News Ticker

The Real Joker: Warmonger Extraordinaire Alfred Harmsworth aka Lord Northcliffe

EDITOR’S NOTE: Portions of this article’s historical references were extracted from Spartacus Educational, an encyclopedic resource written by historian John Simkin

The persona of newspaper magnate Alfred Charles William Harmsworth (1865 – 1922) leaps from pages of British history like some sort of real-world manifestation of the villainous Joker. In 1918, Britain conferred on Harmsworth the title Viscount (Lord) Northcliffe for his service as the head of the British war mission in the United States.

Lord Northcliffe bares as much responsibility for starting and prolonging World War I as anyone of that era. Indeed, he is the fonte of 20th century of chaos operatives and the century-old iteration of the Crime Syndicate that runs the world today.

Alfred Charles William Harmsworth, 1st Viscount Northcliffe

At the age of 23, Harmsworth, the editor and publisher of an obscure little weekly newspaper, married into British aristocracy by wedding Mary Elizabeth Milner, eldest daughter of Robert Milner, known as the Rothschild of the West Indies.

His mother claimed he would end up with no money and a brood of children with Mary. As you will see, Alfred proved to be a chip off the same block in the insights arena. The couple bore no children, but Harmsworth had four acknowledged children by two women with whom he had affairs, including a 16-year-old housemaid. As we see elsewhere in history, wealth and connections gained through marriage can launch a psychopath from mediocrity to the top of their field; in this case, publishing.

Harmsworth built what was then the largest periodical publishing empire in the world, Amalgamated Press. In 1896, he began publishing the Daily Mail in London, which was a hit, holding the world record for daily circulation until Harmsworth’s death. By 1914, he controlled 40 percent of the morning newspaper circulation in Britain, 45 percent of the evening and 15 percent of the Sunday circulation.

One of his journalists, Tom Clarke, pointed out that Lord Northcliffe dictated the political stance of his newspaper: “He (Northcliffe) was sometimes violent in both speech and action (once in his office he took a flying kick at the seat of the pants of a man who had annoyed him; and on another occasion put his foot through a man’s hat in his temper). He seldom sought advice, and treated it so roughly if he did not like it, that people hesitated to give it him. When he spoke, everybody else listened, usually without challenge. He suffered from little opposition.”

According to Harry J. Greenwall, the author of Northcliffe: Napoleon of Fleet Street (1957), Harmsworth “with the Daily Mail unleashed a tremendous force of potential mass thought-control” as it became the “trumpet… of British Imperialism.”

War is Good Business and Sells Newspapers

The Boer War proved to be very popular with the British public. In 1898, the Daily Mail was selling 400,000 copies a day. Harmsworth encouraged people to buy the newspaper for nationalistic reasons, making it clear to his readers that his newspaper stood “for the power, the supremacy and the greatness of the British Empire.” By 1899, it had reached 600,000. During the most dramatic moments of the war in 1900, it was almost a million and a half. However, after the war, circulation fell to 700,000.

Lord Northcliffe had consistently described Germany as Britain’s “secret and insidious enemy,” and he commissioned Robert Blatchford to visit Germany and write a series of articles setting out the dangers. The Germans Blatchford wrote, were making “gigantic preparations” to destroy the British Empire and “to force German dictatorship upon the whole of Europe.” He complained that Britain was not prepared and argued that the country was facing the possibility of an “Armageddon.” He used his newspapers to urge an increase in defense spending and a reduction in the amount of money being spent on social insurance schemes.

Harmsworth had developed a close relationship with fellow psychopath Winston Churchill. Churchill had trended toward butter instead of guns in national affairs. Then, influenced by Harmsworth, British Prime Minister Asquith appointed Churchill as head of the Admiralty in 1911. The Admiralty position suddenly cured Churchill’s passion for “economy.” The “new ruler of the King’s navy” demanded a massive expenditure on new battleships.

In 1912 and in the midst of warmongering and pressure to build up the military, PM Asquith wrote to his confidante Venetia Stanley: “He (Northcliffe) is anxious that I should see him. I hate and distrust the fellow and all his works… so I merely said that if he chose to ask me directly to see him, and he had anything really new to communicate, I would not refuse. I know of few men in this world who are responsible for more mischief, and deserve a longer punishment in the next.”

Harmsworth’s editorship of the Daily Mail in the run-up to the first World War, when the paper displayed “a virulent anti-German sentiment,” led The Star to declare, “Next to the Kaiser, Lord Northcliffe has done more than any living man to bring about the war.”

Such was Harmsworth’s influence on anti-German propaganda during the first World War that a German warship was sent to shell his house, Elmwood, in Broadstairs, in an attempt to assassinate him.

Once the war had started, Harmsworth used his newspaper empire to promote anti-German hysteria. It was the Daily Mail that first used the term “Huns” to describe the Germans and “thus at a stroke was created the image of a terrifying, ape-like savage that threatened to rape and plunder all of Europe, and beyond.”

As Philip Knightley, the author of “The First Casualty: The War Correspondent as Hero, Propagandist and Myth Maker” (1982), has pointed out: “The war was made to appear one of defense against a menacing aggressor. The Kaiser was painted as a beast in human form… The Germans were portrayed as only slightly better than the hordes of Genghis Khan, rapers of nuns, mutilators of children, and destroyers of civilisation.” In one report, the newspaper referred to Kaiser Wilhelm II as a “lunatic,” a “barbarian,” a “madman,” a “monster,” a “modern judas,” a “criminal monarch” and that familiar term “mad dog.”

For more on the true Kaiser Wilhelm II, see the “Innocence of Wilhelm II” below.

Once the war began, there were still openings to resolve it and restore peace. But Harmsworth used his influence to make sure cooler heads where shuttled aside. His newspapers campaigned for brutal hardliner Lord Kitchener to become Secretary of State for War over the more moderate Richard Haldane.

After Kitchener was installed, Harmsworth revealed what a vapid joker he was. He argued that Britain could use its navy to blockade and then defeat Germany, thus ending the war by Christmas 1914. Kitchener then presented to the bumblers, incompetents and jokers the wake up call. A.J.P. Taylor recounts: “He (Lord Kitchener) startled his colleagues at the first cabinet meeting which he attended by announcing that the war would last three years, not three months, and that Great Britain would have to put an army of millions into the field.” Harmsworth and fellow joker Winston Churchill’s war planning turned out badly misplaced.

On August 8, 1914, the House of Commons passed the Defence of the Realm Act (DORA) without debate. The legislation gave the government executive powers to suppress published criticism. During the war, publishing information calculated to be indirectly or directly of use to the enemy became an offense and accordingly punishable in a court of law. Lord Kitchener and the War Minister were determined not to have any journalists reporting the war from the western front.

Here, Harmsworth showed his true Luciferian colors and objected. His motive was not free speech but rather the ability to freely report and profit from newspaper sales, which were booming.

Inventing Atrocity Propaganda: Practiced to this Day

So Harmsworth directed his newspapers to develop contrived stories about German “atrocities” in Belgium and France. The vast majority of these have been determined to be falsifications. But at the time, they served to whip up war hysteria.

Madness is Repeating the Same Mistakes Over and Over

More than 3 million men volunteered to serve in the British Armed Forces during the first two years of the war. But by late 1915, after suffering large casualties, the Army was hitting the wall on replacements. Harmsworth was an early advocate for conscription (compulsory enrollment) and finally, on January 21, 1916, conscription was installed. He personally received a large number of threatening letters because of his compulsion campaign.

All the same, the joker Harmsworth and his War Party got another wake up call. In the first six months of conscription, the average monthly enlistment was not much above 40,000 — less than half the rate under the voluntary system.

In December 1915, General Douglas Haig was appointed Commander in Chief of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF). Harmsworth developed a close relationship with Haig and became convinced that he was the man to win the war. The joker’s message in his newspapers was that “the inept politicians were letting down the clever generals.”

By the spring of 1916, morale in Britain was at an all-time low. “Haig needed a breakthrough to boost the flagging spirits of a country.” A plan was hatched for a major offensive on the western front. The joker was let in on it and his job was to push propaganda for it.

One of his biographers, S. J. Taylor, points out: “Northcliffe… at last capitulated, the Daily Mail descending into the propagandizing prose that came to characterize the reporting of the first World War. It was a style long since adopted by his competitors; stirring phrases, empty words, palpable lies.”

As the Battle of the Somme began in early hours of July 1, 1916, Haig wrote: “I feel that every step in my plan has been taken with the Divine help.” Whose divine help is the real question.

On the first day of the battle, 13 British divisions went “over the top” in regular waves. The attack was a total failure. German machine guns mowed the British over in rows: 19,000 killed, 57,000 casualties sustained. It was the greatest loss in a single day ever suffered by a British army and the greatest suffered by any army in the first World War.

The joker lied about the defeat in the Daily Mail, running the headline “Enemy Outgunned.” It reported: “In the first battle, we have beaten the Germans by greater dash in the infantry and vastly superior weight in munitions.” In a later report, it claimed: “The very attitudes of the dead, fallen eagerly forwards, have the look of expectant hope. You would say they died with the light of victory in their eyes.” How poetic, Lucifer.

Wrong yet again Joker.

Haig had talked beforehand of breaking off the offensive, if it were not at once successful. Instead, as was the characteristic of the Luciferians, he doubled down. By the end of the Somme campaign, the British had suffered 420,000 casualties, the French lost nearly 200,000, and it is estimated that German casualties were in the region of 500,000. Despite mounting criticism over his disregard of British lives, Haig survived as commander-in-chief. One of the main reasons for this was the support he received from Harmsworth’s newspapers.

Following the fiasco at the Somme and the shedding there of more than 1.1 million of the flower of European manhood, Harmsworth developed a close friendship with David Lloyd George. Both men were concerned that the stalemate on the western front would encourage Asquith to seek a negotiated peace with Germany.

Harmsworth arranged for George to be interviewed by Roy Howard of the American United Press. Published on Sept. 29, 1916, the War Secretary declared that the Allies “intended to fight to the finish and would not agree to a compromise peace.”

The joker also needed scapegoats for the war’s disasters. It was felt that Asquith was turning into a slacker and was losing his stomach for more carnage. Thus, a press campaign was launched to successfully replace him with Lloyd George. In reality, George was the front for Lord Alfred Milner. Milner ran the Round Table, also called Milner’s Kindergarten, a group of mustachioed buggery homosexuals that housed a cartel of the most powerful and wealthy people on the planet. Winter Watch covered this in “Cecil Rhodes and his Warmongering Buggery Hegemony.”

The Daily Chronicle attacked the role that Harmsworth and the other newspaper barons played. It argued that the new government “will have to deal with the Press menace as well as the submarine menace; otherwise Ministries will be subject to tyranny and torture by daily attacks impugning their patriotism and earnestness to win the war.”

In reality, British war capability was diminished considerably. So the joker’s talents were turned to dragging, cajoling and bribing America into the senseless war. America entered WWI on April 6, 1917. Harmsworth in June 1917 went to the U.S. as head of the British war mission. It was said he had excellent relations with Woodrow Wilson and the War Party hacks around him.

With the U.S. in the war (but Russia being knocked out), the British doves mounted a short recovery. At the end of November 1917, Henry Petty-Fitzmaurice, 5th Marquess of Lansdowne, submitted a letter to The Times, another Harmsworth newspaper, calling for a negotiated peace. He refused to publish it, and it appeared in the Daily Telegraph instead.

In 1918, the joker became director of wartime propaganda. The title for all practical purposes was a formality.

Working Overtime and to the End to Ensure the Next Big War

Throughout 1918, Harmsworth, now dubbed Lord Northcliffe, continued to use his newspaper empire to call for Germany’s unconditional surrender. In one article, he suggested that unless Germany was crushed and large reparations extracted, Britain would have to deal with them sometime in the future. The joker even suggested that his newspapers might have to write about “The Great War of 1938.” As a truce loomed, Lord Northcliffe wrote to George demanding that he should be involved in the propaganda campaign that should take place before any peace agreement be signed with Germany. The joker, in effect, was working to humiliate Germany to such as extent that the seeds for WWII were planted.

After the Armistice, Geoffrey Dawson, the puppet editor of The Times, attended the Versailles Peace Conference. But Dawson resigned in February 1919, saying he found Lord Northcliffe’s “irresponsible Hun-baiting” intolerable. The joker was instrumental in behind-the-scenes lobbying to poison the Versailles Treaty and produce the worst possible product.

On April 6, 1919, his wartime ally George made an excoriating attack on Lord Northcliffe, calling his arrogance “diseased vanity.”

Lord Northcliffe’s health deteriorated rapidly in 1921. Some reports claim his was suffering from streptococcus, an infection of the bloodstream that damages the valves of the heart and causes kidney malfunction. Other reports claim he died of neurosyphilis. Either way, Lord Joker Northcliffe died none too soon in August 1922 at age 57. One of his last pronouncement was that “God is a homosexual.”

19 Comments on The Real Joker: Warmonger Extraordinaire Alfred Harmsworth aka Lord Northcliffe

  1. During the war, Harmsworth worked hand in glove with general John Charteris, Douglas Haig’s intelligence chief and Harmsworth’s evil twin.
    Known to his fellow officers as “Haig’s evil counsellor” Charteris was the source of much of the worst atrocity propaganda, including the ‘corpse factory’ lie where Germans were falsely accused of making soap from human bodies. This lie proved so useful that it was used again in WW2.

    Why are German casualties always ‘estimated’ in British accounts of WW1? Because Charteris simply made them up from thin air. The Germans always published their casualty numbers in the newspaper, and German newspapers were easily purchased in neutral Holland, so it was easy to find out exactly what the German casualty figures were. The actual figures were not high enough for Charteris, so he simply raised them by 50 or 100%. These ‘estimated’ figures are still used by British historians to this day, even though they know them to be false.
    I don’t know if Charteris was gay, but Haig certainly was, as were most of his staff, and his equally evil mentors Kitchener and Lord Esher as well.

    • Could this be what is happening today in America? The neoliberal Democrat imperialist are starting to break with the neocon Republicans on their undying love and support for the state of Israel, but are still fine with never ending wars spanning the globe.

      Kevin Alfred Storm presents Harmsworth as the British nationalist hero, forever fighting for the advancement of the British Empire, but in the later stages of his life becoming concerned with the evil “Joos”. Truth is the authors of the Balfour Declaration, whose authors consisted of Walter Rothschild, Arthur Balfour, Leo Amery, Lord Milner, ran in the same circles as Harmsworth. Both advocated for the prolonging of the war, which would add million’s more dead, including the “Johnny come lately” Yanks. For America it was all about serving their Jewish masters and allowing the arms manufactures to fill their filthy coffers with blood money. Whatever their reasons were for their part in that most horrendous of genocides, they both deserve a place in hell.

      The following quote explains why the neoliberals are absolutely no different than neocons when it comes to imperialism: Today�s neoliberal imperialism crushes all unfavourable conditions through multiple forms of oppression to ensure the creation of a world in its own image. The systemic and structural oppression birthed by neoliberal imperialism, once again, reproduces and implements colonialism-armed robbery on a global scale. The difference between the old form and the new form is the scale of destruction and the overt use of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Hence the militarization of the globe is a natural outcome. In this book, Professor Tatah Mentan argues that United Fruit Company, for instance, could not have flourished without the strong support of the Marines, the U.S State Department and all of its resources. In fact, the French, the German, the British and the Belgian financiers could not have been able to suck the blood out of their colonies without their legionnaires, soldiers, mercenaries, preachers, merchants and generals. Specifically, the Western colonial empires in the nineteenth century presented their penetration, pillage, and rape of Africa, Asia, and Latin America as modernization and tutelage, aided by the ideology of �survival of the fittest.� This conceit pervaded the entire Western bourgeois social science, educational and religious institutions. And today, there is the same clear symbiotic relationship between business and the military. Empirical realities demonstrate that companies like Microsoft could not enjoy its overwhelming prosperity without having the strong military that America has. This is precisely why neoliberal imperialism operates alongside oppressive militarism, war and dictatorship and must be disrupted to liberate mankind from its death-grip.

  2. One of Harmsworth’s worst propaganda creations ‘The Rape of Belgium’ still persists in history books to this very day. The Germans were accused of every sort of evil atrocity, and almost always falsely.
    Clarence Darrow the famous American lawyer, offered $500, which was a great deal of money in those days, to anyone who could produce a Belgian child whose hands had been cut off by the Germans. He got no takers.
    The English writer Robert Graves, who served as an infantry officer in Flanders, said in his memoir “Goodby to All That” that French and Belgians who claimed German atrocities were always lying.
    There were a massive amount of war crimes committed in Belgium, but it was almost always the French and Belgians who were the guilty parties. Partisan warfare had been outlawed at the Hague in 1912, and both France and Belgium were signatories. Nevertheless, Belgium organized and armed an illegal partisan army 146,000 strong, the Guard Civique. French troops carried civilian clothes in their packs so they could serve as partisans if overrun. The Germans ended up shooting large numbers of these partisans, but they had the law on their side.

  3. The above came as a shock for me, as I know about Northcliffe from another source.

    Heres some very important info on Lord Northcliffe.

    >In The Controversy of Zion, (Chapter 34) Douglas Reed, a Times’ staffer at the time, provides additional background.

    In May 1920, Lord Northcliffe, a part owner of The Times, printed an article about the Protocols entitled “The Jewish Peril, A Disturbing Pamphlet, A Call for an Enquiry.”
    It concluded:
    “An impartial investigation of these would-be documents and their history is most desirable…are we to dismiss the whole matter without inquiry and to let the influence of such a book as this work unchecked?”

    Then in May 1922 Northcliffe visited Palestine and wrote that Britain had been too hasty to promise it to the Jewish people when in fact it belonged to 700,000 Muslim Arab residents.
    Mr. Wickham Steed, the editor of The Times of London in 1921 refused to print the article and Northcliffe tried to get him fired.

    Somehow Steed was able to have Northcliffe declared “insane” and committed. Later Northcliffe complained he was being poisoned and died suddenly in 1922.
    Douglas Reed was Northcliffe’s secretary but didn’t learn of these events until they appeared in the Official History of the Times in the 1950’s.

    Clearly Northcliffe had offended some “big boys” when he opposed the British Mandate in Palestine. Why was it so important?

    Israel is intended to be the capital of the Masonic World Government. They are already constructing the infrastructure.<

    Ive taken the above from:

    Heres a link to Douglas Reed's: Controversy of Zion
    Highly recommended reading!

  4. I too had to look up Reed because he is my favorite historian and was a family friend and he acknowledges Northcliffe’s scratchity imperfections.

    “At that stage in the affair (1920-22) England was of paramount importance to. the conspirators (I have shown that Dr. Weizmann and Mr. House both used this word) and in England the energetic Lord Northcliffe was a powerful man. The former Alfred Harmsworth, bulky and wearing a dank Napoleonic forelock, owned the two most widely read daily newspapers, various other journals and periodicals, and in addition was majority proprietor of the most influential newspaper in the world, at that time, The Times of London. Thus he had direct access to millions of people each day and, despite his business acumen, he was by nature a great newspaper editor, courageous, combative and patriotic. He was sometimes right and sometimes wrong in the causes he launched or espoused, but he was independent and unpurchasable. Re somewhat resembled Mr. Randolph Hearst and Colone1 Robert McCormick in America, which is to say that he would do many things to increase the circulation of his newspapers, but only within the limits of national interest; he would not peddle blasphemy, obscenity, libel or sedition. Re could not be cowed and was a force in the land.
    Lord Northcliffe made himself the adversary of the conspiracy from Russia in two ways. In May 1920 he caused to be printed in The Times the article, previously mentioned, on the Protocols. It was headed, “The Jewish Peril, A Disturbing Pamphlet, Call for Enquiry”. It concluded, “An impartial investigation of these would-be documents and of their history is most desirable . . . are we to dismiss the whole matter without inquiry and to let the influence of such a book as this work unchecked?”
    Then in 1922 Lord Northcliffe visited Palestine, accompanied by a journalist, Mr. J.M.N. Jeffries (whose subsequent book, Palestine: The Reality, remains the classic work of reference for that period). This was a combination of a different sort from that formed by the editors of The Times and Manchester Guardian, who wrote their leading article s about Palestine in England and in consultation with
    [296] the Zionist chieftain, Dr. Weizmann. Lord Northcliffe, on the spot, reached the same conclusion as all other impartial investigators, and wrote, “In my opinion we, without sufficient thought, guaranteed Palestine as a home for the Jews despite the fact that 700,000 Arab Moslems live there and own it . . . The Jews seemed to be under the impression that all England was devoted to the one cause of Zionism, enthusiastic for it in fact; and I told them that this was not so and to be careful that they do not tire out our people by secret importation of arms to fight 700,000 Arabs. . . There will be trouble in Palestine. . . people dare not tell the Jews the truth here. They have had some from me”.

    After this sacrilege Northcliffe was locked up as mad and stripped of his newspapers and finished. He obviously served a useful role to the conspirators as a rabid hater of Germany (Cuba, Russia, China) but when he would not swallow the black pill, he was removed.

    Therefore, I’m not sure why the Joker is his moniker since this is the well-known image par excellence for the tribe, going all the way back to Venice.

  5. Jewish Terror: The Story of Lord Northcliffe.
    THE PRESS MAGNATE Alfred Harmsworth, later Britain’s Lord Northcliffe, once said: “News is what someone, somewhere is trying to suppress; the rest is just advertising.” Despite the fact that he was one of the most powerful men in what was then the British Empire, Northcliffe would eventually pay for that attitude with his life.

    Northcliffe’s fall – from being one of the most powerful men in the world to being imprisoned as insane after which he quickly died – took only a few days. The trigger was his challenge to the Jewish power structure.

  6. There’s that old saw about the arc of history being long but bending toward justice. No one today believes Wilhelm II was the mastermind of a scheme to impose a global dictatorship.

  7. The reasons for war are to make the bankers more money through war funding and through the chaos of war implement rapid changes sought by the world elite. Didn’t see any mention of the Balfour declaration in the article or the Zionist pushing it. What was the Jokers position there?,

  8. Interesting thread, with many facts that I was not, previously, aware of.

    What I am left wondering would be Lord Northcliffe intersection with President Wilson, Mr. Bernard Baruch, and Senator William J. Stone. My guess is that the two former were very favorably treated by the Daily Mail, while the latter was savaged. (just a humble guess)

    Still, I did enjoy the thread and doubted the quotation (not something of WW, but just reported by WW) of the “fly kick”; I mean look at Lord Pudge…really…really!!! WTF? Does anyone, and I do mean anyone on Earth, think that f-ta-s could actually get his leg that high without a heart attack? Fly kick my a-s!

    Other than that, erroneous quote, great thread and many thanks WW.

  9. If you want to know the truth read Douglas Reeds Controversy of Zion Chapter 34 , Reed knew him personally and actually worked for him as a young man.Your article is the Inversion of the Truth, a Tactic the Jewish International Bankers use constantly TO THIS DAY. The Joke is on You…

    For the first time, I now appear in this narrative as a personal witness of events. In the 1914-1918 war
    I was one participant among uncomprehending millions, and only began to see its true shape long afterwards.
    In 1922 I was for an instant in, though not of the inner circle; looking back, I see myself closeted with Lord
    [298] Northcliffe (about to die) and quite ignorant of Zionism, Palestine, Protocols or any other matter in
    which he had raised his voice. My testimony may be of some interest; I cannot myself judge of its value.
    I was in l922 a young man fresh from the war who struggled to find a place in the world and had
    become a clerk in the office of The Times. I was summoned thence, in that first week of June when Lord
    Northcliffe was preparing to remove Mr. Wickham Steed and himself assume the editorship of The Times, to
    go as secretary to Lord Northcliffe who was at Boulogne. I was warned beforehand that he was an unusual
    man whose every bidding must be quickly done. Possibly for that reason, everything he did seemed to me to
    be simply the expression of his unusual nature. No suspicion of anything more ever came to me, a week
    before he was “certified” and, in effect, put in captivity.
    I was completely ignorant of “abnormal” conditions, so that the expert might discount my testimony.
    Anyway, the behaviour I observed was just what I had been told to expect by those who had worked with
    him for many years. There was one exception to this. Lord Northcliffe was convinced that his life was in
    danger and several time said this; specifically, he said he had been poisoned. If this is in itself madness, then
    he was mad, but in that case many victims of poisoning have died of madness, not of what was fed to them.
    If by any chance it was true, he was not mad. I remember that l thought it feasible that such a man should
    have dangerous enemies, though at that time I had no inkling at all of any particular hostility he might have
    incurred. His belief certainly charged him with suspicion of those around him, but if by chance he had reason
    for it, then again it was not madness; if all this had transpired in the light of day such things could have been
    thrashed out.
    I cannot judge, and can only record what I saw and thought at the time, as a young man who had no
    more idea of what went on around him than a babe knows the shape of the world. When I returned to
    London I was questioned about Lord Northcliffe by his brother, Lord Rothermere, and one of his chief
    associates, Sir George Sutton. The thought of madness must by that time have been in their minds (the
    “certification” had ensued) and therefore have underlain their questions, but not even then did any such
    suspicion occur to me, although I had been one of the last people to see him before he was certified and
    removed from control of his newspapers. I did not know of that when I saw them or for long afterwards. In
    such secrecy was all this done that, although I continued in the service of The Times for sixteen years, I only
    learned of the “madness” and “certification” thirty years late , from the Official History. By that time I was able to
    see what great consequences had flowed from an affair in which I was an uninitiated onlooker at the age of
    Lord Northcliffe therefore was out of circulation, and of the control of his newspapers, during the
    decisive period preceding the ratification of “the mandate” by the League of Nations, which clinched the
    Palestinean transaction
    [299] and bequeathed the effects of it to our present generation: The opposition of a widely-read chain of
    journals at that period might have changed the whole course of events. After Lord Northcliffe died the
    possibility of editorials in The Times “attacking Balfour’s attitude towards Zionism” faded. From that time the
    submission of the press, in the manner described by the Protocols, grew ever more apparent and in time
    reached the condition which prevails today, when faithful reporting and impartial comment on this question
    has long been, in suspense.
    Lord Northcliffe was removed from control of his newspapers and put under constraint on June 18,
    1922; on July 24, 1922 the Council of the League of Nations met in London, secure from any possibility of
    loud public protest by Lord Northcliffe, to bestow on Britain a “mandate” to remain in Palestine and by arms
    D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion
    — 208 —
    to instal the Zionists there (I describe what events have shown to be the fact; the matter was not so depicted
    to the public, of course).,
    This act of “ratifying” the “mandate” was in such circumstances a formality. The real work, of drawing
    up the document and of ensuring that it received approval, had been done in advance, in the firs t matter by
    drafters inspired by Dr. Weizmann and in the second by Dr. Weizmann himself in the ante-chambers of
    many capitals. The members of Mr. House’s “Inquiry” had drafted the Covenant of the League of Nations;
    Dr. Weizmann, Mr. Brandeis, Rabbi Stephen Wise and their associates had drafted the Balfour Deelaration;
    now the third essential document had to be drafted, one of a kind that history never knew before. Dr.
    Weizmann pays Lord Curzon (then British Foreign Secretary) the formal compliment of saying that he was
    “in charge of the actual drafting of the mandate” but adds, “on our side we had the valuable assistance of Mr.
    Ben V. Cohen. . . one of the ablest draughtsmen in America”. Thus a Zionist in America (Mr. Cohen was to
    play an important part in a much later stage of this process) in fact drafted a document under which “the new
    world order” was to dictate British policy, the use of British troops and the future of Palestine.

    Inversion today:
    More smoke bombs by HAMAS (Mossad)

    Israel made Hamas and the PLO as whipping boys to further their aims.
    One Yasser Arafat, whose mother was Jewish, became the head of the greatest Jewish hoax in history. Nevertheless, the PLO was responsible for the survival of Israel, as each attack by the PLO has resulted in renewed worldwide sympathy and support for Israel.

1 Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Physician Who Witnessed Interrogation of Rakovsky During Trotskyite Trials, Lifted the Veil of the Global Crime Syndicate – I am a doctor

Post a Comment

Winter Watch
%d bloggers like this: