- Counter-Currents - https://counter-currents.com -

The Controversy of Zion


Douglas Reed

3,575 words

The long-awaited prosperity promised by the Industrial Revolution finally arrived with the Edwardian Age of productive leisure. But, alas, it was not to be for long. The freedom it granted was fleeting. Today, as the fabled American middle class fades like the morning dew, those who are running just to stand still, as the Red Queen prophesied, are the lucky ones.

Lopsided money distribution was one of the factors which encouraged C. H. Douglas to devise the yet-to-be implemented Social Credit Dividend, which was to be based on the inheritance of natural resources and inventions from previous generations. Douglas taught that people living in a society should form an association with their fellow citizens such that newly-minted money is distributed to every member rather than through borrowing by the central banks. Hunter S. Thompson was one of the few with some insight into the politics of money, and left us with his timeless quote:

If I’d written all the truth I knew for the past ten years, about 600 people – including me – would be rotting in prison cells from Rio to Seattle today. Absolute truth is a very rare and dangerous commodity in the context of professional journalism.[1] [2]

Unfortunately, while working on a newspaper article exposing the sex slave ring in George W. Bush’s White House, Thompson committed suicide, and his secrets went to the grave with him. In a statement often attributed to him, Henry Ford anticipated Hunter’s suspicions: “It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”

The importance of culture to our economic well-being is known to the elites. For example, Ray Dalio, founder of Blackwater and a self-made billionaire, was inspired during the Christmas 2018 stock market massacre to write an article entitled “To Help Put the Recent Economic and Market Moves in Perspective [3],” for the edification of the masses. He not only explained our economic predicament, but his commentary on culture would indicate that our social superiors know exactly what deleterious effects mass migration is having, and for this alone the whole paragraph is worth quoting:

Culture (i.e. values and ways of operating) is very important because it influences the decisions people make about work, saving rates, corruption, reliability, and a number of other factors that are determinant of, and highly correlated with, subsequent years’ growth rates. These influences come together to influence the quality of a) the people (through the education system and through the quality of family guidance), b) infrastructure, c) rule of law, and d) market systems – all of which are shown to determine and be highly correlated with subsequent years’ growth rates. As for what’s happened lately, productivity growth in developed countries has been rather slow, (though in line with what we projected based on these determinates), and is more concentrated in a shrinking percentage of the population and in the area of automation that reduces the need for workers. These changes have significantly changed the labor markets, widened the gaps between the “haves” and the “have nots,” and raised company profit margins. (See “Our Biggest Economic, Social, and Political Issue­—The Two Economies: The Top 40% and the Bottom 60%,” located here [4].)

Alexander the Great conquered with the sword and, like a leopard, swept across the known world. He then married the most beautiful woman in all Asia and later encouraged ten thousand of his soldiers to follow suit. His spirit lives on today, as both the sword and interracial marriages are the preferred tools for building the New World Order and, as with Shaka Zulu’s bull horn formation, the stoutest defense can be overcome with them. But the bull horn formation actually had three parts: at the center of the encircling horns were seasoned warriors forming the chest, which pinned the enemy down, allowing him to be attacked with greater ease. In our case, the chest behind the horns of the swords and interracial marriages would be the power of money, which makes all things possible; and our race, like the British army at Islandlwana, is being overrun by the “fuzzies.”

Richard Kelly Hoskins summed up the mechanics of our financial system when he wrote, “If there is $10 in existence, and you lend to someone under condition that he repay $11, and he agrees to this, he has agreed to the impossible.”[2] [5] To emphasize the change that has taken place in Western society, he reminded his readers that the rulings against usury were incorporated into Church law in the days when all Christians were Roman Catholic:

The laws started with the Bible, were added to by the laws of ancient Rome, added to again by the Orthodox Church of the Eastern Roman Empire at Constantinople and were improved upon extensively during the 1100s, 1200s and 1300s when some of the finest ecclesiastical thinking took place . . . usury was considered a violation of scripture, against natural law, and therefore against God Himself. It was forbidden by both the Divine and Canon Law.[3] [6]

Douglas Reed’s book The Controversy of Zion, written in 1971 but unpublished until 1978, offered the opinion that Zionism is the driving force behind today’s New World Order. The modern media’s obsession with anti-Semitism and the Pope’s insistence that the Jews are our elder brothers certainly adds credibility to his theory. The Guardian’s world affairs editor, Julian Borger, wrote in an article [7] on January 11, 2019 that Christian Zionism has very real consequences for American foreign policy. Quoted in the same article was Andrew Chesnut, Professor of Religious Studies at Virginia Commonwealth University, who argued that Christian Zionism had become the majority theology among white American Evangelicals, representing about a quarter of the adult population. In a 2015 poll, seventy-three percent of Evangelical Christians said that events in Israel are prophesied in the Book of Revelation. He was also concerned that the people in high places who hold these beliefs would be willing to take us into conflicts that could lead to Armageddon, because for them, the Second Coming means eternal life in heaven.

Reed was another of those accidental anti-Semites who, in his case, became aware of “the Jewish question” while working as a journalist for The Times during the 1930s. He noticed “that impartial presentation of the facts gradually gave way to so partisan a depictment that the truth was lost.”[4] [8] He described three subtle stages to the lie: first, it was “the persecution of political opponents and Jews,” which then became “persecution of Jews and political opponents,” and finally, simply to “the persecution of Jews.” Even though the persecution of the Jews reflected their population ratio in Germany at the time (i.e., the proportion of Jews among the dissidents who were being rounded up by the National Socialists was the same as the percentage of Jews in German society as a whole), when the press focused on Jewish victims to the exclusion of the German victims, Reed began to realize that Jews were different. However, he did have the wit to notice that the Westernized Sephardic Jews were opposed to Zionism, as it was directed against them as much as against Christianity.[5] [9] The Sephardic Jews were emancipated, and that led to their assimilation, which allowed them to slip away from the grasp of the ruling elders of Judaism. But as Reed observed, “Segregation was vital to Talmudic Judaism, and integration was lethal.”[6] [10]

The term Zion was first coined by Isaiah, who lived five hundred years before Alexander the Great and has now become indelibly linked with Jerusalem. The Jews’ insistence that they alone are Israel, as well as their occupation of the land on this basis, further binds Zionism to the Jews. Although Reed broke Zionism down into five phases – Levites, the Pharisees, the Talmudists, the emancipation interlude, and the Zionists – stretching back three millennia, he regarded the French Revolution of 1789 as the key to the mystery of the modern rage against throne and altar.[7] [11]

Reed’s view was that, given that the Arabs were the only ones who knew of the Khazars, their lives and lands being at stake, they tried to warn about this at the Paris peace conference of 1919, and again at the United Nations in 1947.[8] [12] It seems that in around the year 1500, the Talmudic government moved from Spain to Poland and established itself among the Polish Jews, while relaxing their grip on the Sephardic Jews. Since then, the visible Talmudic center has disappeared, while its destructive idea entered Europe in a new form, which we call revolution, and their main assault is on legitimate government, nationhood, and Christianity.

Reed’s starting point, the French Revolution, had the look of an earlier Jewish revolution, namely its English predecessor that had been led by Oliver Cromwell, who emancipated the Jews. France, however, was left in a condition of spiritual apathy from which it has never recovered. I imagine the same could be said for Britain and the United States after their respective civil wars. Reed told how the aftermath of the French Revolution brought Napoleon to power, who also tried to settle the controversy of Zion – albeit without success. The Jews are still a thorn in the side of the gentiles, and the Jews are still a “people sent into the world with a burr under their skins.”[9] [13]

Napoleon’s one success in race relations was in 1807, when he convinced the Great Sanhedrin to convene. This Sanhedrin acknowledged the extinction of the Jewish nation to be an accomplished fact, which meant that the Talmudic laws of daily life were proclaimed to no longer be effective, and that Israel therefore would henceforward exist only as a religion, and would no longer seek any national rehabilitation. This Grand Sanhedrin under Napoleon marked the opening of the emancipation interlude for the Jews. But as the German historian Johann Gottfried von Herder wrote in 1791, “the ruder nations of Europe are willing slaves of Jewish usury,”[10] [14] and a hundred years later, Houston Stewart Chamberlain would not only agree with Herder, but add, “By far the greatest part of our civilized world . . . our governments, our law, our science, our commerce, our literature, our art, practically all branches of our life have become more or less willing slaves of the Jews.”[11] [15]

The French Revolution was not so much a revolution in France, but rather the world revolution in action.[12] [16] Reed thought that it was the link between the English Revolution of 1640 and the Russian of 1917, and concluded from this that Communism and Zionism have a common root. The two movements were at work during the nineteenth century. Zionism was to assemble a dispersed people in a territory promised to Israel by God, and Communism was working to undermine the nations. At the start of the nineteenth century, Europe had seventeen centuries of Christian achievement behind it: “The world had never before seen man so much improve his own state and his conduct to others; even warfare was becoming subject to a civilized code, and the future seemed certain to continue this upward process. By the middle of the 20th Century much of this achievement had been lost.”[13] [17]

Reed offered Adam Weishaupt’s Illuminati as the blueprint for world revolution. In 1783, the Dowager Duchess Maria Anna of Bavaria claimed to have been told by former Illuminatis that “the order was teaching that religion should be regarded as nonsense and patriotism as puerility, that suicide was justifiable, that life should be ruled by passion rather than reason, that one might poison ones enemies, and the like.”[14] [18]

Benjamin Disraeli, Alexander Hamilton, and Edmund Burke all saw the design behind the world revolution, and after the 1848 outbreaks in England, Disraeli told the House of Commons in 1852 that:

The influence of the Jews may be traced in the last outbreak of the destructive principle in Europe. An insurrection takes place against tradition and aristocracy, against religion and property . . . The natural equality of men and the abrogation of property are proclaimed by the secret societies who form provisional governments and men of Jewish race are found at the head of everyone of them.[15] [19]

Reed noted that the emancipation of the Jews under Napoleon began to unwind in the nineteenth century, and things began to move towards resegregation. The mystery for him was why the Aryan rulers had aligned themselves with the ruling Talmudists against the Jewish masses, and therefore against their fellow Europeans: “The emancipated Jews of the West were undone on this occasion, with the mass of Gentile mankind, by the Western politicians, who enlisted, like a Swiss Guard, in the service of Zionism.”[16] [20]

In Reed’s opinion, the liberals were equally to blame, “who by espousing Zionism enabled it to disrupt the affairs and deflect the national policies of peoples.”[17] [21] Not only did Reed have a low opinion of liberals, but he nominated the Canadian Henry Wentworth Monk as their prophet and “the prototype of the 20th Century American president or the British prime minister, the very model of a modern Western politician.”[18] [22] Born in a farm settlement in the then remote area of the Ottawa River in 1827, he was sent off to London at the age of 7 for an education. His youthful emotional needs were met through his immature mind’s efforts to interpret the scriptures and what they really meant. Unfortunately, he lived in a time when the increasing speed and range of transportation allowed people to look for causes far outside their native ken: “Irresponsibility might pose as Christian charity when it denounced its neighbors for indifference to the plight of Ethiopian orphans, and who could check the facts?”[19] [23] As Reed reminded his readers, Disraeli remarked that the hideous lives of the British coal miners escaped the notice of the Society for the Abolition of Negro Slavery. The “Rights of Man” had to be asserted, and the further away the wrongs to be righted were, the greater the fervor could be.

Just as the young Monk was beginning to understand the code in which the Bible was written, Lord Shaftesbury suggested that the leading powers of Europe should buy Palestine from Turkey to allow the Jews to return. A fire was lit in the young Monk, and he became the first in a long line of Western politicians who would deny Christianity. Monk befriended John Ruskin, who for a time was his sponsor, and he even met Abraham Lincoln. Monk always moved in gentile circles, and never received any money or help from actual Jews. Monk spent his last days in Ottawa, haranguing members of the Canadian House of Commons, who all but ignored him – even though sixty years after his death in 1896, they were repeating “all the things Monk said as unassailable principles of high policy.”[20] [24]

Edward Manning left the Anglican Church to become the Roman Catholic Archbishop of New Westminster, and he warned – along with Mikhail Bakunin and Disraeli – against the Jewish usurpation of the revolutionary movement and the coming of Zionism. Cardinal Manning warned that “the secret societies of the world, the existence of which men laugh at and deny . . . are forcing their reality upon the consciousness of those who, until the other day, would not believe that they existed.”[21] [25] Reed went on to explain that Communism was intended to subvert the masses, as Disraeli had foreseen, and would disrupt Europe through the secret societies, while Zionism would seduce those at the top. Communism and Zionism required each other, and “neither force could move forward without the other,”[22] [26] and “the two conspiracies, having grown in secrecy side by side, triumphed in the same week of 1917.”[23] [27] Dr. Chaim Weizmann’s mother could then live in Bolshevized Moscow, but end her days in Zionized Palestine.

Rabbi Fischmann’s 1947 map showed the future plan for Israel. Some say that the two blue stripes on the Israeli flag are symbolic of their prayer shawl, while others claim that they represent the Nile and Euphrates rivers. After securing their territory, the Dome of the Rock will be demolished and the Third Temple will be built in preparation for the coming of the Jewish Messiah. The Arabs, the children of Ishmael, are well aware of God’s promise to their half-brother Jacob.

Reed was not alone in his time for being suspicious of the Jews, and before Winston Churchill became the hero and Adolf Hitler the villain of the twentieth century, the forerunner of today’s patriotic movement was awash with respectable twentieth-century mainstream figures, including Commander Guy Carr of the Royal Canadian Navy, Ireland’s Reverend Denis Fahey, and America’s Elizabeth Dilling and Myron Fagan – all of whom were convinced that the Jews were the driving force behind the world revolutionary movement. Although I can’t recall the novelist Dennis Wheatley ever mentioning Jews, a reading of his novels would give the reader speedy insight into the Anglo-Saxon world and a feel for those times.

The possibility of a revolution in America was not as far-fetched as it sounds today, and the introduction of the income tax in 1913 showed that. H. G. Wells’ The Future in America was originally published serially by Harper’s Weekly in 1906. In it, Wells pointed out that the US Supreme Court had ruled in 1896 that:

. . . a graduated income tax such as the English Parliament might pass tomorrow, can never be levied upon the United States nation without either a revolutionary change in the constitution or the unanimous legislation of all the state legislatures to that effect. The fundamental law of the States forbids any such invasion of the individuals ownership. No national income-tax is legal, and there is practically no power, short of revolution, to alter that effect.[24] [28]

Interestingly, Wells, whose life overlapped Douglas Reed’s, was so intrigued by the idea of the New World Order that he wrote The Open Conspiracy, but never as much as hinted that the Jews were behind it. Indeed, this literary giant foreshadowed the attitude and general outlook of Professor Carroll Quigley in that they both had nothing but kind words for the old Catholic world. However, they did not envisage a return to Christianity, but instead hoped to recapture its ability to raise mature and responsible individuals. The preface to God the Invisible King opens with an explanation of Wells’ religious beliefs: “This book sets out as forcibly and exactly as possible the religious belief of the writer. That belief is not orthodox Christianity; it is not, indeed, Christianity at all; its core nevertheless is a profound belief in a personal and intimate God.”[25] [29] In his book The World Set Free, Wells again reinforced his belief that highly educated men should rule and voluntarily set themselves to the task of reshaping the world.

Wells’ conspiracy books were published when Quigley was a child. His position in English society would suggest that he was groomed in his social attitudes by the same people that Quigley wrote about. Born in the lower middle class, he prospered through his imagination and fine writing, but for him to think that he could be the future “Lord of the World” and to develop the same attitude as Quigley could only be explained by them taking him under their wing.

On October 27, 2018, The Washington Times reported [30] that at a campaign rally in Illinois, President Trump declared that the long persecution of the Jews must come to an end and that for “[t]hose seeking their destruction, we will seek their destruction.” This sentiment, expressed by the reigning President of the most powerful nation that the world has ever seen, would suggest that Zionism has triumphed over Communism. If Communism is truly to be abolished, then the 1966 Cloward-Priven strategy will be abolished as well. This strategy, which was conceived by two sociologists, Richard Cloward and Frances Piven, was intended to overload the American public welfare system so as to precipitate a crisis which would cause the government to grant a guaranteed annual income to all citizens, and thus abolish poverty forever.

The idea of Jerusalem being the capital of a New World Order ruling over all the peoples of the world, all of whom adhere to a single world religion, certainly seems to be gathering traction. Little is known of what this new government will offer us – the people. Its critics are extremely pessimistic, while its proponents are giddy with delight.

Given that Asia, Africa, and Europe all meet there, Jerusalem is indeed at the center of the world, so it would be a logical choice for the capital city of a one-world government. However, if a return to old Jerusalem involves Armageddon and the Second Coming, as the Christian Zionists desire, then I fear that we will never receive a national dividend or enjoy the prosperity promised by the Industrial Revolution, but, like Lot’s wife, be turned into a pillar of salt.


[1] [31] Hunter S. Thompson, “Fear and Loathing at the Super Bowl,” in The Great Shark Hunt (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2003), p. 71.

[2] [32] Richard Kelly Hoskins, War Cycles, Peace Cycles (Lynchburg, Virginia: Virginia Publishing, 2000), p. v.

[3] [33] Douglas Reed, The Controversy of Zion (Suffolk: Bloomfield Books, 1978), p. 57.

[4] [34] Reed, p. 309.

[5] [35] Reed, p. 176.

[6] [36] Ibid.

[7] [37] Reed, p. 134.

[8] [38] Reed, p. 118.

[9] [39] Reed, p. 124.

[10] [40] Reed, p. 123.

[11] [41] Reed, p. 133.

[12] [42] Reed, p. 134.

[13] [43] Reed, p. 132.

[14] [44] Reed, p. 138.

[15] [45] Reed, p. 166.

[16] [46] Reed, p. 182.

[17] [47] Ibid.

[18] [48] Ibid.

[19] [49] Ibid.

[20] [50] Reed, p. 190.

[21] [51] Reed, p. 192.

[22] [52] Reed, p. 193.

[23] [53] Reed, p. 195. I assume he is referring to the United States declaring war on the Austro-Hungarian Empire on December 7, 1917 and Field Marshal Edmund Allenby entering Jerusalem on December 11, 1917.

[24] [54] H. G. Wells, The Future in America (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1987), p. 58.

[25] [55] H. G. Wells, God the Invisible King (New York: MacMillan, 1917), p. ix.