The 19th Century, in the West, differed from the preceding eighteen centuries of the Christian era there in the emergence of two movements with a converging aim , which by the century’s end dominated all its affairs.

The one movement, Zionism, aimed at reassembling a dispersed nation in a territory promised to it by the Jewish god; the second movement, Communism, aimed at the destruction of separate nationhood as such.

Thus these two movements appeared at first sight to be fixedly opposed to each other, for the one made nationalism its religion, even its god, and the other declared war to the death on nationalism. This antagonism was only apparent, and in truth the two movements ran on parallel tracks , not head on towards a collision on the same line. For the god who promised land to the nation to be gathered-in also promised to set it “above all people that are upon the face of the earth” and to destroy all other nations “with a mighty
destruction until they be destroyed”.The world-revolution, which pursued the second of these aims, thus fulfilled the condition set for the first of them ; either by accident or by design, it too was doing the will of Jehovah.

These 170 years (from 1789 the year of the French Revolution) have probably been the most profligate and least creditable in the history of the West. In the centuries before the world had never before seen man so much improve his own state and his conduct to others; even warfare was becoming subject to a civilized code, and the future seemed certain to continue this upward process. By the middle of the 20th Century much of this achievement had been lost; the question whether the remaining West and its faith could even survive clearly hung in the balance and probably would be answered during the closing decades of the century.

The period which saw this deterioration was that of the rise of the Judaist power to a peak of influence in the affairs of the West which hardly any European potentate or pontiff, doctrine or dogma had ever attained. The picture of this swelling might, spreading over Europe like an eastern thundercloud, is given in two quotations from the beginning and end of the 19th Century.

In 1791 the great German historian Johannm Gottfried von Herder, looking back on the hundred years behind him, wrote:“The ruder nations of Europe are willing slaves of Jewish usury . . . The Jewish people is and remains in Europe an Asiatic people alien to our part of the world, bound to that old law which it received in a distant climate, and which according to its own confession it cannot do away with. . . It is indissolubly bound to an alien law that is hostile to all alien peoples”.

A hundred years later, in 1899, another, Mr. Houston Stewart Chamberlain , looked back on what Herder had written and recorded the further, continuing usurpation of power: “A great change has taken place: the Jews play in Europe, and wherever European influence extends , a different part from that which they played a hundred years ago ; as Viktor Hohn expresses it,we live today in a ‘Jewish age’ ; we may think what we like about the past history of the Jews, their present history actually takes up so much room in our own history that we cannot possibly refuse to notice them: ……Herder said that’the ruder nations of Europe were willing slaves of Jewish usury’.Today Herder could say the same of by far the greatest part of our civilized world……our governments, our law, our science, our commerce, our literature, our art,practically all branches of our life, have become more or less willing slaves of the Jews and drag the feudal fetter, if not yet on two, at least on one leg……. The direct influence of Judaism on the 19th century thus becomes one of the burning subjects of the day. We have to deal here with a question affecting not only the present, but also the future of the world …….. If the Jewish influence were to gain the upper hand in Europe in the intellectual and cultural sphere, we would have one more example of negative, destructive power.”

In the sixty years which have passed since Chamberlain wrote the process observed by him and Herder has gathered pace and power . The question no longer simply “affects the future of the world”; it is with us every day and we have no present that is not shaped by it; it has already altered the nature of the world and of man’s lot in it. “Our governments“, in the half-century that has elapsed, have become such “willing slaves” of the Judaic master-sect that they are in fact the bailiffs or agents of a new, international ruling-class, and not true governors at all.
The West has come to this dilemma through the pressure of two millstones,Communism and Zionism, the nation-destroying world-revolution and the new, nation-creating, ruling-class . The one has incited the mob; the other has gained mastery over rulers. Are the organizers of both the same? ‘ This book(The Controversy of Zion ) seeks to answer the question in its remaining chapters. What is clear is that each stage in the ruination of the West, during these 170 years, has been accompanied by successive stages of “the return” to the promised land. That is anindication of common managership too strong to be set aside unless it can be conclusively disproved. To the “heathen” masses of Christendom the process which began with the emergence of the world-revolution in 1789 has been merely one of sound and fury, signifying nothing; but the student perceives that in majestic rhythm it fulfils The Law and The Prophets of Judah.

The French revolution of 1789 is the one that provides the key to the mystery. It forms thelink between the English one of 1640 and the Russian one of 1917 and reveals the whole process as a planned and continuing one which, having passed through these three stages, clearly will reach its final orgasm at some moment not far distant,
probably during this century. That climax, foreseeably, will take the shape of an attempt to consummate and complete the world revolution by setting up a world-government under the control of the organization which has guided the revolutionary process from its start.

This picture, which only slowly emerged as the three centuries passed, is today clear in its historical perspective, where each of the three great revolutions is seen in the light thrown on it by the next:


(1) The English revolution appeared at the time to be a spontaneous English episode , directed only against the pretensions, at that moment, of a particular royal house, the Stuarts, and a particular form of religion, called “Popery”. No contemporary dreamed of considering it as the start of a world-movement against all religion and all legitimate government. (The ruling sect of Jewry supplied the revolutionary dictator with funds and by means of this, traditional “abetting” part the Jewish leaders became chief beneficiaries of the revolution; if they had any part in the original instigation of it, this cannot be shown, nor has any evidence of a long-term, master-plan behind the revolution survived).

Note The Jewish banker Francisco Lopes Suasso lent two million guilders to William of Orange who in turn allowed the creation of the Bank of England


(2) The nature and course of the French revolution, however, puts the English one in a different light. It was not, and even at the time did not seem to be, a native French episode caused merely by French conditions. On the contrary, it followed a plan for universal revolution discovered and made public some years before; and the secret organization then exposed had members in many countries and all classes. Therefore its most characteristic acts (regicide and sacrilege) , though they repeated those of the revolution in England, were seen not to be spontaneously vengeful deeds committed in the heat of a moment, but actions deliberately symbolic of a continuing plan and purpose: the destruction of all religion and all legitimate government, everywhere. Inevitably, this revelation leads to the surmise that the English revolution too may have been prepared by this secret organization with the aim of destroying all nationhood. (In the French revolution, as in the English one, the Judaist sect emerged as a chief beneficiary; the general emancipation of Jews , which came of it, was used by it as a cover for its conspiratorial work during the ensuing decades. Original Judaist instigation is not shown by any evidence now available.)A classic authority on the subject, Lord Acton: “The appalling thing in the revolution is not the tumult but the design . Through all the fire and smoke we perceive the evidence of calculatingorganization. The Managers remain studiously concealed and masked but there is no doubt about their presence from the first”.

The French revolution, then, revealed a design behind revolution, and it was the design of a set purpose in a worldwide field. What had seemed planless at the time of the English revolution now was seen to be, or had become the result of a plan and a pattern, and the conspiracy clearly was of such strength and age that its complicity in the earlier revolution had to be allowed for. However, this second revolution still left “the managers” masked , so that only half of the mystery had been solved (Lord Acton died in 1902 and thus did not see the third revolution).


(3) The revolution in Russia, again, opened room for new theories about the French and English revolutions. Its acts of regicide and sacrilege were as unmistakable an identity-card as the Muslim’s greeting is a token of his faith; by them it informed all who wished to hear that it was still working to “the design” of worldwide destruction first revealed by the French revolution. Moreover, the secret, for a hundred years
called “a lie”, was no longer even denied; from 1917 on the world-revolution was avowedly permanent , avowedly worldwide in purpose, and the erstwhile secret conspiracy became a political party, operating in all countries under orders from a central headquarters in Moscow. Thus the Russian revolution threw a brighter light on the French one, clarifying its outlines and origins . However, in the matter of the “studiously concealed” and “masked” managers, the Russian revolution threw an entirely different light on the two earlier ones, or at the least it opened up conjectures about their
possible origins which none had previously spent much thought upon.

The “managers” of the revolution in Russia were nearly all Eastern Jews . On this occasion the significant, symbolic acts of regicide and sacrilege were committed by Jews and a law was enacted which in effect forbade all discussion of the part played by Jews, or by “the Jewish question” , in these events or in public affairs at all.


Post a Comment


Popular Posts