THE GAY FATHER OF NAZISM AND ZIONISM
Benjamin Disraeli wrote about an alliance of aristocratic ‘Anglo-Saxons’ and aristocratic ‘Jews’ ruling the world.
by Mark Burdman
In 1862, the future British King Edward VII, then the Prince of Wales, made a well-publicized tour of the Holy Land, the first English crown claimant to do so in nearly 600 years. The impetus for the trip was the establishment that year of protectorate by France over Lebanon-Syria’s Christian population after a bloody massacre of pro-French Maronites in 1860. Expressing the mood in London at this proposition, British Foreign Secretary Lord John Russell blustered: “We do not want to create a new Papal state in the East and to give France a new pretext for indefinite occupation,” and to this end, the Prince of Wales had been dispatched to the Holy Land.
But the prince’s trip had a broader significance: for the first time the British crown itself openly adopted Zionism as its policy. No longer simply the obsession of the inner cult elites like Shaftesbury, Disraeli, and Bulwer-Lytton, Zionism, beginning with the trip by Edward, became an open option for which the British oligarchy collectively began to organize.
1862 also marked the year that renegade socialist Moses Hess in Germany authored his book Rome and Jerusalem, becoming the first continental Jew of prominence to declare that “the hour had struck” for the return of “the Jewish race” to Palestine. Hess proposed the founding of a Zionist state in Palestine along with the founding of an Italian state in southern Italy to be run by Mazzini’s “Young Italy” organization.
On his trip Prince Edward was surrounded by an entourage of Zionist propagandists gleaned from the dens of Oxford and Cambridge. His guide was Oxford church historian Dean Stanley, the author of Sinai and Palestineand The History of the Jewish Church, both emphasizing the “Jewish roots of Christianity.” Stanley was only one of a gaggle of “scholars” whose intended purpose was to turn Disraeli’s mad utterings about the foundations of Christianity in his novels into the hegemonic doctrines of Britain’s most prestigious scholarly institutions. At Oxford, Stanley worked with Benjamin Jowett, the fraudulent translator of Plato, who during the 1850s and 1860s used his post at Oxford to spread the idea that the Jewish prophets — many of whom were known by Jowett to be agents of the Babylonian oligarchy — were the “schoolmasters of the ages” and those to whom “our age owed its moral feelings.”
Others of the early 1860s elite at Oxford included Edward Pusey, the leader of the so-called Oxford Movement, which also included the Jesuit heretic Cardinal John Henry Newman. Pusey was Oxford’s Regius Professor of Hebrew, from which chair he “gave nine lectures a week to teach divinity students a full idiomatic knowledge of the language of the Old Testament for the better understanding of God’s word.” Then there was Matthew Arnold, a Professor of Poetry, who lent his name to the doctrine that Christianity was only “modified Hebraism.”
The intent of such studies was not to spread God’s word, but to collapse both Christianity and Judaism into the paganism of the religion of the British oligarchs, the cult of Isis, and then resell the product as Zionism.
PREPARING PALESTINE FOR HABITATION
Three years after Prince Edward’s trip to the Holy Land, the British Foreign Office began preparing Palestine for “resettlement.” In 1865 the Palestine Exploration Fund was founded with funding mainly from Oxford and Cambridge Universities and the Grand Lodge of Freemasons. The Fund’s task was to “recover the real past and the real people of the Book” and carry out a comprehensive study of all relevant aspects of the historical territory of Palestine.
The Fund emerged in large part from a pilot project called the Jerusalem Literary Society, which had been set up in the 1850s by the circle congregated around the British Consul in Jerusalem, James Finn. In 1857, Finn had sent a dispatch to the British Foreign Office detailing a scheme “to persuade Jews in a large body to settle here as agriculturists on the soil.” To this end, he threw strong support behind a wholly “Christian” organization entitled the Society for the Promotion of Jewish Agricultural Labor in the Holy Land.
The Literary Society focused on the exploration of all sorts of “antiquities” and ran various archaeological digs. It attracted scores of potential cult recruits and was patronized by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
From 1865-76, the Palestine Exploration Fund was the clearinghouse for Anglican Restoration-to-Palestine propaganda:
•The Fund worked with the British War Office to organize studies that would document the “inhabitability” of Palestine by demonstrating its “inhabitability” in the past and its current available resources. The head of these expeditions was Sir Charles Warren, who concluded in a work published in 1875 that Palestine “could again be the productive land it had been of old.” Warren proposed that Palestine be developed by the East India Company with “the avowed intention of gradually introducing the Jews pure and simple (!) who would eventually occupy and govern the country” — a country which would achieve “a population of fifteen million.”
•A parallel study was conducted by Lieutenants Claude Conder and (the future Lord) Kitchener. The later author of such works as Judas Maccabeus and the Jewish War of Independence and The Hebrew Tragedy, Conder and the Palestine Exploration Fund laid out a comprehensive plan to make Palestine “habitable again” as it was before the Arab conquest had driven out the Byzantines. In 1882, Conder was chosen to guide another crown tour of the Holy Land, this time by the future George V, then Prince George.
•The now-decrepit Lord Shaftesbury, one of the Fund’s founders, became its president in 1875. As he was preparing to die with dignity, Shaftesbury pleaded for the Fund “to send out the best agents” to “prepare” Palestine “for the return of its ancient possessors … for the time cannot be far off before that great event will come to pass.” Then, right before doddering to his grave, Shaftesbury wrote in the Quarterly Review:
Syria and Palestine will ere long become most important. The old time will come back … the country wants capital and population. The Jew can give it both. And has not England a special interest in promoting such a restoration? … She must preserve Syria to herself. Does not policy then … exhort England to foster the nationality of the Jews and aid them, as opportunity may offer, to return as a leavening power to their old country? England is the great trading and maritime power of the world. To England, then, naturally belongs the role of favouring the settlement of the Jews in Palestine…. The nationality of the Jew exists, the spirit is there and has been for three thousand years, but the external form, the crowning bond of union, is still wanting. A nation must have a country. The old land, the old people.
At the same time, a “Hebrew language” revival was beginning among demoralized Jews, centered around the literary publication Dawn (Ha-Shahar). Based in Vienna, this circle, which issued all sorts of literary calls for “the rebirth of the Jewish People in the land of its ancestors,” spawned Hebrew-language revivalist sects in eastern Europe and various Hebrew-language national circles that intermeshed various other sect-language groups in Vienna around the turn of the 1880s. According to high level Austrian officials from that period, the leader of the Ha-Shahar group, Peretz Smolenskin, was commissioned by the British embassy in Vienna to translate the Disraeli-authored Jewish State blueprint in 1877.
The various 1860s-1870s Palestine and Jewish Restoration cult operations were in fact predicates of two wider, intersecting British oligarchical strategies. First, the 1870s saw the emergence of several high-level coordinating agencies for international cult manufacture, in particular the Vril Society (founded in 1871) and the Theosophy Society (founded in 1875 and headquartered in Britain from the 1880s onward). The former was headed by Edward Bulwer-Lytton, the high priest of the Isis cult in Britain, and was the mother-cult for the later Thule Society and related groups which created Hitler and the Nazis. The Theosophy group was a key mystic movement which utilized the swastika as its organization symbol. In combination, these two agencies provided leading personnel for the 1880s Isis-Urania Temple of the Hermetic Students of the Golden Dawn group, organized around Theosophy guru Madame Blavatsky’s Isis Unveiled and its call for British aristocrats to organize themselves into a new Isis priesthood. The Golden Dawn specialized in studies of Isis, the Cabala, and other “mystical arts,” including witchcraft, under the aegis of head warlock Aleister Crowley. Crowley in turn was the mentor of LSD advocate Aldous Huxley, indicating how the Isis-Urania cult is the direct forebear of the creators of Jim Jones and other drug cults of today.
These cult-coordinating agencies were the darker side of British imperial strategy and its concern with the “Eastern Question.” Through the 1860-80 period, the British Foreign Office was determined to undermine the rise of French power in the Middle East, epitomized by France’s construction of the Suez Canal. At the same time, the British were preparing to pounce on the cadaver of the Ottoman Empire, with various ethnic-cult groups under their control to divide and conquer the entire Balkan-Near East-India region. The urgency of accomplishing these aims grew with the defeat of the British-run Confederacy in the U.S. Civil War and the continuing potential of a U.S.-Russia-France-Germany alliance opposed to the British Empire and its policies.
The focal point of Britain’s Near East designs was Egypt, not Palestine per se. When the French had begun construction of the Canal, then-Prime Minister Palmerston announced, “I must tell you frankly that what we are afraid of” is that “this Canal will put other nations on an equal footing with us.” When Disraeli became Prime Minister in 1874, he maneuvered to have the London Rothschilds buy the Egyptian ruler’s shares in the Canal for the British government. Soon after, Disraeli and his Foreign Secretary Lord Salisbury (Robert Cecil) acquired Cyprus for Britain with the aim, according to a British historian, of “bringing Palestine and Syria within the orbit of British control” — an aim which Salisbury-Cecil referred to quite candidly in his private writings.
Disraeli and Salisbury reverted to the policy approaches of Palmerston in the 1840s, and took several initiatives toward activating the Oxford Movement Anglican “restoration of the Jews to Palestine” cult. But they were hampered by other international strategic considerations from launching their own “Balfour Declaration” forty years early.
Among Disraeli and Salisbury’s Zionist-style initiatives were:
•The 1877 authorship of the Jewish State blueprint published anonymously by Smolenskin at British request in Vienna and withheld from the 1878 Berlin Congress for immediate political reasons;
•Support for a scheme of a South African mystic, Lawrence Oliphant, for a large-scale Jewish settlement project in the Palestine territory;
•Development of a “charter of rights” for Jews in southeastern Europe, which gave the British Foreign Office free rein to intervene at will in the affairs of principalities in that region.
In this way, the Disraeli-Salisbury Near East strategy smoothed the way for the Round Table group that ran British policy from the early 1880s onward to promulgate the Balfour Declaration. The extent of their preparations made the 1890s emergence of an actual organized political-Zionist movement around Theodore Herzl almost anticlimactic.
“Spiritual Father” of the Cult
The man who is officially known as the “spiritual father of the country” in Israel today is Theodore Herzl. Herzl, the prophet of political Zionism, went by the code-name “Tancred”; he ably personified the race-cult ideas of Disraeli and the Anglican “Jewish restorationists” of 19th century England.
Herzl was bred in Vienna, the intellectual swamp of the decomposing Hapsburg Empire. There the British intelligence service and allied House of Austria also recruited Adolf Hitler, for the Nazi variety of anti-Semitism. Like Hitler, Herzl was an extreme neurotic, a Bohemian playwright, who hated Jews. Laughed at, derided, denounced, and assured that he was insane by almost all Jews he came in contact with, Theodore Herzl was embraced by the racialist myth-makers of the British Empire, becoming a principal agent for their policy: a drive to “purify” the Aryan and Semitic “races” alike by ridding Europe of “the Jew.”
THE CHARACTER OF TANCRED
No single fact reveals more of Herzl’s character than his morbid idolization of Richard Wagner. Wagner was a racist and a cultist, who differed on few points from his Nazi-linked son-in-law, Houston Stewart Chamberlain of the Chamberlain family. Wagner’s operatic themes, with their “love-death” obsessions and race-cult mythologies, were often directly provided to him by the high priests residing in Great Britain. His 1830s opera Rienzi, based on the story of a medieval Knight of the Maltese Order, was lifted from the novel Rienzi by Edward Bulwer Lord Lytton.
According to one account of late 19th century Vienna, it was at a performance of Wagner’s Tannhauser in 1895that “the truth of irrational Volkisch politics became clear to (Herzl) as in a flash of intuition.” The same “flash of intuition” blinded Adolf Hitler, by his own account, upon hearing Wagner’s Rienzi.
“Only on those nights when no Wagner was performed did I have any doubts about the correctness of my idea,” Herzl wrote in his diaries. His biographer, Amos Elon, reveals that, “for inspiration and to dispel occasional doubts, Herzl turned to Wagnerian music, especially Tannhauser. He was enraptured by the music of the great anti-Semite… Herzl faithfully attended every performance of Wagner at the Paris opera.”
The first Zionist Congress opened with the playing of parts of Tannhauser. Tannhauser was also a favorite of the decadent occultists in Great Britain; the son of Lord Lytton wrote an adaptation of it as a companion-piece to Madame Blavatsky’s volume, Isis Unveiled.
It was hardly difficult for the British to recruit Herzl. First, he was an Anglophile. He was also a believer in all sorts of Germanic-Teutonic myths. “An immensely rich Anglicized Prussian nobleman was Herzl’s hero-ideal,” writes Elon. His earliest writings were about knights, lords, and noble barons. In his diaries, he wrote, “If there is one thing I should like to be, it is a member of the old Prussian nobility.”
This expression of abject political servility was inevitably accompanied by a savage tendency to sexual fantasizing of a sodomist stamp. In one diary entry, Herzl dubs his penis the “ideal candidate for Knighthood,” an image that merges with obsessive sado-masochistic thoughts of death, suicide, melancholy, and “the Apocalypse.”
“Blond, clever-eyed little girl… ” reads another diary entry in which Herzl reveled in his passion for an eight-year old. ‘Today I realized for the first time that is is possible to fall in love with a little girl.”
Herzl’s death at age 44 is in part attributed by his biographers to his having contracted gonorrhea at age 20.
One biographer hints at the relevant personal background when he muses that, were it not for Herzl’s passionate devotion to a domineering mother, which broke up his marriage and forced him to think of other things, there would have been no Zionism.
It is a relevant fact that Herzl would later write articles in sympathetic understanding of French anarchoterrorists during the 1890s, like the Zionist lobby’s kept journalists today who excuse British terrorist deployments as a spontaneous “sociological phenomenon.” Herzl was a near-lunatic, who might have been made into a terrorist as easily as an apologist for terrorism, a Nazi as easily as a Zionist. Herzl and Zionism did not emerge from any tradition of actual Judaism. Zionism is a rejection of Judaism, as all Jews at that time knew. Undoubtedly, it was while searching the back alleys of Vienna for a streetwalker that Herzl stumbled into one of the “salons” operated by British intelligence and friends, emerging from the place with Zionism tucked in his vest pocket.
High Viennese society was completely under the sway of the network of salons set up by Julie Rothschild, daughter of the head of the Vienna branch of the family, and by Empress Elizabeth of the pro-British Wittelsbach royal family of Bavaria that was later to finance Adolf Hitler’s political career. As with the salons of British agent Madame de Stael in Paris earlier in the century, the Vienna salons’ raison d’etre was to recruit susceptible persons into the supportive environment for agents. Throughout the 1880s and into the 1890s, Theodore Herzl was a known frequenter and “dandy” in these Viennese salon circles.
•The Rothschild-Hapsburg-Wittelsbach salon network included philosophers, journalists, editors, writers, artists and scientists, so to speak. Among them:
•Science quack Ernst Mach, assigned to wipe out the influence of the great Neoplatonist Riemann;
•Karl Menger, “British free trade” ideologue and father of the “Austrian School” of economics, created to destroy Alexander Hamilton and Friedrich List’s influence for industrial progress on the continent — Menger was Herzl’s law professor at the University of Vienna;
•Arnold Schonberg, the music fraud who is spiritual guru of “modern” music.
This Hapsburg-Wittelsbach mafia strangled intellectual life in the capital, and combined with the Rothschild family’s grip over Austrian credit to give London firm political control of the city. Vienna was the seedbed for all sorts of synthetic “nationalist” ideologies, pseudoartistic movements, and cults. Among these was a Hebrew-language revival movement formed in 1867, which was sprouting Zionist propaganda by 1875. By 1883, this operation had evolved into a network of Zionist literary cells throughout Europe.
In 1880, anti-Semitic “theory” began to make its contribution to Vienna’s intellectual delicatessen. This paralleled France during the 1840s and 1850s, when aristocratic writers authored books with titles like Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races by Count de Gobineau; The Jews, Kings of the Epoch, and so on. Jesuit “orientalists,” meanwhile, began to develop theories of the relation of the “Aryan” race to the “Semitic” race.
Given that Benjamin Disraeli’s novels like Coningsby (1844) and Tancred (1847) were proclaiming the superiority of the Aryan-Semitic “race,” it is obvious where such “ideas” originated. Oligarchist Count de Gobineau’s Essay(1853), for example, had the following to say about the correlation between Great Britain’s “political stability” and “ethnic purity”: “In England, where modification of the stock has been slower and up to now less varied than in any other European country, we still see the institutions of the 14th and 15th centuries forming the base of the social structure.” England, de Gobineau paeaned, had best preserved “true Germanic usage,” and was the “last centre of Germanic influence.”
Starting around 1879, the German-speaking countries began to be flooded with titles like The Jewish Question as a Racial, Ethical, and Cultural Question and The Victory of Judaism over Germanism. Mass followings began to develop for demagogic anti-Semitic politicians like Karl Lueger, whom Hitler later admired. Lueger was elected Lord Mayor of Vienna in 1895, virtually coinciding with Herzl’s first organizing for Zionism.
For the Disraeli-Palmerston circles in London, anti-Semitism was a means to “persuade” Jews that their only hope lay in going to Palestine — in becoming Zionists. More immediately, however, British anti-Semitic operations added tremendously to British capabilities for destabilizing the domestic politics of Russia, France, and other countries, and breaking up threatening European or European-USA coalitions.
Paradigmatic was the 1890s Dreyfus Affair in France, during which the French nation was not only dragged through a “Jewish problem” destabilization, but an important government faction around Prime Minister Gabriel Hanotaux, which was committed to a French-German alliance for development, was crushed; the Jewish Captain Dreyfus had been accused of not only treason, but reason on behalf of German agents in France.
It was also the Dreyfus Affair that launched Herzl into his Zionist organizing drive. Herzl covered the case in Paris for a liberal Viennese weekly; for months previously, he had been toying with wild-eyed schemes to release the pressure of the anti-Semitic flood. One characteristic such scheme was to have the Papacy sponsor the mass baptism and conversion of Jews! But these “living theater” fantasies dissolved quickly.
The record shows that Herzl’s own conversion to Zionism was not spontaneous.
In 1893, Herzl had held meetings with an Austrian parliamentarian, Baron Chlumecki. The same Chlumecki, when informed three years later that Herzl had authored a book entitled The Jewish State, declared the idea “lacking in originality.” Chlumecki insisted that Herzl had to have read Benjamin Disraeli’s 1877 document, The Jewish Question as an Oriental Question, which, the Austrian claimed, had been authored by Disraeli for the 1878 Berlin Congress. At the British ambassador’s further request, Chlumecki revealed, the Baron had personally translated it into German and had quietly circulated it.
The Disraeli document, other Austrian circles close to Chlumecki asserted later, was suppressed because it would have been a “powderkeg that would wreck the Berlin Congress” (in the words of the journalist brother of Heinrich Heine). Jews were universally opposed to any nation of Judaism as racism or nationalism, a “godless” creed, in the words of some. Disraeli was forced by European pressure to back away from his scheme, and to limit his activity at the Congress to intervention “on behalf of the Jews of southeastern Europe.”
Herzl never admitted, in his diaries or other writings, the British origin of his scheme. But once he came out with his Jewish State, his entourage became a nest of weirdos and kooks who gave him aid and comfort, at a time when other Jewish leaders advised him to seek help in an accredited asylum. “My dear friend, there is something wrong with your nerves. This book is a product of sickness. You must see a doctor,” one associate advised.
Not even the Court Jews in London would openly support Herzl in the 1895-96 period. Instead, they sent in the kooks to preserve and control him:
• The Reverend William Hechler, chaplain of the British embassy in Vienna and author of The Restoration of the Jews to Palestine According to the Prophecy, rushed to see Herzl upon publication of the latter’s tracts. Hechler revealed himself to be a former private tutor for the family of the Grand Duke of Baden, and an intimate of the Hapsburg German Emperor Wilhelm. He served as intermediary for Herzl to the Grand Duke, to help plead the Zionist cause.
•Count Philip Michael de Nevlinski, member of a Polish aristocratic family booted out of Eastern Europe in 1863 for his role in a Polish uprising against the Czar. The uprising had been sponsored by the British in revenge against Russia’s alliance with Lincoln during the U.S. Civil War. De Nevlinski had extensive diplomatic contacts in the Ottoman Empire and elsewhere, which he used to open up high-level contacts for Herzl.
• Holman Hunt, a London “Pre-Raphaelite” painter of some notoriety who publicly advised Herzl to treat the Arab inhabitants of Palestine as “nothing more than hewers of wood and drawers of water” who would “render the Jews very useful services.”
•Richard Beer-Hoffman, a leader of the “young Vienna” movement — one of many so-named youth cults spawned by Lord Palmerston throughout Europe. Beer-Hoffman authored much poetry on the “neoromantic revival of Jewish myths and biblical heroes.”
•Arminius Vambery, a former British spy and Turkish double agent who had earlier been a consultant on anthropological-linguistic affairs to Disraeli and Lord Palmerston.
•EM. Lilien, a British artist and disciple of Aubrey Beardsley, the celebrator of Wagner’s Tannhauser and Venus myths in drawings. For the first Zionist Congress, which opened to the sounds of Tannhauser, Lilien drew a souvenir card depicting a “Siegfried” knight figure clad in medieval armor against an Oriental background. Lilien also drew Herzl in the nude, as a bearded angel presiding in heaven over the birth of man!
• Colonel Albert Edward Williamson Goldschmid, who pounced upon Herzl soon after the publication of The Jewish State, declaring, “I am Daniel Deronda!”, the hero of George Eliot’s romantic conjuring of the Zionist mythos in her 1876 novel of the same name. A son of converted Jews, Goldschmid came upon this revelation “in India” where he “decided to return to the ancestral fold.”
In the U.S., a Columbia University Professor of Semitic Languages who worked out of the Russian Studies Department, Richard Gottheil, was helping to set up Zionist groups in the U.S. Gottheil later authored a history of Zionism describing it as having emerged from the ashes of a universal Jewish humanism which burned out during the nineteenth century.
British policy was not only to put Judaism’s humanist traditions to the torch. Zionism was also built up through the deaths of thousands and thousands of Jews. During the 1880-1900 period, spurts of support for Zionism, including several Zionist tracts, emerged in Russia and Eastern Europe thanks to the terror caused by the periodic pogroms and anti-Jewish extermination campaigns of that period. Aside from “spontaneous” local outrages, all the major pogroms are traceable to the hard core of “liberal” aristocrats centered around the Anglophile Tolstoy and other families allied with the London-Hapsburg-Wittelsbach factions. The pogroms provided the early “volunteers” for the Anglican-Jesuit Zionist experiment in Palestine.
Nurtured during this period were several Hebrew language-revival cells having as their center Vienna but fanning throughout Eastern Europe. Also, a number of “Jewish rights” organizations formed, bringing a number of humanist-inclined individuals, but fundamentally under the control of the London “Jewish rights” networks that were congealed at the 1878 Berlin Congress by Disraeli and company.
“A SACRIFICIAL CULT”
Universally, Herzl met with opposition and derision from 99 percent of the Jews he contacted, especially from continental circles assuming him to be a lunatic or British agent or both.
When Herzl’s tracts were first circulated, leaders of 500 Jewish communities petitioned the Emperor to have Zionism outlawed as a “godless movement.”
One Berlin paper described Herzl as an “English agent.” A German archaeologist accused Herzl of “conspiring” with London, charging that Herzl was a “British agent who was luring the Jewish people into a nefarious adventure designed to serve the strategic interests of his employers in London.” (Herzl challenged the author to a duel!)
In 1897 a publisher of Viennese weekly, asked what he could do for Herzl’s cause, responded, “If Herzl should be taken to the lunatic asylum, I shall be glad to put my carriage at his disposal.” Prominent American Jews accused the early organizers of Zionism of trying to “brainwash” immigrants coming from Eastern Europe. A faction of American Reform Jews who labeled Zionism “that crazy messianic movement over the ocean” stated forthrightly that “our Zion is humanity religionized, not Judaism nationalized.”
The vast majority of Jews perceived Zionism, correctly, to be an assault, with genocidal implications, directed mainly against Jews and Judaism.
Earlier in the nineteenth century, a faction of German Jewish humanists had labeled the “return to Zion” idea a dangerous distraction from God’s intent to have Jews serve as “chosen people” for all humanity, that is, God’s “moral mission” for Jews. This faction regarded the “dispersion” after the destruction of the Second Temple as a “blessing rather than a punishment” since it was “designed to spread the worship of the True God everywhere.” From this standpoint, “the Jewish loss of Palestine signified progress.” This belief produced an important 1845 Frankfurt Rabbinical Conference resolution: “All petitions for the return to the land of our fathers, and for the restoration of the Jewish state, should be eliminated from the prayers.”
One prominent rabbi told Herzl that the Jews had a “historic mission to propagate the idea of humanism among all nations” and were for that reason “more than a territorial people.” One Jewish editorialist called Zionism “madness born of despair”; a second “rejected Herzl’s Judenstaat with greater distaste than the meanest anti-Semitic pamphlet.”
Several prominent Jews likened Herzl to the Reverend Jim Jones of the seventeenth century, Sabbatai Zevi, a self-styled Messiah who led a group to lemming-like self-destruction in Palestine. Rabbi Joseph Bloch, who editorialized against anti-Semitism in the press and as a member of the Austrian Parliament, warned Herzl that he was espousing the “need for a blood sacrifice,” the “intention of reviving a sacrificial cult in a rebuilt Temple.”
Another prominent Austrian, Leon Ritter von Bilinski — the man whose memoirs were to expose the Disraeli origins of Herzl’s ideas — told Herzl bluntly that the Zionist’s ideas and assumptions were exactly those of the worst anti-Semitic racists.
Bilinski especially took Herzl to task for trying to build up support for Zionism by the tactic of exploiting the “Jewish bogeyman” myth in meetings with diplomats, rulers, and financiers: “It the malicious propaganda that the Jews are a danger to the world and that they are revolutionaries continues, the Zionists will, instead of establishing a Jewish State, cause the destruction of European Jewry.”
ZIONISM’S ALLIANCE WITH ANTI-SEMITISM
Bilinski’s implicit allusion to the development of a Nazi-Zionist lobby went right to the heart of the matter. It would later be the same British Zionist backers of Herzl (Rothschilds et al.) who would put Hitler in power and endorse “the holocaust.” Herzl’s ideas supported in every aspect the anti-Semites’ conjuring up of the impossibility of Jews coexisting with other groups and of the evils caused by Jews living in Europe.
At other times, Herzl and his followers went so far as to publicly attack “the kikes” and to insist that Judaism was Zionism’s greatest enemy.
The belief by Herzl and other early Zionists like Chaim Weizmann and Louis Brandeis that anti-Semitism was abiological inevitability matched to a tee the anti-Semites’ racist attacks on the Jews as literally “bacilli” and so on.
Herzl and his Zionist coleader, social psychologist Max Nordau, stated, “Only anti-Semitism has made Jews out of us.” “As anti-Semitism grows, so do I,” Herzl wrote in his diaries. “The anti-Semites will be only too happy to give Zionism publicity,” Herzl wrote. And Herzl was only too happy to promote anti-Semitism and pogroms.
The anti-Semites more than returned the compliment:
•Anti-Semitic tracts in the 1890s frequently commented that “Palestine might make a good mousetrap for the Jews.”
•Edouard-Adolphe Drumont, editor of the notorious Oppenheimer family-funded La Libre Parole newspaper, praised Herzl’s Judenstaat — which he reviewed at Herzl’s prodding! — in an article entitled “Solution to the Jewish Question.” The article praised Herzl for agreeing with the anti-Semites’ charges, “for not seeing in us fanatics, maniacs, savage and heartless beings, but citizens who exercise the right of self-defence.” Herzl, in his diaries, happily noted Drumont’s “highly flattering editorial about me.” At another time Nordau emphasized that “there is no one with whom I am in greater agreement” on the point that Zionism is “a question … exclusively of race… than M. Drumont.”
• Ivan von Simonyi, the publisher of an anti-Jewish rag that insisted that Jews murdered Christian babies for ritual purposes, was the first editor to write editorials on Der Judenstaat — all immensely favorable, of course. He met Herzl, who wrote in his diaries that von Simonyi had “an astonishing amount of sympathy for the Jews…. Loves me!” 41
The examples of Herzl’s wooing and collaborating with anti-Semitic officials in various governments — collaboration which included plotting anti-Semitic activity to win support for the Zionist cause — are legion. In one early case of a man close to the pogrom coordinators in Russia, Interior Minister Plehve, Herzl was told, “You are preaching to a convert…. We would very much like to see the creation of an independent Jewish state capable of absorbing several million Jews.”
Herzl’s diaries are filled with references to the strategies and ideas behind this relationship. “The anti-Semites will be our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries, our allies.” “Selling” Zionism would “cost nothing, for the anti-Semites will rejoice.” Anti-Semitism is at bottom understandable, since “they could not have let themselves be subjugated by us in the army, in government, in all of commerce.” And, in meetings with various reactionary European potentates, as Bilinski charged, Herzl freely conjured up massive world Jewish financial power and extensive Jewish control over revolutionary movements, playing off the “benefits” for collaborating with the Zionists against the “risks” of not doing so.
This collaboration presaged the close collaboration between Zionists and Nazis during the 1933-45 period, including Zionist agreement to let nearly a million Jews die in return for letting the select, racially “pure” few escape from Hungary and Rumania. In this relationship, the cult of Thule and Odin of the elite Nazis, and the cult of Zion, both created in London’s oligarchic cult laboratories, were to help each other “purify their races.”
This was more than a marriage of convenience. At the root of both movements were shared cult-race brainwashing, and shared hatred for the attempt by individual Jews and groups of Jews to leave ghetto life behind according to the laws established by Moses, Philo, Spinoza, and the great Spanish Jewish thinkers of the medieval period.
Beginning with the influence of Disraeli, race-cult theory and Zionist theory were interchangeable. Moses Hess, the renegade nineteenth century socialist called “the donkey” by Karl Marx, got the ball rolling in his 1862 Rome and Jerusalem, an attempt to link the fate of “the Jewish race” to the British-created Italian “nationalist” movement of Mazzini. Spitting in the face of humanism and science, Hess yelped that “the race struggle is the primal one,” and utilized the Aryan and Semitic race ideas freely. He claimed that Germans were anti-Jewish “racially,” called those Jews who denied that Jews were a “separate race” “traitors to their people, tribe, race.”
Hess’s kind of race thinking was commonplace among Zionists. It appears in Herzl’s writings and fantasies interspersed with various medieval-knight metaphors. With certain Zionist thinkers race thinking became particularly chilling. Typically, author Arthur Ruppin, in The Jews of Today, stated that a “highly cultivated race deteriorates rapidly when its members mate with a less cultivated race, and the Jew naturally finds his equal and match most easily within the Jewish people….”
This Darwinesque bestiality was more than matched in a speech by Herzl’s colleague Nordau, to the 1897 Zionist Congress. “Microbiology tells us,” Nordau mused, “that there exist tiny organisms which are perfectly harmless, so long as they live in the open air, but become the cause of frightful disease when deprived of oxygen. Governments and nations may well beware lest the Jews in like case become a source of danger.” (Compare the anti-Semitic “bacilli” epithet.)
The racism often spilled over into overt agreement with the Nazi-type ideologues on the “evilness” of the Jew, or the incompatibility of Zionism and Judaism. An Austrian psychologist of the late 19th century, Otto Weininger, “influenced certain trends in both Zionist and Nazi thinking,” according to one Israeli author, with his argument that “Zionism is the negation of Judaism Before Zionism is possible, the Jew must first conquer Judaism.”
Weininger’s theories have recently been echoed in a widely circulated Israeli short story with the theme that “Zionism begins with the wreckage of Judaism.” Zionist novels and propaganda have from early times been filled with characterizations of Diaspora Jews as “living in filth,” “one big hunchback,” “filthy dogs,” “parasites,” “harlots,” and “worms.” One Zionist propagandist of the earlier part of this century, Jacob Klatzkin, described Jews as “living a false and perverted existence” and contrasted this with the “pure national type” that would emerge out of Zionism. Not surprisingly, Klatzkin insisted that “if we do not admit the rightfulness of anti-Semitism, we deny the rightfulness of our own nationalism” and advised that “instead of establishing societies for defense against the anti-Semites, who want to reduce our rights, we should establish defense against our friends who desire to defend our rights ‘ — i.e., let the mere “Jews” die, so Zionism can emerge with a “pure Semitic race.”
But none of his successors has outdone Herzl’s venomous hatred of Jews. In a pique of rage against the widespread anti-Zionism he was meeting among Jews, he authored a piece called Kike (Mauschel in the original German) which raved that anti-Zionist Jews were “disgusting,” “dirty,” and “mean.” “Kike is anti-Zionist,” Herzl railed, and concluded that the Zionists would act toward “kikes” like William Tell and his arrows: “Kike, take care! Friends, Zionism’s arrow is aimed at Kike’s breast.”
Zionism and Nazism’s Common Mother
During the 1896-1902 period, Theodore Herzl made several trips to England. In his diaries, he would note that, by aiding creation of a Zionist state, the British would “get at one stroke … ten million secret but loyal subjects active in all walks of life all over the world…. As at a signal, all of them will place themselves at the service of the magnanimous nation that brings long-desired help…. England will get ten million agents for her greatness and influence.”
The Anglican oligarchy, however, did not come forth publicly with their decision to create a Zionist state until the peak days of World War I, and only then as a matter of destabilizing Russia and creating a Zionist lobby in the U.S. to use as a tool in bringing North America into the service of the threatened British Empire. A Zionist state then became an immediate, “live” objective, not accidentally at the same time that Nazism became an immediate, live objective.
The obvious similarities between Nazism and Zionism are, as it were, genetic. After World War I, Zionism was massively promoted by the British elite as the flip-side of Nazism. Their creation of Nazism signified an attempted unification of the “superior English stock” with the “Germanic” branch of the Anglo-Saxon “race,” with the objective of conquering Russia and securing control in the Middle East for which Russia (and later the USSR) was their main competitor. Their creation of Zionism was the establishment of a “land”-obsessed cult of “Jews who are not Jews,” spoon-fed on Semitic racial ideas and Old Testament stories regarding Jewish superiority (to neighboring Arabs) as an ideological excuse for being, in Herzl’s words, “England’s ten million agents” in the region.
Any B’nai B’rith official yelping “anti-Semitism” at that assertion is simply denying the facts. Herzl and other leading Zionists provide as much damaging prima facie evidence as any honest observer would require. Herzl’s diaries and speeches are filled with sickening paeans to the symbiosis between British and Zionist strategy: “The Zionist idea, which is a colonial idea, must be understood in England easily and quickly.” To the same point, Herzl conducted extensive research into racist Cecil Rhodes’s method of cajoling, tricking, and bludgeoning the rulers of what is now Rhodesia into agreeing to have that territory turned into a British “Charter” area. Herzl was eager to apply the same techniques to the Arab inhabitants of Palestine.
There are three fundamental facts about the elite which ran Britain in the latter part of the nineteenth century, through the Balfour Declaration commitment to a “homeland for the Jews in Palestine,” through the 1920s-1940s development of Nazism and then the Israeli state.
First: The total number of British policy-makers actually responsible for Zionism and for the Balfour Declaration is tiny — perhaps ten, at the most twenty.
Second: This handful was by and large the same core group of forces guiding all imperialist strategy, i.e., the group that established the Round Table in the 1890s on a mandate contained in Cecil Rhodes’s will. This same core group ran British policy from the 1880s through the World War Two period.
Third: There is a heavy overlap between this Balfour Declaration “Zionist” crowd and the group that pushed Adolf Hitler and the Drang nach Osten strategy for Germany in the 1920s and 1930s — the so-called Cliveden Set. This includes a handful of “first circle” and “second circle” Jewish-name financiers and policymakers who were backing Hitler right up to the 1939-1940 conjuncture — Rothschild, Warburg, et al.
The fact is there was one single Nazi-Zionist lobby, and this lobby is more or less interchangeable with the Round Table inner elite. We now turn to an example.
The highly influential modern-day Cecils (e.g. Lord Harlech) are the linear, blood descendants of the family in sixteenth century England (e.g. Lord Burghley, William Cecil) which conspired fitfully against the humanists in Elizabeth Tudor’s court, bringing the Maltese Order to power in England, and with it, the whole range of cabalistic-mystical arts of Ashmole, the Scottish Rite, the Oxford Movement, the Round Table and Cliveden Set.
For purposes of historical truth, the Balfour Declaration, which put Britain on record in favor of a Jewish state in Palestine, should be renamed the Cecil Declaration.
The key in the chain of modern-day Cecils is Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil, the Third Marquis of Salisbury, the same Lord Salisbury who was Disraeli’s Foreign Secretary in the 1870s. Through the period 1885-1902, this Lord Salisbury was to be Great Britain’s Prime Minister for all but three years, and was to double as Foreign Secretary for five of those years.
To British insiders, it is generally known that Salisbury, more than Disraeli, controlled the impulses of British policy during these years, including the period 1875-80. An 1878 Salisbury-architected secret treaty established the strategic preconditions for the later British mandate over Palestine — that is, British acquisition of Egypt and Cyprus. At this time, he wrote in a letter to a British archaeologist: “We shall have to choose between allowing Russia to dominate over Syria or Mesopotamia or taking the country for ourselves.”
By the beginning of the twentieth century, “the inner clique of the Conservative Party was made up almost completely of the Cecil family and their relatives … as a result of the tremendous influence of Lord Salisbury,” according to Tragedy and Hope author Carroll Quigley. The Conservative Party was “little more than a tool of the Cecil family,” with Cecil family members and Cecil family protégés running ministries during the 1895-1905 decade ranging from the Foreign Office to the Treasury, the Irish affairs office, the Admiralty and the South African army.
Stepping down from the premiership in 1902, Salisbury handed over the office to another Cecil, “his nephew, protégé, and hand-picked successor,” Arthur James Balfour, the very same who in 1917 was to convey to “Dear Lord Rothschild … on behalf of his Majesty’s Government” a “declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations” for “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people” — the Balfour Declaration.
Calling Balfour a “scion of the Cecil family,” author Barbara Tuchman stresses that this family “had waited four hundred and fifty years since the two Cecils, father and son, ruled England under Elizabeth, to produce again two successive Prime Ministers.” Balfour had been one of the real “insiders” since the early 1880s. In 1882, he was on the Board of Directors of the Aristotle Society; in 1885, he helped found the Fabian Society; during the 1880s he helped establish the Psychic Research Bureau with William James and others, out of which came in the 1890s the Order of the Golden Dawn; and in 1891, he was one of the few chosen to join the special “circle of initiates” of the Round Table secret society by Cecil Rhodes, Lord Esher, Lord Milner, and London Times editor William T. Stead.
As late as 1926, Balfour was a central figure in the creation of the British Commonwealth, an act which former Prime Minister Harold Macmillan has credited as “one of the most important” in saving the British Empire.
Like Lord Salisbury, Balfour was a public exponent of Zionism — in Balfour’s case starting no later than 1906, when doing so was still a relatively rare public thing for a top-level oligarch. In the 1920s, the aging Balfour was still issuing public appeals for the Zionist cause and helping to motivate various international Zionist pressure groups.
Simultaneously, his dislike for the Jews was quite unabashed. In 1905, as pogroms mounted in Russia, he proclaimed that “the persecutors have a case.” In 1917, during the peak of Balfour Declaration manipulations, he responded, “Of course, these are the reasons which make you and me such ardent Zionists” when American Zionist Louis Brandeis confided that “every Jew is potentially an intellectual and an idealist and the problem is one of the direction of those qualities” — i.e., into Zionism and not “revolutionary movements.”
Balfour’s Zionist pontifications were legion: on one occasion, he asserted that the “reconstruction of a Jewish kingdom in Palestine” would be an “interesting experiment” and an “even more interesting end of the world.” On another occasion he intoned, “I am a great believer in separate nationalities” and moaned that the Romans’ destruction of the Second Temple in the first century A.D. was “one of the great wrongs” of history that had to be redressed by “giving the Jews back their ancient home.”
Balfour preached the Zionist restoration-to-Palestine cause more fervently than any other Round Tablers involved in concocting the Balfour Declaration — with one noteworthy exception: Lord Robert Cecil, Balfour’s cousin, whom Balfour appointed to be his special Foreign Office Undersecretary.
Cousin Robert Cecil proclaimed himself “Zionist by passionate conviction.” He ostensibly reached the verdict in 1906 that Zionism was “of vital importance to the world.” So much ardor did Lord Robert Cecil feel for Zionism that he started shrieking “Judea for the Jews!” at a 1918 public gathering, having to be restrained by his fellows. The Balfour Declaration had promised no more than a “national home in Palestine.” Calling the Balfour Declaration the “rebirth of a nation,” Cecil, through the British Foreign Office, put out an official statement denouncing as “palpably false” the argument that Jews were primarily a religious group, and not a nation.
During 1917-1918, Cecil issued documents containing three basic tenets of British Zionist policy: 1) the British must recognize and use the “international power of the Jews”; (2) the British must use support for Zionism to manipulate internal politics in Russia; and (3) the British must convince the Americans to accept the mandate for Palestine to bring the U.S. into the British-dominated geopolitical fold.
THE CULT OF ALL CULTS
The Cecils, in a sense, were a High Priesthood superimposed on the most important single institution set up in Britain in the late 19th century to oversee the enormous expansion of British imperialism at that time — the Round Tables.
On the eve of the 1891 formation of the Round Tables, the Anglo-Saxon race-mystics were in a state of near-elation over the fact that what Round Table Executive Committee member Alfred Milner called “God’s Englishman” was on the brink of having the entire world under his dominion. The “English-speaking race” was the “greatest of governing races the world has ever seen,” said Joseph Chamberlain (of the family that produced Houston Stewart and Neville). The English were “one of God’s chief chosen instruments for executing coming improvements in the lot of mankind,” said Round Table Executive Committee member and London Times editor W. T. Stead.
A core group of Cambridge and Oxford University mystics, Aristotelians, and pederasts were determined to create a Coordinating institution, controlled by an elite handful but with tentacles around the globe. This would act as the strategic controller of all the lower-level but extremely important cult-spawning sects such as the Fabian Society, the Psychic Research Bureau, the Aristotle Society, and the more guttersnipe “artiste”-oriented Theosophists, Vril Society, Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, and so on.
The Round Table began as a secret society bringing together such Cambridge University luminaries as Lord Esher (for decades to be the private national security coordinator for the Queen) and Oxford University’s Lord Milner, with Cecil Rhodes, through the agency of Stead. Around this group were Balfour, Lord Rothschild, and the keepers of the Rhodes Trust, an “educational fund” with the explicit aim of bringing elites around the world into an Anglo-Saxon “race union.”
Milner and Rhodes were both impassioned disciples of John Ruskin, whose speeches on “social reform” beginning circa 1870 launched the British counterinsurgency networks of the Fabian Society, “settlement house” movement and others.
In the 1909-13 period, a special group of Round Table operatives known as Milner’s Kindergarten (having been “schooled” under Milner in South Africa) organized semisecret Round Table groups throughout British dependencies and in the United States. In 1910 the Round Table magazine was formed. In the 1919-27 period, the Royal Institute of International Affairs and several offshoots, such as the New York Council on Foreign Relations, were created.
From 1891 until World War I, Zionism figured as a special operation to be deployed when necessary, but not necessarily requiring public support. Exemplary of the coy public strategy was Rhodes’s reaction to Herzl. Rhodes personally would not support Herzl’s schemes, he declared, since he was more intent on having Germany get Syria and Palestine as a buffer against Russia, and organizing the German-speaking peoples into an international union with the “English-speaking race.”
But powerful circles in Germany were inclined to seek a continental alliance with France — most threatening for the British in connection with the famous Baghdad Railway project. Negotiations and treaties between the French and the Germans, potentially bringing in the Russians and even the Americans, forced the British to play their Zionist option more openly.
When World War I busted up Franco-German entente approaches, the first thing the British elite did was to declare open season on the Ottoman Empire. In 1914, proposals for a British-sponsored “Jewish home in Palestine” began to be espoused by a handful of influential people, including the Fabian Society’s New Statesmanand Lord Herbert Samuel of the financier Samuel family. Periodically until the end of 1916, such proposals were authored by Foreign Office people and others, but not with any major immediate result.
All this changed when the Round Table publicly assumed the government in December 1916, in a coup against the Asquith regime. Lord Esher’s puppet Lloyd George was installed as Prime Minister, presiding over an Imperial War Cabinet and advisory group set up by Milner and Esher. This included Balfour as Foreign Secretary, Milner as a cabinet member (Minister of War in 1918), and Jan-Christian Smuts as representative from the Union of South Africa. (Smuts, a Cambridge graduate who had been one of Rhodes’s agents in southern Africa, was one of the inner circle in the Round Table.)
These four men were the official cabinet “Zionist lobby,” the motivating group in cabinet decision-making that pushed the Balfour Declaration through. In November 1917, the declaration came forth as a personal statement from the Queen’s government to Lord Rothschild.
Advising the cabinet on a day-to-day basis was a Cabinet Secretariat, or brains trust, appointed by Milner and Esher, known as the “garden suburb,” which included Leopold Amery (known as “the shadow of Milner”); William Ormsby-Gore (Lord Harlech, father of the 1960s British ambassador to the U.S., David Ormsby-Gore); Phillip Kerr Lord Lothian (editor of the Round Table magazine, who ran a special unit that ran Lloyd George); and Mark Sykes, a protege of “Arab Bureau” coordinator Lord Kitchener and a trained Jesuit with strong mystical leanings.
Together with Lord Robert Cecil of the Foreign Office, these four provided the day-to-day coordination of the international Zionist movement. They deployed such leading Zionists as Chaim Weizmann — who otherwise couldn’t have organized his way out of a paper bag — for crucial liaison work with Zionist groups and diplomats in primarily the U.S. and Russia. And they worked feverishly to win a strong orientation toward Palestine-Zionist policy by the U.S., through the agency of Brandeis and the British Embassy in Washington.
Sykes, Amery and Ormsby-Gore (a Cecil) developed the following “strategic concept” for the Zionist project, involving three points:
One: “From the purely British point of view, a prosperous Jewish population in Palestine, owing its inception and its opportunity of development to British policy, might be an invaluable asset as a defence of the Suez Canal against attack from the North and as a station on the future air-routes to the East.”
Two: The Jews were “a people who yet regarded the East as their true home.”
Three: “The whole influence of Judaism outside Germany will be directed in accordance with the attitude of respective powers regarding the Palestine question.”
As mentioned earlier, the same circle was intent on using Zionism to manipulate politics in Russia. “It is even possible,” the War Office moaned in 1918, that “had the (Balfour) declaration come sooner, the course of the Revolution might have been changed.”
As usual, this core group of nine was rife with anti-Jewish sentiment. Lloyd George, for all his pious meanderings about the Old Testament and his “deep concern for the Jews,” “didn’t care a damn for the Jews,” in the view of ex-Premier Asquith, and was only interested in a “Jewish buffer state.” Sykes saw Zionism as necessary to combat Marxism, “which works toward the destruction of the present nationalistic basis of the world and the setting up of a World State” and which has made some Jews “regard Karl Marx as the only prophet of Israel.”
Ormsby-Gore, in a May 8, 1917 letter to Sykes, wrote, “I think we ought to use pogroms in Palestine as propaganda. Any spicy tales of atrocity would be eagerly welcomed by the propaganda people here — and Aaron Aaronsohn (a Zionist in British intelligence employ — ed.) could create some lurid stories for the Jewish papers.”
Perhaps the frankest expression of this viewpoint was that of Evelyn Baring Lord Cromer, a Round Table-converted “Zionist” by 1916-17, in an article in The Spectator titled “Zionism and the Jewish Future”: “The most passionately ardent Jews prefer persecution, which keeps alive the flames of nationalism, to emancipation, which tends to quench it.”
Aside from the nine-member Cabinet and Cabinet Secretariat, a few other individuals can be included in the topmost circles of coordination of Zionism in this period:
•James de Rothschild, Edmond de Rothschild, and Lionel Lord Rothschild: James was a scion of the French branch of the family who worked in England during this period to coordinate British Zionist activities. James made several important interventions into the U.S. situation, including crucial work with Brandeis’s circle in manipulating President Woodrow Wilson. Edmond, already controller of much of the Palestine colonization, extensively manipulated French internal politics toward the emergence of a pro-Zionist government faction which supported the Balfour Declaration. Lord Rothschild was the Rothschild to whom the Balfour Declaration was addressed. He was the son of Lord Nathaniel “Natty” Rothschild, who had died in 1915. “Natty” was one of the original “circle of initiates” of the Round Table, who managed the Rhodes Trust until management passed to his son-in-law Lord Roseberry in the early 1900s.
•Winston Churchill: Churchill popped in and out of cabinets throughout the 1914-1921 period. He was a scion of the Marlborough family which had been allied with the Cecils ever since the seventeenth century, when they helped dump the Stuarts to bring England under the House of Orange. Churchill was also a descendant of “Zionist pioneer” Charles Henry Churchill of the 1840- 53 period. In 1908 Winston authored a statement insisting that “Jerusalem must be the only ultimate goal… The establishment of a Jewish State astride the bridge between Europe and Africa, flanking the land roads to the East, would not only be an immense advantage to the British Empire but a notable step towards a harmonious disposition of the world among its peoples.” In 1920 Churchill called for “the creation in our lifetime by the banks of the Jordan of a Jewish State under the protection of the British Crown which might comprise three to four millions of Jews.” In 1920, Churchill was attacking “international and for the most part atheistical Jews” for the Bolshevik Revolution, “the struggle which is now beginning between Zionism and Bolshevik Jews is little less than the struggle for the soul of the Jewish people.”
•Geoffrey Dawson: Editor of the London Times during World War I, and a Round Tabler. In mid-1917, the notoriously anti-Semitic Times started writing news articles on the Zionist issue, including a May 1917 endorsement of the Zionists.
•C.P. Scott: Editor of the Manchester Guardian, personal confidant of Lloyd George, contact man between the Round Table elite and Chaim Weizmann during an earlier period, and the man largely responsible for the launching of the British Palestine Committee. Scott was intensely concerned about using Zionism to win the U.S. to the British war cause, and published a Guardian piece calling for Palestine to become a “buffer state between Egypt and the North, inhabitated … by an intensely patriotic race…. On the realization of that condition depends the whole future of the British Sea Empire.”
•Sir Herbert Samuel: As Minister of Health and Home Secretary in the previous Asquith government, Samuel was the author and circulator of in-cabinet policy statements in the 1914-16 period calling for official British support of Zionism. Samuel was to serve in the 1920s as British High Commissioner of Palestine and was to be a coordinator of the Israeli Red Cross in the 1940s and 1950s — an intelligence operation he was trained for during his earlier work with the Fabian Society’s “settlement house” operations.
•Lord Brand: One of the Milner Kindergarten in the 1900-1910 period, who took over the Lazard Bank’s international interests several years later; he became the key controller of Lazard-New York head Eugene Meyer. Meyer was at the 1914 founding conference of the Zionist Organization of America with Brandeis and a handful of others. Around these 17 or so individuals, second, third, and fourth circles carried out British-Zionist policy internationally:
•A second circle of top-level civil servants, newspaper writers, British and American Zionists, and British intelligence agents provided credibility through propaganda for Zionist support-institutions and the “Jewish home” in Palestine.
•A third circle of Zionists epitomized by Chaim Weizmann acted as the transmission belt between the elite and the Zionist troops. For all the ink that has been expended on Weizmann’s catalytic role in getting the Balfour Declaration, he was in fact proselytizing among an elite that had been convinced of Zionism decades before Weizmann was born.
•The Zionist mass organizations, which grew exponentially after the Balfour Declaration.
THE CREATION OF NAZISM
In 1929, Amery, Samuel, Ormsby-Gore, and James de Rothschild established themselves as a parliamentary “watchdog for Zionist interests.” At the same time, Smuts, Balfour, Churchill, Cecil, and Lloyd George were writing pro-Zionist petitions published by the Dawson’s London Times.
At a 1930s private meeting at which Churchill was the principal guest, and to which Amery, Lloyd George, James de Rothschild and Weizmann were invited, Churchill pointed to Weizmann and screeched, “You are our master and what you say goes. If you ask us to fight we shall fight like tigers.” Churchill insisted that the Zionists must “persevere, persevere, persevere…. By all means let us have a Jewish majority in Palestine.”
As for Philip Kerr Lord Lothian, keeper of the Rhodes Trust from 1925-40: While serving as British ambassador to the U.S. in the 1939-40 period, Lothian helped organize support rallies in New York for Zionist Anglophile extremist Vladimir Jabotinsky.
At the same time, the same group was creating Nazism.
Nazism grew out of a special project of Round Table-Oxford circles in the last quarter of the nineteenth century to create a Teutonic or Germanic race cult around the myths of the Norse god, Odin. For many of the inner elite groups congregated around the Scottish Rite Freemasons, back to the earlier days of Palmerston and Bulwer-Lytton, the swastika was a universally used symbol, since it was a favorite symbol of scores of ancient bestial mystic cults. The swastika appears on John Ruskin’s gravestone. It was also Rudyard Kipling’s personal hex.
With Cecil Rhodes and others pushing “Germanic race” integration into Anglo-Saxon geopolitics, preparations were ongoing at various points, but especially in the 1920s, to transform Germany into a Marcher Lord East against Russia and as a partner in an “Anglo-Saxon”-run world. The London-connected Wittelsbach’s family agent, Professor Karl Haushofer, ghost-wrote Mein Kampf for Adolf Hitler, which explicitly included Germany linking up with Britain in a global alliance. This Nazi policy was set in motion by the Lloyd George government, which at Versailles pushed for the harshest reparations policies, and then suddenly started “softening” — to allow for German rearmament.
In a nutshell, the policy of the Round Table for Germany throughout the 1918-1939 period was to support a combination of extreme debt collection and rearmament for which Warburg agent Hjalmar Schacht’s policy — leading to the Jewish extermination camps — was the necessary expression.
The following individuals were among those building Nazism to serve Anglo-Saxon geopolitical mysticism: Lord Milner, Leopold Amery, Jan Christaan Smuts, Lord Brand, Winston Churchill, and the scions of the Rothschild family. With a small handful of others, these members of the “Cliveden Set” (Cliveden was the name of the Astor family estate where the Round Table coordinators met) utilized their enormous influence in the international press to build up “critical support” for the Nazi atrocity.
Thus in the mid-1930s Lothian traveled to Germany to try to keep Hitler on the track of maintaining Germany in the fold of Anglo-Saxon world politics.
Amery, Lothian, et al. only broke with the Hitler policy in the 1939-40 period, when their Frankenstein got out of control. Policy then shifted toward involving the U.S. in saving the British Empire.
Obviously, Churchill’s “anti-Nazi” image is bluff and myth. Throughout the war Sir Winston specifically forbade operations inside Germany that would have brought in an anti-Hitler leadership. As he said before parliament, he preferred Hitler.
The role of the Jewish-name members of the Round Table elite in all this is particularly damning. Not until the late 1930s, and in some cases right through to 1940, did important elements in the Rothschild clique break with the Germanic-race-cult geopolitics. Max Warburg of the Warburg families, whose members were almost in all cases trained in finance by the Rothschilds, was, according to a recent biography of the Warburgs, one of the foremost advisers to Hjalmar Schacht, throughout the 1920s and 1930s. All coverups aside, it was Schacht, in collaboration with the Warburg interests, the Schroeder Bank, and the Bank of England, who made the 1932 decision to put Hitler in power. After making that decision, Schacht successfully sold the Hitler option to the Rothschild-run New York-based “Our Crowd” families during a visit to the U.S. in 1932. The manipulations of the Rothschild-linked Goldman Sachs investment house in New York, and of the American and German branches of the Warburg families, were in large part instrumental in putting the Krupp and I.G. Farben interests respectively on an irreversible course of support for Nazi economics, against the Rapallo course of East-West cooperation for the industrialization for Germany.
A concluding note on the Chamberlains. It is of more than passing interest that Nazi-fawning, anti-communist Neville Chamberlain was sent out to marshal support for Zionism among English Jews in 1917 after the announcement of the Balfour Declaration. Said this backer of Hitler, “The existence of this new Jewish State would only add to the dignity and influence of Jews in other countries.”
The Chamberlain family, of course, had earlier been blessed with one of the great race-cult mystics of the past hundred years, Richard Wagner’s in-law Houston Stewart Chamberlain. Yet more interesting is Joseph Chamberlain, father of Neville, and author of the following words: “I have been called the apostle of the Anglo-Saxon race, and I am proud of the title. I think the Anglo-Saxon race is as fine as any on earth. Not that I despise other races. They have their several virtues and aptitudes, though I admit the aptitudes of my own race appeal to me most strongly. There is, in fact, only one race that I despise — the Jews. They are physical cowards.”
Not surprisingly, Joseph Chamberlain became strongly pro-Zionist as a result of meetings with Herzl. In the words of his biographer, Julian Amery (of the same foul Amery clan), “Hitherto his interest in Zionism had been chiefly humanitarian. He now saw in it more positive opportunities for British policy…. He was the first among British statesmen to see in Zionism both an end to the ancient Jewish problem and a means of advancing the interests of the British Empire.”
Isis and Mother Zion
The cult of Isis which Britain’s oligarchists espouse is the fount from which thousands of variants of the Isis mother-worship theme have flowed over the last two millennia. That the oligarchs’ Zionist bastard was just another creation in the same mold is made gruesomely clear by confessionary analyses of the psychoanalytic roots of the Zionist mythos recently published in Israel.
According to the author of the book The Israeli Women, Lesley Hazleton — whose analysis overlaps significantly with that of Jay Gonen, the Israeli-born author of A Psychohistory of Zionism — Zionism’s predominant impulse is an acting out of son-mother incest.
Hazleton documents this by quoting first from the prophet Isaiah’s words addressed to the city of Jerusalem: “Thy land shall be espoused/For as a young man espouseth a virgin/So shall thy sons espouse thee.” She continues:
The longing for Zion was one of the mainsprings of Jewish solidarity throughout the long centuries of dispersion; to act on that longing, however, was tantamount to an act of incest. As a mystical idea, the return to Zion afforded the bond of a future but “never to be achieved in our lifetime” redemption. It was imagined, as Isaiah indicates, in terms of the return of son to mother in sexual union.
Then, citing the prophet Ezekiel’s characterization of “non-Jewish” sovereignty over Jerusalem to acts of “multiple harlotries,” Hazleton writes:
The sons were to mount Mount Zion in the role of rescuer and sexual claimant, the young groom returning to claim his bride, the son his mother. The result of the intercourse between son and mother would be the rebirth of the son himself, who would give new life to his mother by saving her from the iniquities of suffering under foreign rule and restore her innocence and light as mother and life giver. It is thus little wonder that the fiercest enemies of Zionism in the early years of this century were the religious leaders of East European Jewry.
Describing the attitudes of the first Zionist “pioneers,” Hazleton notes that their “coming to the land to rebuild it and be rebuilt” was
far more than a personal endeavor, this rebuilding signified both a personal and a group homecoming, a return to the womb of history in the form of the “espoused” — Zion. The charismatic socialist Zionist leader Meir Yaari, guru of the commune of Bittania near the Sea of Galilee, was unafraid to express the sexuality of their zeal. The land they tilled, he said, was their bride, and they themselves “the bridegroom who abandons himself in his bride’s bosom … thus we abandon ourselves to the motherly womb of the sanctifying earth.”
Hazleton then quotes Gonen’s “interpretation” of this psychopathology: “Mother Zion, after being made love to by her ‘homecoming’ sons, gave birth to new life. Thus, the children replaced their father, husbanded their mother, and fathered themselves. They therefore experienced a Zionist ‘rebirth’ in which they played the new and masterful role of the potent life giver.”
In his book, Gonen adds this flourish: the Zionist “frame of mind … implies that once again mother Zion was being fertilized and impregnated by the ascending sons who came to her rescue. Since they found her desolate, they husbanded her and made her bloom again Through the mediation of mother earth of the ‘desolate’ land of Israel, they were able to fuse the role of the Lord and master with that of newborn babes. In this fusion they tapped the energy source of an early infantile omnipotence which can do magic.”
Theodore Herzl, “the father of Zionism,” Gonen notes, “captured this timeless actuality” in his novels.
The Zionist enterprise, Gonen claims, could be summed up in the slogan, “We came to the land to build and be rebuilt.” Or: “The Zionist endeavor was a magnificent obsession containing the idea that the sons of Israel ought to return and rescue their mother Zion.
THE HEBREW LANGUAGE
Hazleton extends the point to an analysis of the Hebrew language:
In itself a rebirth, having lain dormant for thousands of years except in strictly religious use, Hebrew gives expression to the national symbolism of sex roles. For example the word for motherland, “modelet,” is a feminine noun derived from the verb “to give birth.” Yigal Yadin, Israel’s soldier-archaeologist-politician (and founder of the Masada death-cult expedition in the 1950s — ed.), uses the word in exactly this sense when he described archaeology as “digging into the motherland, back to the womb”
“Gever” is the Hebrew for man, pronounced with the main accent on the first syllable, giving it an aggressive swing. The word also means a cock, or rooster. But if heroism is purely masculine in Hebrew, weapons and fighting are even more explicitly so. While the sexual connotations of “gever” derive from the cock of the roost, those of weaponry derive directly from the penis. The Hebrew for penis is “zayin,” which is also the word for a weapon. The phrase for Israel’s armed forces can thus translate as “an army equipped with penises,” and the verb meaning “to take up arms” also means “to have sexual intercourse. ‘
The Hebrew language, of course, has all along been key in reinforcing the ultra-hermetic qualities of Zionism. To this day, Hebrew code words from the cabalistic writings of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries are used by Israel’s Mossad intelligence service for internal communications. Israeli army men are called to war exercises and mobilizations by such phrases as “the elders council,” “study of the Torah,” and “product of the soil.” Many Israelis have adopted Hebrew names, to sever the historical connections to “the Diaspora’: among the English translations of commonly adopted names are antagonist, strength, towering, lightning, bear, and lion.
Amos Elon, author of The Israelis: Founders and Sons, gives the following account of the founder of modern Hebrew, Eliezer Ben Yehuda (who had changed his name from Eliezer Perlmann). While reading “pan-Slavic tracts” in 1878, he
suddenly … realized the lesson implied for a small people like his own, and the imperative need to immediately “recreate Israel and its language upon the home soil. . .” When he first broached this idea to an acquaintance, Ben Yehuda … was warned that he was sick and must consult a doctor.
Ben Yehuda’s wife knew no Hebrew; while still on shipboard he told her that in Palestine they would speak nothing but Hebrew. He ruthlessly kept his vow. When his first son, Itamar, was born … he became the first child in centuries to hear only Hebrew from both his parents and almost nothing from anyone else, for he was kept isolated from all human contact lest the purity of his Hebrew be spoiled by alien sounds. His mother, though weak and ailing, agreed to her husband’s demand not to hire a servant in order that the child might hear nothing but the holy tongue. “We feared the walls of our home, the spaces of our room, lest they echo the sounds of a foreign language … and reach the child’s ear … we wished to keep all foreign sounds distant….”
It was a risky undertaking. The language was still archaic. Many words indispensable in modern intercourse were missing. The child had no playmates; until his third year he remained almost mute and often refused to utter a word.
Ben Yehuda’s wife died in 1891 of tuberculosis that she had contracted from her husband. Ben Yehuda, undeterred by the tremendous opposition from almost everyone he knew, remained firm, and by his fanaticism proved that Hebrew could become a language fit for ordinary daily usage.
Perfidy: The Story The Zionists Had to Suppress
The book Perfidy, written by playwright Ben Hecht in 1961, is the single most damning statement to date on the interchangeability of the British-Zionist cabal that ran Israel during its early years and the leadership of the Nazis.
In the book, Hecht presented extended excerpts from the famous 1953 Kastner trial, in which the pro-Nazi activities of Rudolf Kastner, head of a Hungarian branch of the so-called Jewish Agency Rescue Committee during World War II and later a spokesman for the Ministry of Trade and Industry in the new Israeli state, were brought to light in excruciating detail. In a trial that rocked Israel to its foundations, Kastner, one of the inner circle of the Zionist elite around Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion during the 1943-53 decade, was revealed to have been the main Zionist agent of the Nazi exterminators of Hungary’s Jews. Kastner, an Israeli court was shown, systematically deluded the leadership of Hungary’s 800,000 Jews into believing that the Nazis were interested merely in mass relocation of the Jews, not mass murder. In return for this genocidal deception, Kastner was allowed to handpick a small Zionist elite of 388 Jews, mostly from his own family, to flee to Palestine.
Hecht’s book detailed Kastner’s collaboration with Heinrich Himmler, Adolf Eichmann, and others with such precision that his book was suppressed, censored, and removed from libraries. Hecht’s wife, who after his death tried to get the book republished, has been subjected to pressure and threats from the Zionist lobby in the U.S. Today, copies of Hecht’s book are distributed virtually on a blackmarket basis.
Excerpts from Perfidy are printed below. We begin with Adolf Eichmann’s testimonial to Kastner’s activities, which Hecht quoted from ” Eichmann’s Confessions” published in the November 28 and December 5, 1960 editions of Life magazine.
In Hungary my basic orders were to ship all the Jews out of Hungary in as short a time as possible. Now, after years of working behind a desk, I had come out into the raw reality of the field. As Muller put it, they had sent me, the “master” himself, to make sure the Jews did not revolt as they had in the Warsaw Ghetto. I use the word “master” in quotation marks because people used it to describe me. Since they had sent the “master,” however, I wanted to act like a master. I resolved to show how well a job could be done when the commander stands 100 percent behind it. By shipping the Jews off in a lightning operation, I wanted to set an example for future campaigns elsewhere…. In obedience to Himmler’s directive, I now concentrated on negotiations with the Jewish political officials in Budapest … among them Dr. Rudolf Kastner, authorized representative of the Zionist Movement. This Dr. Kastner was a young man about my age, an ice-cold lawyer and a fanatical Zionist. He agreed to help keep the Jews from resisting deportation — and even keep order in the collection camps — if I would close my eyes and let a few hundred or a few thousand young Jews emigrate illegally to Palestine. It was a good bargain. For keeping order in the camps, the price … was not too high for me….
We trusted each other perfectly. When he was with me, Kastner smoked cigarets as though he were in a coffeehouse. While we talked he would smoke one aromatic cigaret after another, taking them from a silver case and lighting them with a silver lighter. With his great polish and reserve he would have made an ideal Gestapo officer himself.
Dr. Kastner’s main concern was to make it possible for a select group of Hungarian Jews to emigrate to Israel….
As a matter of fact, there was a very strong similarity between our attitudes in the S.S. and the viewpoint of these immensely idealistic Zionist leaders…. I believe that Kastner would have sacrificed a thousand or a hundred thousand of his blood to achieve his political goal…. “You can have the others,” he would say, “but let me have this group here.” And because Kastner rendered us a great service by helping to keep the deportation camps peaceful, I would let his group escape. After all, I was not concerned with small groups of a thousand or so Jews…. That was the “gentleman’s agreement” I had with Kastner. (pp. 260-261)
A coexterminator of Eichmann’s, S.S. Colonel von Wisliczeny, expanded on the nature of this Zionist-Nazi relationship.
Our system is to exterminate the Jews through the Jews. We concentrate the Jews in the ghettos — through the Jews; we deport the Jews — by the Jews; and we gas the Jews — by the Jews. (p261)
Hecht develops these points more fully in the body of the text.
The Final Solution was decided on in Berlin in 1941 — total extermination of all Jews before the German military defeat put an end to the opportunity.
The S.S. Colonels in Budapest had a knotty problem to solve in carrying out their end of the work speed-up. How to capture and deport eight hundred thousand Jews for killing in Auschwitz with only 130 S.S. as foremen? And only five thousand Hungarian gendarmes….
The only possible way of getting Hungary’s Jews to Auschwitz on schedule was to keep them ignorant of their fate. Even more, to do everything possible to spread the delusion among them that the Germans in Horthy’s Hungary were human folk with no murder in their eye…. (A quote from Eichmann years later): “With Hungary we were particularly concerned. The Hungarian Jews had lived through the war relatively untouched by severe restrictions. We wanted Hungary combed with a tremendous thoroughness before the Jews could really wake up to our plan and organize partisan resistance.” The S.S. launched their delusion offensive at a first get together with Hungary’s leaders of Jewry…. With the Jewish leaders properly drugged, the Germans started the Jew round-up cautiously…. But the Germans smelled trouble ahead. Reports were coming in that Jewish groups were meeting in secret, trying to organize armed resistance. Other Doubting Thomases were escaping across the border to areas that offered haven for Jews. The exodus might grow….. Enter here, an answer to the German problem — Rudolf Kastner…. The Kastner personality is definitely a plus in Nazi eyes. It can be utilized. But more important than who Kastner is, is what he is. He is the representative of the Jewish Agency of Palestine, and a member of Ben-Gurion’s Mapai Party…. He will continue the “Elite policy” of Weizmann (the policy enunciated by Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann in 1937 that Europe’s Jews were “dust … in a cruel world…. They must meet their fate…. Only a branch will survive. They must accept it.” — ed.) and, after some modest protests, will be satisfied with the rescue of a selected group of six hundred…. With Eichmann’s approval, Dr. Kastner alters the original deal somewhat. Instead of picking Jews from any “outlying towns,” he picks three hundred and eighty-eight Jews from Kluj (Kastner’s home village — ed.) alone. They are the “best,” the most important members of Kluj Jewry — mainly Zionists. He includes also his own family…. Kastner knows the truth about the Final Solution, about the S.S. plan to deport all the eight hundred thousand Jews of Hungary to Auschwitz for cremation…. If Kastner breathes a word of this truth to a single condemned Jew in Kluj, the entire Final Solution will be wrecked. The twenty thousand Jews of Kluj will knock over their handful of guards and escape to Rumania, three miles away…. Kastner walks among the twenty thousand Jews in the town … helps cool the trouble-makers down. He has the Zionist organization to help him. In Kluj, the Zionists are the leaders of Jewry…. Authority speaks. The wise tongues wag. The respected ones dazzle their twenty thousand listeners with their respectability. And the day is saved — for authority. They will ride off to life, their twenty thousand listeners to death…. (pp. 95-109) AJewish escapee from Auschwitz elaborated further on the Kastner- Jewish Agency-Nazi working relationship. I am a Jew. In spite of that — indeed because of that — I accuse certain Jewish leaders of one of the most ghastly deeds of the war. This small group of quislings knew what was happening to their brethren in Hitler’s gas chambers and bought their own lives with the price of silence. Among them was Dr. Kastner, leader of the council which spoke for all Jews in Hungary…. I was able to give Hungarian Zionist leaders three weeks notice that Eichmann planned to send a million of their Jews to his gas chambers…. Kastner went to Eichmann and told him, I know of your plans; spare some Jews of my choice and I shall keep quiet.’ Eichmann not only agreed but dressed Kastner up in S.S. uniform and took him to Belsen to trace some of his friends. Nor did the sordid bargaining end there. Kastner paid Eichmann several thousand dollars. With this little fortune, Eichmann was able to buy his way to freedom when Germany collapsed, to set himself up in the Argentine…. (pp. 261-262) Hecht also presented cogent evidence that the Jewish Agency (the Israeli-state official governing body for Israel) and the Joint Distribution Committee systematically and willfully withheld information from the world’s press and governments about the mass extermination of Jews by Hitler; that affidavits written by Kastner immediately after the war were solely responsible for the acquittal by the Nuremberg Trials of such genocidal murderers as Kurt Becher; and that Kastner’s activities were only a somewhat extreme variant of the hegemonic attitude of the Zionist leadership of David Ben-Gurion, Moshe Sharett, and others, whom Hecht frequently identifies as nothing more than British stooges. After noting that the judge who was presiding over a libel case that Kastner had brought against a journalist who accused him of collaborating with the Nazis stressed that Kastner’s wartime duties were “part and parcel of the general duties of the S.S.,” Hecht documented the extreme political discomfort felt by the British-loving Ben-Gurion elite as a result of the Kastner expose and the failure of the libel trial. As the possibility mounted in 1950s Israel that Kastner would be put on trial himself for Nazi collaboration and that the whole Mapai group would be tarred with the same charge, Rudolf Kastner was suddenly assassinated — by a young man who, Hecht noted, had been in the employ of Israeli intelligence just months before the assassination occurred. Two additional anecdotes from Ben Hecht’s Perfidy. One witness at the libel suit which Kastner brought against his accuser provided documents which proved that during the war the Allied powers refused to bomb the crematoria at Auschwitz even though nearby industrial and related installations were hit by bombing raids. Tens of thousands of Jews, it could be surmised, would have escaped death if this operation had been carried out. Hecht concludes his book with an account of the Joel Brand case. Brand, a member of a Jewish Rescue Committee in Hungary, had arranged an exchange deal with Adolf Eichmann whereby Eichmann would deactivate plans for extermination of Hungary’s Jews in return for several thousand trucks for, Germany. In full collaboration with British intelligence, Hecht points out, the Jewish Agency executive — including David Ben-Gurion, Moshe Sharett, and Ehud Avriel — had Brand arrested by the British in Syria when he came to the Middle East to plead his case for the deal. Brand was detained for four and a half months. Needless to say, the deal with Eichmann was sabotaged by this British-Zionist operation. Nearly a million Jews perished as a result.