and guiltless people would read Douglas Reed’s The Controversy of Zion, they would discover how the world has come to its present delirium. Friedman as a journalist may know of Reed who was the most important journalist during World War II and whose books were popular in many languages until he was censored into silence. The Controversy which starts with the separation of the non-Jewish northern Kingdom of Israel from the southern kingdom of Judah in 937 BC.                                                 The people of Israel rejected the racial distinction of Judah as preached by the Levite priesthood which demanded an order of existence fundamentally different from the peoples about them. The Levites worshipped the war god Jehovah who demanded absolute obedience from his followers and strict separation from others whom they considered inferior and barely human. Reed wrote: “The creed which was given force of daily law in Judah in 458 BC . . . rested on the assertion, attributed to the the tribal deity (Jehovah) that the “Israelites” (in fact the Judahites) were his ‘chosen people’ who, if they obeyed all his ‘statutes and judgements,’ would be set over all other peoples and be established in a ‘promised land.’ Out of this theory, whether by forethought or unforeseen necessity, grew the present theories of “captivity” and ‘destruction’.” All of Jehovah’s worshippers had to live where he specified, but obviously that being impossible, those living elsewhere were “captives” of the “stranger”, whom they had “to root out,” “pull down,” and “destroy.” “It made no difference whether the ‘captors’ were conquerors or friendly hosts, their ordained lot was to be destruction or enslavement.” Through the centuries Jewish leaders pursued this policy. They demanded that Jews live in ghettoes, apart from Gentiles, and condemned Jews who were assimilated in the Gentile world. The Levites lost control of thousands of Jews who spread out to many countries. The advent of the Khazars (later called Ashkenazis) from eastern Russia into western Europe brought back the strictness and revenge with all the might that these savage people, converts to Judaism, could devise from the Talmud and other laws. About 1500 their Talmudic government moved from Spain to Poland. Meanwhile the Sephardic Jews, largely from Spain, dwindled in numbers and disintegrated as a force. Spreading across Europe and North America, they detested these Slavic Jews, Ashkenazis, but gradually became overwhelmed by the methods that these Jews used to seduce western politicians to promote their goals. The book will present the reader with many surprises through these chapters showing the promotion of Zionism at the expense of the western nations that the politicians were supposed to defend. Reed relates how the Jews instigated the revolutions in England, France and in particular Russia where the leaders were largely Khazar Jews. The wholesale slaughter of Russians by the Bolsheviks whose aim was to destroy Christianity and any semblance of Gentile culture proved the wiles of Judaism. The book closes in the late 1950s when the political leadership in the West and its media are controlled by the Zionists with fears of the worst to come. We, living in the world of President Trump, can attest to that.

Reed writes: “Dr. Kastein, Zionist historian, having affirmed that the Jewish government (the "centre", with its unbroken history of more than two thousand years) ‘ceased to exist’” after the dissection of Poland in 1772, records that a hundred years later "a Jewish international” was in being. He meant that the Jewish government of Jews had given way to a Jewish government of governments. This is the truth of our time. Benjamin Disraeli, when Prime Minister of Great Britain, spoke of "a network" of revolutionary organizations which covered the earth like a system of railroads; it is the perfect description of the destructive mechanism which was constructed. To achieve the greater purpose there had to be another network at the top, and although Disraeli did not use the word in that case, he alluded to it when he said, "The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes". This is presumably "the Jewish international" of which Dr. Kastein spoke, a league of powerful and wealthy men at the top, “under whose authority kings and princes, first, and republican presidents and politicians, next, equally found themselves.”

“These two machines worked in synchronization, each promoting the aim of the other. In their dealings with the masses the Gentile rulers were forced by the threat of revolution from below to yield ever more authority, until they fell; in their dealings with foreign countries, and in the wars to which these led, they were constrained by the power of the purse to support the plan of the symbolic "return" to Palestine. The Gentile often asks why men of wealth should promote revolution. Disraeli put the same question, in order to give the answer: they wish to destroy Christianity. He knew precisely what he meant; to the Gentile the answer may be made more comprehensible by saying that they obey the Talmudic Law, which requires the destruction of heathen nation-states as the prelude to the triumphant “return”."

Reed remarks on the misrepresentations of reporting in World War II which will lead us to reflections on our principal subject, the holocaust. “In the case of "the Jewish persecution" in Germany”, he wrote, “I found that impartial presentation of the facts gradually gave way to so partisan a depictment that the truth was lost. This transformation was effected in three subtle stages. First the persecution of "political opponents and Jews” was reported; then this was imperceptibly amended to "Jews and political opponents"; and at the end the press in general spoke only of "the persecution of Jews". By this means a false image was projected on to the public mind. The plight of the overwhelming majority of the victims, by this fixing of the spotlight on one group, was lost to sight. The result showed in 1945, when, on the one hand, the persecution of Jews was made the subject of a formal indictment at Nuremberg, and on the other hand half of Europe and all the people in it were abandoned to the selfsame persecution, in which the Jews had shared, in their small proportion to populations everywhere. 

“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. When the general persecution began I reported it as I saw it. If I learned of a concentration camp containing a thousand captives I reported this; if I learned that the thousand included thirty or fifty Jews I reported that. I saw the first terror, spoke with many of the victims, examined their injuries, and was warned that I incurred Gestapo hostility thereby. The victims were in the great majority, certainly much over ninety percent, Germans, and a few were Jews. This reflected the population-ratio, in Germany and later in the countries overrun by Hitler. But the manner of reporting in the world's press in time blocked-out the great suffering mass, leaving only the case of the Jews.”

Reed noted that the referencing by a rabbi in 1949 of the burning of Jewish books, which ”began the reign of terror in 1933”, actually comprised “a mass of Marxist books, including the works of many German, English and non-Jewish authors and included some Jewish books, which Reed, witnessing the burning, reported in The Times at the time. The “brunt” of the terror was not borne by Jews nor were the concentration camps “filled with Jews”. The number of Jewish victims was in proportion to their ratio of the population. Nevertheless this false picture, by iteration, came to dominate the public mind during the Second World War.

During the Nuremberg Trials, Reed wrote, “By the choice of the Jewish Day of Judgment for the hanging of the Nazi leaders and German commanders, the Western leaders gave the conclusion of the Second War this aspect of a vengeance exacted specifically in the name of ‘the Jews’. The shape which the trial took showed the purpose of the immense propaganda of falsification conducted during the war, which I have earlier described. ‘Crimes against Jews’ were singled out as a separate count, as if Jews were different from other human beings (and when the judgment was delivered, a hundred million human beings in Eastern Europe had been handed over to the general persecution of all men, from which Jews in their proportion suffered in Germany). This particular indictment was made ‘the crux of the case’ against the defendants and was based on the assertion that "six million Jews" had been killed (as time went by the word “perished" was substituted for "killed"). An impartial court would at the outset have thrown out any suit based on this completely unverifiable assertion: At Nuremberg lawyers, who in a private case would have demanded acquittal on the strength of an unproven statement in respect of a decimal point or digit, used this fantastic figure as the basis of their demand for conviction.

“The statement about the ‘six million Jews, allowed to pass without question by the men on the bench, was the end-product of this process. In six years of war the Germans, Japanese and Italians, using every lethal means, killed 824,928 British, British Commonwealth and American fighting-men, merchant sailors and civilians. Assuming that the Germans killed, say, half of these in Europe, they killed (according to this assertion) fifteen times as many Jews there. To do that, they would have needed such quantities of men, weapons, transports, guards and materials as would have enabled them to win the war many times over.”

The claims made by Jewish writers such as Elie Wiesel about the Holocaust have been criticized for misrepresentations or propaganda. The numerous writings describing its horrors have made it into the major event of World War II. Those who contradict claims in this literature or raise doubts about the cause in itself are sued in courts and persecuted by Jewish organizations, as if debating the subject was a crime.

We shall discuss in our next blog some of the literature questioning its truth and importance, leading with Norman Finkelstein’s The Holocaust Industry; Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering.