NATIONAL VANGUARD natvan.com June-July 2004

POSTSCRIPTS

by Revilo Oliver

Douglas Reed and

The Controversy of Zion

DOUGLAS REED wrote his final book, The Controversy of Zion, in 1954-56, but it was not published for 23 years, some years after his death.1 It is not clear to me to what extent he subsequently revised it or to what extent it was edited by Mr. Ivor Benson, the publisher and author of the book’s foreword. It was being described as still “incomplete” a few months before Reed died. We may assume that the book is substantially Reed’s work, the only question being whether he would have revised it for the press, had he lived to do so. With those caveats, we can say that it represents his mature thoughts on the alien forces which have ruled the West since 1945, which he saw at such close quarters during his years as a world-renowned foreign correspondent.

We cannot expect an Englishman who lived through the war of 1939-45, suffered the many hardships inflicted on the English population, and doubtless had friends and relatives who were killed during that war, to be fair to the National Socialist regime in Germany. This is especially true of Reed, who began with a hostility toward Germany imbibed when he fought in the First World War, and who committed himself in print to a vehement animosity against Hitler and the National Socialists when he was a correspondent in Germany in the early years of Hitler’s emergence from obscurity; see his Insanity Fair (1938), in which he predicted the coming war and thought the Germans wanted it. Few men can bring themselves to renounce publicly views they have conspicuously advocated in public—if men had no vanity, they would differ little from dumb brutes— and few can forgive the immediate cause of hardships and suffering, even if they eventually learn of antecedent causes. This is simply a psychological principle, illustrated, for example, by the maxim of the Republican Party in the 1880s and 1890s: “We can always wring another president out of the bloody shirt,” i.e., by appealing to the resentments of persons in the North who had lost fathers, sons, or other close relatives during the invasion and conquest of the South. And this, by the way, is a psychological principle of which the Jews naturally make great use. An army officer who was with troops that entered Germany in 1945 commented to me on the conduct of one of his fellow officers, who had taken a quite rational attitude toward the war against Germany until his brother, to whom he was deeply attached, was killed in the “Battle of the Bulge,” after which the man was animated by a psychopathic hatred of the Germans whose skill and courage in defending themselves and their country he had admired a week before.

What is much more important, Reed, possibly for tactical reasons, tries to distinguish between “good” Jews and “bad” Jews. He regards Benjamin D’Israeli, who became Earl of Beaconsfield and Prime Minister of the British Empire, as a defector from his race who tried to warn Englishmen of the Jews’ secret control of European governments and of their subversive conspiracies. It is possible, of course, that D’Israeli was sincere, but every one of his pronouncements, whether in Coningsby and other novels or in his political speeches, can be explained adequately as adroit devices to further his own political ambitions or as the tactics used by the Jews to further their already great penetration of Britain by raising a Jew to the British peerage and making him a “Tory” Prime Minister of the Empire they wished to destroy.

It is futile to argue about individuals, although I know of no Jew whom we can with assurance regard as a real defector from his race. Such defection is theoretically possible, since there are innumerable examples of persons of our race who joined other races and “went native” in the South Seas, Asia, and even North America, where they occasioned General Sherman's factual remark, “You can make an Indian of a White man, but you can never make a White man of an Indian.” Whether you can make a White man of a Jew is another question, but if it has been done a few times, the lusus nuturae would be of no practical importance. What is of practical importance is the attempted distinction between nice Jews and wicked Zionists. From their earliest appearance in history, the Jews seem to operate in two divisions: a center of Jews who openly profess their enormous superiority to the lower races; and bodies of marranos who cover the flanks of the main body by professing conversion to the culture of the people on whom the Jews are feeding, often ostentatiously rejecting and denouncing their undisguised compatriots. There are also violent antagonisms between Jewish factions, and quite commonly one or more factions try to enlist the support of the stupid goyim to suppress the rivals with whom they are really united in a common hatred of their hosts. To further its own ends, one faction usually uses marranos to cozen the goyim whom it wishes to manipulate. These internal Jewish quarrels are comparable to the “wars” between rival gangsters in our large cities during the Prohibition era.

An excellent example is the well-known rivalry between the two sons of Simon, Jesus and Onias, who slugged it out for the high priesthood in Jerusalem, both trying to enlist the support of the goy whom they both hated, Antiochus Epiphanes. Jesus was the cleverer of the two, of course, and did take in the Seleucid monarch, who evidently thought the marrano sincere in his hypocritical protestations of “conversion” to civilized life. Factions among the Jews naturally differ in their estimates of what is expedient. In the time of the Roman government of Judaea, the Jews who tried unsuccessfully to persuade the Roman governor to crucify Jesus son of Ananias certainly hated the Romans as much as he did, but judged that his revolutionary schemes had no chance of success and that an abortive outbreak at that time would merely result in governmental repression that would weaken the position of the Jews throughout the Empire. They were right, and so was the Roman administrator, who dismissed the man as a mere lunatic. We have a comparable situation today, with the position of power within the Jewish race reversed. There are Jews who oppose the Zionists and try to enlist support among the goyim because they believe, rightly or wrongly, that our race is not irremediably degenerate and that the Zionists will eventually over­tax even the almost infinite gullibility and stupidity of our people, thus causing a reaction that will be detrimental to the Jews who prefer to be inconspicuous parasites and placidly eat on us. It is likely that these anti-Zionist Jews sincerely prefer peaceful profit to open and arrogant assertion of dominion, and that they fear the consequences of a Zionist failure. They are like the rabbi in Chicago who, while not actually disclaiming the hoax of the “six million,” used his column in the Sun-Times to warn his race discreetly that by advertising the “Holocaust” they might give the goyim ideas that would be put into practice if the Americans became restive.

Reed, again perhaps for tactical reasons, joins the almost innumerable writers who have wasted printer's ink and paper to exploit the tradition that the Jesus who is the protagonist of the stories in the New Testament was, according to one tradition, a native of Galilee — and therefore not a Jew. Reed may well be sincere when he indulges in such futile arguments, but we should remember that had he not done so, his book would not now have been published. Ivor Benson, whatever his own opinions, has to conciliate the Christians to survive politically. His organization would disintegrate overnight if he alienated the True Believers who are the principal source of such financial and political support as is enjoyed by his tiny organization. This is simply a fact to bear in mind, whatever estimate we may make of his (and Reed's) private beliefs. The whole question of the antecedents and doctrines of the Jesus of the New Testament is nugatory. As Father Loisy candidly admitted in his various theological writings (see especially Les mystères païens et le mystère chrétien), there is no reason to suppose that anyone made a written record of what that Jesus said at the time, and by the time that the Christians started to compose gospels around A.D. 150, there were only tales that had been transmitted orally and so elaborated by the storytellers that no substratum of fact can now be certainly identified. Loisy thought that the tales were based on what was remembered of a single individual, but it is much more likely that the Jesus of the various gospels is a composite figure formed from tales about various Jewish agitators, most of whom, probably, were called Jesus, which, like our ‘Bill' or ‘Bob,' was one of the most common names given to males. The tale about conception in Galilee and birth in Judaea is obviously an expedient to combine stories about two agitators who were distinctly remembered when the oral traditions were being elaborated. A similar expedient is part of the well-known tradition about Robin Hood, who is, of course, a composite of a number of outlaws whose exploits were imaginatively elaborated by storytellers. There evidently was an outlaw named Locksley in the Fifteenth Century whose exploits were added to the composite figure and the two were combined by saying that Robin Hood had been born in a (fictitious) town named Locksley and so known as Robin of Locksley. This is a common and indeed normal process in the elaboration of myths. The important facts are that all the evidence about the Christians' Jesus (as distinct from the numerous Jewish revolutionists who bore that name and probably contributed to the composite myth) comes from the Christians' gospels.

All these gospels agree in giving him the name Jesus (to use the common English derivative), an extremely common colloquial contraction of an extremely common Jewish name, which was borne only by Jews. All the gospels call him a christ (= messiah), a title assumed only by Jewish revolutionary agitators who claimed divine inspiration. The only instance in which the term was applied to a non-Jew was the Jews' attempt to flatter Cyrus the Great by calling him a christ when he rewarded them for their good work in subverting and betraying the Babylonian Empire. All the gospels that regard that Jesus as a living man (as distinct from a phantom or a corporeal appearance temporarily assumed by a god) specifically identify him as a Jew. Attempts to conciliate Christians by sophistic arguments to obscure these facts may be politically expedient, but they are mere moonshine. Was Dr. Fu Manchu Chinese? A. S. Ward (“Sax Rohmer”) who wrote the stories about him says that he was. We can't go behind that fact.

With the allowances I have indicated above, Reed's posthumous book contains a great deal of important and valuable information and I recommend it highly.

I should perhaps add that in the foregoing comments I do not try to determine or suggest what political position or positions will be effective as a means of stimulating members of our race to act in self-preservation. I wish that I knew what would work. But I think that if we make an attempt to rouse them from their cataleptic trance we should know clearly in our minds what we are doing. — August, 1979

1. There is renewed interest in Reed's posthumous final work, as it is now available online at: knud.eriksen.adr.dk and a number of other sites, (and now in many languages at www.controversyofzion.info, k.e.)

Source

Biography by Revisionists.org
Biography by Mark Weber
Critical Biographies of Douglas Reed

Home