Jewish Terror: The Story of Lord Northcliff
Kevin Alfred Strom – American Dissident Voices broadcast of January 10, 2004
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.
Northcliffe, who lived from 1865 to
1922, stood up to the political establishment of his time, damning Lord
Kitchener during World War I when he was considered a war hero – and
thereby engendering the hatred of millions and driving the circulation
of his flagship paper down by some 80 per cent. He emerged victorious,
just as he had in earlier decades when his business acumen and editorial
skill had made him the outright owner of the two of the most widely
read newspapers in Britain (and many other periodicals) and the majority
proprietor of the then-leading newspaper in the world, The Times of London.
Lord Northcliffe was possibly the earliest example of the modern press baron.
Northcliffe was a man who was a bit of a
jingoistic nationalist – he took regrettable anti-German and anti-Boer
positions, for example – and it is said that he would do almost anything
to increase the circulation of the newspapers that he owned. Douglas
Reed, in his interesting book The Controversy of Zion, writes
“He was sometimes right and sometimes wrong in the causes he launched or
espoused, but he was independent and unpurchasable. He somewhat
resembled Mr. Randolph Hearst and Colonel 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. He could not
be cowed and was a force in the land.”
Northcliffe, the son of an English
barrister, was born Alfred Harmsworth near Dublin on the 15th of July
1865. With his brother Harold (later Lord Rothermere) he started the
magazine Answers to Correspondents in 1888, which rapidly
became a success with its question-and-answer format, selling over a
million copies a week. He then founded a children’s newspaper, Comic Cuts, a woman’s magazine, Forget-Me-Nots, purchased the bankrupt Evening News and made it a success by modernizing it, and founded the revolutionary Daily Mail,
which pioneered low-cost production, lavish use of illustrations, the
smaller tabloid paper size, terse, fact-filled writing, sports and
women’s sections, serial novels, and banner headlines. By the time of
the Boer war, the paper sold a million copies a day. Harmsworth took
what he considered a patriotic position, stating that the Mail stood for “the power, the supremacy and the greatness of the British Empire.”
The part-Jewish publisher Joseph
Pulitzer was so impressed with Harmsworth’s talents that he hired him to
edit the first edition of his brand new New York World on the
first day of the twentieth century, which he did – using the tabloid
(meaning compressed) size which he had pioneered and named, and which
later become the dominant format for British newspapers.
One failure of Northcliffe was his launching of the first daily newspaper for women, the Daily Mirror,
which did eventually become a success when he made it into a picture
newspaper for both sexes. He took his losses and accepted his defeat
with philosophy and humor, saying “Disaster may often be changed to
triumph by alteration in tactics. The faculty of knowing when you are
beaten is much more valuable than the faculty of thinking you are not
beaten when you are. I had for many years a theory that a daily
newspaper for women was in urgent request, and I started one. The belief
cost me £100,000. I found out that I was beaten. Women don’t want a
daily paper of their own. It was another instance of the failures made
by a mere man in diagnosing women’s needs. Some people say that a woman
never really knows what she wants. It is certain she knew what she
didn’t want. She didn’t want the Daily Mirror.”
It was in 1905, the same year that he purchased The Times and the Sunday Observer, that his achievements were recognized by his being made Lord Northcliffe — at 40 the youngest-ever peer of the realm. [ http://tinyurl.com/2wfla ]
The First World War was a tragedy of
bloodletting, destruction, and death for millions of the best young men
of our European race on every side of the conflict – a tragedy from
which we have still not yet recovered. Its origins are lost in obscure
and shifting alliances, commercial jealousy, and the cynical ‘balance of
power’ policy favored by the British Empire at the expense of
pan-European interests. Its end was a farrago of madness in which
avarice, revenge, crackpot ‘liberal’ nuttiness, and Zionism dominated.
It is this last item – Zionism – with which we are – and Lord
Northcliffe was – concerned.
According to a defector from the Jewish power structure of the time, Benjamin Freedman,
Britain was on the verge of losing that war in 1917, when the Zionist
Jews made a proposal to the British government. Britain could yet win
this war, the Zionists argued, if America could be brought into the
conflict on Britain’s side. With their already-substantial control of
the American press, and with their tight circle of ‘advisors’ around
President Wilson (who was beholden to them because of indiscreet letters
in their possession which he had written to a woman not his wife), the
Zionists made a good case that they could deliver what they promised.
But there was a price to be paid. The British Empire was at that time
administering the small Middle Eastern territory of Palestine, populated
mainly by Palestinian Arabs and Christians and with only a small
minority of Jews. The Zionist Jews coveted that territory — which later
became Israel when their land-grab came to fruition – and their price
for bringing American soldiers to die in Flanders fields was a
declaration from Britain that the Empire favored the establishment of a
Jewish state there. The price was paid. Lord Milner and Foreign Minister
Balfour drafted the Balfour Declaration – and the puppeteers pulled the
strings on crackpot Wilson and America went to war to “make the world
safe for democracy’ and to “end war,” proving that many Americans had
had their brains turned to mush long before the advent of television.
The scholar Revilo Oliver has stated
that Milner’s interest in supporting the Zionists, apart from the
immediate objective of winning the war, was in removing as many Jews as
possible from Britain, and giving them their own country thousands of
miles away seemed as good a way of doing that as any. Similar motives
animated Balfour, as I stated on this program last year:
“…Balfour’s naiveté [is] in this case, a
stand-in and symbol of White naiveté in general. The Jews wanted a
policy statement from the then-dominant world power, the British Empire,
and they got it and used it to the hilt, not hesitating to kill Britons
when it suited them, as in the Zionist bombing of the King David Hotel,
[ http://tinyurl.com/m2xn
] and while other Jews were, especially after World War II, doing
everything in their power to undermine the status of the White nations
including Britain. The Zionist entity has outlasted the British Empire
which gave it birth, though Little Britain is still of some assistance
in some projects, like the murder of Iraqis, currently being undertaken
by the self-styled masters of the world. What’s really interesting about
Balfour, who gave the Jews their foothold in Palestine, was that he
didn’t particularly like Jews – and that he was a racialist. Like Adolf
Hitler later, Balfour was enamoured of the idea of the Jews leaving
Europe to found their own state elsewhere. Both men negotiated with
Zionist Jews to effect that end. Hitler offered them Madagascar in 1938.
In 1903, while he was Prime Minister, Balfour offered them Uganda. In
debates on the Alien Act of 1905, Balfour sought to cut off Jewish
immigration into Britain. Balfour openly admitted in 1914 (to leading
Zionist Chaim Weizmann, no less) that he shared the extreme anti-Jewish
sentiments of Cosima Wagner. Balfour [even] spoke against Jewish
immigration in the House of Commons.”
After the war, Lord Northcliffe became
alarmed by Zionist ambitions and Jewish power. In 1920, he publicized
the book that has been banned and furiously denounced by the Jews
perhaps more than any other, the famous Protocols of Zion,
which purports to be notes taken at a meeting of Jews sometime during
the nineteenth century, detailing a plan for world domination through
intrigues, deception, and terror. I have already published my criticism
of the Protocols elsewhere, but suffice it to say here that,
although the book is unlikely to be what it claims to be – an actual
record of an actual meeting – and though it clearly was created by a
polemicist with a religious bias (witness its barbs directed at Darwin
and Nietzsche, for example), its insights into the Jewish mentality and
Jewish techniques are insightful and its tracing (before 1905!) of many
of the paths that would be taken by the Jewish establishment in the last
century are amazing.
Northcliffe probably saw the Protocols
much as I see them, and decided they deserved to be seen and
investigated by the British people. Accordingly he saw to it that
significant parts of them were published in the most prestigious
newspaper in the country, The Times, of which he was the
principal owner, under the title ‘The Jewish Peril, a Disturbing
Pamphlet, Call for Enquiry.’ He did not declare the Protocols
to be true, but rather called for a full investigation to discover
whether or not they were true. He stated that “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?”
In 1922, Northcliffe asked the editor of The Times,
Wickham Steed, to travel to Palestine to investigate the real nature of
the Zionist project there, feeling sure that Steed, once he saw how a
tiny and foreign Jewish minority was determined to use every foul means
to dispossess the Palestinians, would make a 180 degree turn and stop
supporting Chaim Weizmann and the other Zionists as he had theretofore.
In this Northcliffe miscalculated badly, for the Zionist hold on Steed
(the exact nature of which deserves further investigation) was so strong
that Steed openly refused to act upon any of the requests of the man
who was the majority owner of the paper and who was therefore his
employer! Steed would not go to Palestine; Steed would not publish an
article critical of Balfour’s attitude toward Zionism when asked to do
so; and, when Northcliffe himself went to Palestine, Steed would not even publish Northcliffe’s own dispatches from that troubled land.
Who was protecting Steed? Who and what was motivating Steed? These
questions became even more important later that year. Douglas Reed
wrote:
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 articles about Palestine in England and in
consultation with 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.”
The articles by Jeffries and Northcliffe didn’t get published in The Times,
but they did see the light of day in Northcliffe’s other papers,
greatly alarming the Zionists, who needed the acquiescence of the
British people for their land-grab to succeed.
Things started happening very fast for
Lord Northcliffe soon thereafter. On February 26th, 1922, he returned
from Palestine. On March 2d, he strongly criticized Steed at an
editorial conference, expecting to precipitate his resignation. To
Northcliffe’s amazement, Steed did not resign but decided to consult an
attorney “to secure a lawyer’s opinion on the degree of provocation
necessary to constitute unlawful dismissal.” Then, Steed says, he
consulted Northcliffe’s own legal advisor who supposedly stated
that Lord Northcliffe was “abnormal”, “incapable of business” and,
judging from his appearance, “unlikely to live long” and who therefore
advised the editor “to continue in his post.” On March 31st, Steed went
to see Northcliffe in France and upon returning started spreading the
story — even telling a director of the paper – that Northcliffe was
“going mad.”
Douglas Reed himself worked with
Northcliffe a few weeks later and reports he saw nothing at all
indicating illness, madness, or abnormality of any kind. Reed also
states that a very sane and sober Northcliffe informed him that someone
was trying to kill him. Reed tells us:
The
suggestion of madness thus was put out by an editor whom Lord
Northcliffe desired to remove and the impressions of others therefore
are obviously relevant. On May 3, 1922 Lord Northcliffe attended a
farewell luncheon in London for a retiring editor of one of his papers
and “was in fine form”. On May 11, 1922 he made “an excellent and
effective speech” to the Empire Press Union and “most people who had
thought him ‘abnormal’ believed they were mistaken”. A few days later
Lord Northcliffe telegraphed instructions to the Managing Director of The Times
to arrange for the editor’s resignation. This Managing Director saw
nothing “abnormal” in such an instruction and was not “in the least
anxious about Northcliffe’s health”. Another director, who then saw him,
“considered him to have quite as good a life risk as his own”: he
“noticed nothing unusual in Northcliffe’s manner or appearance” (May 24,
1922).
On June 11th, Steed met Northcliffe
again in France and Northcliffe bluntly told him that he, Northcliffe,
would now assume editorship of The Times. The next day, Steed,
Northcliffe, and the entire entourage were aboard a train bound for
Evian-les-Bains. Unknown to Northcliffe, a doctor (whose name has not
been revealed to this day) was secreted aboard the train by Steed, and
somehow Northcliffe was manipulated into his custody. When the train
arrived in Switzerland another unnamed physician (described years later
only as “a brilliant French nerve specialist”) was summoned and declared
Northcliffe “insane.” Immediately Steed telegraphed the ‘news’ to
London and ordered The Times to disregard and not to publish
any communications from its primary owner. On June 13th, Steed returned
to London. On June 18th, Northcliffe was back in London, too, but in
custody and totally removed from all control of or communication with
his far-flung enterprises. Even his telephone lines were cut. Police
were posted at the offices of The Times to prevent his entering should he reach them. He never did.
On that same day, with Northcliffe out
of circulation and his powerful voice of protest silenced, the League of
Nations voted to reconfirm the ‘British Mandate’ in Palestine, which
had mutated into a ‘mandate’ to install the Zionists in power there by
violence and fraud. [ http://tinyurl.com/ytxyh ]
On August 14th, 1922 Lord Northcliffe died, supposedly the cause of death being “ulcerative endocarditis.” None of the story of his alleged insanity or confinement was known to the public at the time. It was concealed for thirty years, eventually coming out in the Official History of The Times and, in greater detail in Reed’s The Controversy of Zion.
When Northcliffe died, he left in his
will three month’s salary to each of his 6,000 employees, a total of
533,000 pounds – a huge sum in today’s inflated currency. The story of
Northcliffe’s challenge to the Zionists deserves more study, as does the
continuation of that challenge by Northcliffe’s brother Harold, Lord
Rothermere. Rothermere eventually came to the conclusion that Jewish
power needed to be defeated for the good of Europe, and that Britain’s
best interest lay in support of the other European nations which had
begun the fight.
Lord Rothermere wrote in the Daily Mail for the 10th of July, 1933:
I urge all
British young men and women to study closely the progress of the Nazi
regime in Germany. They must not be misled by the misrepresentations of
its opponents. The most spiteful detractors of the Nazis are to be found
in precisely the same sections of the British public and press as are
most vehement in their praises of the Soviet regime in Russia.
They have
started a clamorous campaign of denunciation against what they call
“Nazi atrocities” which, as anyone who visits Germany quickly discovers
for himself, consists merely of a few isolated acts of violence such as
are inevitable among a nation half as big again as ours, but which have
been generalized, multiplied and exaggerated to give the impression that
Nazi rule is a bloodthirsty tyranny.
The German
nation, moreover, was rapidly falling under the control of its alien
elements. In the last days of the pre-Hitler regime there were twenty
times as many Jewish Government officials in Germany as had existed
before the war. Israelites of international attachments were insinuating
themselves into key positions in the German administrative machine.
Three German Ministers only had direct relations with the Press, but in
each case the official responsible for conveying news and interpreting
policy to the public was a Jew.
Rothermere died – some say of a broken
heart – shortly after the second great Jew-instigated fratricidal
European bloodbath began in 1939.
The life and death of Lord Northcliffe
have left us many lessons. Chief among those lessons is this: The enemy
with whom we deal has no honor and no concept whatsoever of a fair
fight, whether in a shooting war or in the war of ideas. Dealing with
them as we would deal with an opponent of our own race, observing the
conventions of civility and fairness and an honorable contest — and
expecting the same from them, will be fatal every time. What we can
expect from them is a stab in the back; poisoning; paid betrayers; lies,
lies, and more lies in every direction one turns, lies so thick that
they multiply faster than one can respond to them; and destruction of a
million innocent lives if it gets them one inch closer to their inhuman
goals.
--------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment