By Douglas Reed
From The Controversy of Zion
From The Controversy of Zion
The Jews,
directed by their Talmudic rulers, took a leading part in the struggle for
emancipation. That in itself was fair enough. The masses of Christendom held
from the start that the liberties to be won should ultimately accrue to all
men, without distinction of race, class or creed; that was the very meaning of
the struggle itself, and anything else or less would have made it meaningless.
Nevertheless, in the case of the
Jews there was an obvious paradox which repeatedly baffled and alarmed the
peoples among whom they dwelt: The Jewish Law expressed the theory of the
master-race in the most arrogant and vindictive form conceivable to the human
imagination; how then could the Jews attack nationhood in others? Why did the
Jews demand the levelling of barriers between men when they built an ever
stronger barrier between the Jews and other men? How could people, who claimed
that God had made the very world itself for them to rule, and forbade them to
mix with lesser breeds, complain of discrimination?
Now that another hundred and fifty
years have passed, the answer to such questions has been given by events.
It was true that the
Jewish clamour for emancipation was not truly concerned with the great idea or
principle at issue: human liberty.
The judaic Law denied that idea and
principle. The Talmudic governors of Jewry saw that the quickest way to remove
the barriers between themselves and power over nations was to destroy
legitimate government in these nations; and the quickest way to that end was to
cry “emancipation!”.
Thus the door opened by emancipation
could be used to introduce the permanent revolutionary force into the
life of nations; with the destruction of all legitimate government, the
revolutionaries would succeed to power, and these revolutionaries would be
Talmud-trained and Talmud-controlled. They would act always under the Mosaic
Law, and in this way the end of Babylon could be reproduced in the West.
The evidence of events in the
Twentieth Century now shows that this was the plan to which the Talmudic elders
worked during the third phase of the story of Zion, from 70 AD to about 1800
AD. Thus there was the widest possible difference in the understanding of
“emancipation” by the Christianized European peoples among whom the Jews dwelt
and among the Talmudic rulers of the Jews.
For the great mass of peoples
emancipation represented an end: the end of servitude.
For the powerful, secret sect it
represented a means to the opposite end; the imposition of a new and harsher
servitude.
One great danger attended this
undertaking. It was, that the destruction of barriers between men might also
destroy the barrier between the Jews and other men; this would have destroyed
the plan itself, for that force would have been dispersed which was to be used,
emancipation once gained, to “pull down and destroy” the nations.
This very nearly happened in the
fourth phase of the story of Zion; the century of emancipation (say, from 1800
to 1900 AD) brought the peril of “assimilation”. In the century of “freedom” a
great number of Jews, in Western Europe and in the new “West” oversea, did
evince the desire to cast off the chains of the Judaic Law and to mingle
themselves with the life of peoples.
For that reason our Zionist
historian, Dr. Kastein, considers the Nineteenth Century to be the
darkest age in all Jewish history, fraught with the deadly peril of
involvement in mankind, which happily was averted.
He cannot contemplate without
horror the destruction, through assimilation, of the Judaic barriers of
race and creed. Thus he calls the Nineteenth Century movement towards
emancipation “retrograde” and thanks God that “the Zionist ideology”
preserved the Jews from the fate of assimilation.
No comments:
Post a Comment