The recent attack upon Mr. Michel Chossudovsky, Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa, by the pro-Zionist media (Ottawa Citizen) and one of its principal internal organs, the B’nai Brith, is worthy of additional historic perspective in order to further delineate the modus operandi of these instruments of political propaganda and social control.
To assist in comprehending the breadth and depth of this universal scheme to silence dissent and permit an unleashed, purposeful program of pro-Israeli propaganda to emerge throughout Canada’s mainstream media, one affecting both the mass mind of the citizenry as well as the nation’s legal and social fabric, it’s imperative that concerned individuals be aware of the nascent beginnings of organizations such as the B’nai Brith and one of its more controversial offshoots known as the Anti-Defamation League (A.D.L.). The latter organization, while rarely appearing in today’s controlled press due to its own self-induced ill-repute, is still a force to be reckoned with and one of paramount influence in the false proselytizing of the absurd notion of ‘anti-Semitism’.
In order to define this illogical phenomenon and expose its nefarious purpose it is necessary that the reader be furnished with some extensively researched commentary from a book written fifty years ago by a once famed (and now defamed) British author by the name of Douglas Reed.
In his virtually unknown, yet massively documented and scholarly seminal work on the history of Political Zionism and its effects upon the past and present global political situation, (The Controversy of Zion, Dolphin Press (Pty) Ltd., 1978) Mr. Douglas Reed, former Chief European war correspondent for the London Times and successful author of numerous popular books written prior to, during and after WW II, gives us some extremely pertinent contextual information concerning both the B’nai Brith and the A.D.L. which places the latest assault upon Mr. Chossudovsky in a more clearly defined light.
Reed was no slouch when it came to covering historical events of his time and his first book, The Reichstag Fire, which appeared in 1934 was proof of his ability to discern the maneuverings of factions working behind the scenes to manipulate public perception, thwart reasonable analysis and control agendas for ulterior purposes.
Having spent seven years in Berlin and adjacent European countries throughout the 1930s observing and discussing political strategy with Prime Ministers and Kings, Reed was able to accumulate information and impressions that most journalists would not otherwise be privy to. As the pieces of the puzzling times began to take shape before his analytical eye Reed eventually concluded that the hidden hand behind paradigm-shattering decisions of the period was none other than that of the Political Zionists and those in high office whom they were able to solicit for support.
In 1938, on the eve of WW II, Reed began to notice, with growing concern, that his submissions to the Times (which by then was under Zionist control) were either being altered or eliminated altogether in favour of stories that were the exact opposite of the real conditions which he was witnessing on the ground in Germany and elsewhere. This frustration eventually resulted in Reed resigning from the paper and publishing his second book called Insanity Fair which was a summation of all that he had gleaned of political events over the past seven years. The book was an instant success throughout Britain, Europe and North America and its prophetic warnings were soon to be revealed as truth as the second great world war unfolded.
In order to facilitate this much-needed perspective one needs to cast an eye back almost a full century to the period of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson’s years in office and the time of the first world war. It was during this era that the original silent coup by Zionist forces usurped the independence of the White House and placed its exclusive powers in the hands of Wilson’s chief Advisor Mr. Colonel House, a pro-Zionist proponent.
In his book Reed describes President Wilson as ‘a captive president’ as the war drew nigh and states that after his election ‘Mr. House took over his correspondence, arranged whom he should see or not receive, told Cabinet officers what they were to say or not to say, and so on.’
Reed, who was born in 1895 just two years prior to Theodor Herzl (Political Zionism’s official founder) setting up the World Zionist Organization in 1897, grew up during the early years of the 20th Century and came of age, politically-speaking, while living in Europe throughout the thirties and forties and witnessing in detail the intimate machinations by the world leaders who were then rearranging the pieces on the world’s political chessboard.
In his exhaustive analysis of how the Zionists slowly, but surely, overtook the U.S. government’s executive levels of command, the better to gain control of policy-making for the exclusive purpose of acquiring the lands of Palestine to create their ‘State’ of Israel, Reed emphasizes the crucial role played by groups such as the B’nai Brith and the Anti-defamation League in blocking all criticism of their efforts through the use of blackmail, intimidation and public vilification of the sort we’re now seeing employed in the Chossudovsky case.
It was after this period of initiation into the inner workings of intrigue by the Zionist forces that he began voicing his comments on the B’nai Brith. He writes:
‘At that period (1913) [of Colonel House and W. Wilson, A.T.] an event occurred which seemed of little importance then but needs recording here because of its later, large consequence. In America was an organization called B’nai Brith (Hebrew for ‘Children of the Covenant’). Founded in 1843 as a fraternal lodge exclusively for Jews, it was called ‘purely an American institution’, but it put out branches in many countries and today claims to ‘represent all Jews throughout the world’, so that it appears to be part of the arrangement described by Dr. Kastein as ‘the Jewish international’. In 1913 B’nai Brith put out a tiny offshoot, the ‘Anti-Defamation League’. It was to grow to great size and power; in it the state-within-states acquired a kind of secret police and it will reappear in this story.’
In Chapter 43, aptly titled ‘The Invasion of America’, Reed describes to a tee the techniques presently applied to Michel Chossudovsky in order to discredit his person, his work and at the same time expunge from the mass mind the true motives of Israeli domestic and foreign policies. Please witness the following comments:
‘While military invasions and counter-invasions multiplied during the six years of the Second War, absorbing all thought and energy of the masses locked in combat, a silent invasion went on which produced more momentous effects than the armed ones. This was the political invasion of the American Republic and its success was shown by the shape of American state policy at the war’s end, which was so directed as to ensure that the only military invasions that yielded enduring ‘territorial gains’ were those of the revolution into Europe and of the Zionists into Arabia . . .’
‘The renewal of large-scale immigration formed the background to the political invasion of the Republic. This was a three-pronged movement which aimed at the capture of the three vital points of a state’s defenses: state policy at the top level, the civil services at the middle level and ‘public opinion’ or the mass-mind at the base. The way in which control over acts of state policy was achieved (through the ‘adviserships’ which became part of American political life after 1913) has already been shown, this part of the process having preceded the others. The methods used to attempt the capture of government services will be discussed later in this chapter. In what immediately follows the capture of the mass-mind in America, through control of published information, will be described; it was indispensable to the other two thrusts.
This form of political invasion is called by Dr. Weizmann, who exhaustively studied it in his youth when he was preparing in Russia for his life’s work in the west, ‘the technique of propaganda and the approach to the masses’. The operation so described may now be studied in actual operation:
Far back in this book the reader was invited to note that ‘B’nai Brith’ put out a shoot. B’nai Brith, until then, might be compared with such groups of other religious affiliation as the Young Men’s Christian Association or the Knights of Columbus; its declared objects were the help of the poor, sick and fatherless and good works in general. The little offshoot of 1913, the ‘Anti-Defamation League’, had by 1947 become a secret police of formidable power in America.*
In Doublespeak ‘anti-defamation’ means ‘defamation’ and this body lived by calumny, using such terms as anti-semite, fascist, rabble-rouser, Jew-baiter, Red-baiter, paranoiac, lunatic, madman, reactionary, diehard, bigot and more of the like. The vocabulary is fixed and may be traced back to the attacks on Barruel, Robison and Morse after the French revolution; the true nature of any writer’s or newspaper’s allegiance may be detected by keeping count of the number of times these trade-mark words are used. The achievement of this organization (usually known as the A.D.L.) has been by iteration to make fetishes of them, so that party politicians hasten to deny that they are any of these things. Under this regime reasoned debate became outlawed; there is something of sorcery in this subjugation of two generations of Western men to the mumbo-jumbo of Asiatic conspirators.
When the A.D.L. was born in 1913 it had merely desk-room in the parent B’nai Brith office and a tiny budget. In 1933 Mr. Bernard J. Brown wrote, ‘Through the intervention of the A.D.L. we have succeeded in muzzling the non-Jewish press to the extent that newspapers in America abstain from pointing out that any person unfavourably referred to is a Jew’. In 1948 the Jewish Menorah Journal of New York wrote, ‘Should but one phrase in a reprinted literary classic reflect unjustly upon Jews, the A.D.L. will promptly belabour the innocent publisher until he bowdlerizes the offending passage. Let one innocent movie-producer incorporate a Jewish prototype, however inoffensive, in his picture and the hue and cry raised by the A.D.L. will make him wish he’s never heard of Jews . . .
These quotations show the growth of the A.D.L.’s power in thirty-five years. It has imposed the law of heresy on the public debate in America. No criticism of Zionism or the world-government plan is allowed to pass without virulent attack; . . .
America has today a few surviving writers who fight on for independent debate and comment. They will discuss any public matter, in the light of traditional American policy and interest, save Zionism, which hardly any of them will touch. I have discussed this with four of the leading ones, who all gave the same answer: it could not be done. The employed ones would lose their posts, if they made the attempt. The independent ones would find no publisher for their books because no reviewer would mention these, save with the epithets enumerated above.
The A.D.L., of such small beginnings in 1913, in 1948 had a budget of three million dollars (it is only one of several Jewish organizations pursuing Zionist aims in America at a similar rate of expenditure). The Menorah Journal, discussing ‘Anti-Defamation Hysteria’, said, ‘Fighting anti-semitism has been built up into a big business, with annual budgets running into millions of dollars’. It said the object was ‘to continue beating the anti-semitic drum’ and ‘to scare the pants off prospective contributors’ in order to raise funds. It mentioned some of the methods used (‘outright business blackmail; if you can’t afford to give $10,000 to this cause, you can take your business elsewhere’), and said American Jews were being ‘stampeded into a state of mass-hysteria by their self-styled defenders’.
An interesting point which Reed made back in the 1950s, and which today is probably more relevant considering the 1984ish times we’re living in, involved one of the current icons of anti-dictatorship and anti-totalitarianism, Mr. George Orwell. According to Reed even Orwell succumbed in some measure to the then pervasive pressures being exerted on the general public by these agents of one world government. He states:
‘Mass-hysteria’ is not only produced among Jews and band-wagon politicians by this method; it produces another kind of mass-hysteria among earnest but uninformed people of the ‘Liberal’ kind: the mass-hysteria of self-righteousness, which is a tempting form of self-indulgence. The late Mr. George Orwell was of those who helped spread ‘mass-hysteria’ in this way. He was a good man, because he did not merely incite others to succour the weak and avenge injustice, but went himself to fight when the Civil War broke out in Spain, then discovering that Communism, when he saw it, was worse than the thing which (as he thought) he set out to destroy. He died before he could go to Palestine and experience any similar enlightenment, so that what he wrote about ‘anti-semitism’ was but the echo of ‘anti-defamationist hysteria’. It is so good an example of this that I quote it; here a man of goodwill offered, as his own wisdom, phrases which others poured into his ear.
He explored ‘anti-semitism in Britain’ (1945) and found ’ a perceptibly anti-semitic strain in Chaucer’. Mr. Hilaire Belloc and Mr. G.K.Chesterton were ‘literary Jew-baiters’. He found passages in Shakespeare, Smollett, Thackeray, Shaw, T.S. Eliot, Aldous Huxley and others ‘which if written now would be stigmatized as anti-semitism’ (he was right without knowing it; if written now they would have been stigmatized). Then he suffered what Americans call a pratfall. He said that ‘offhand, the only English writers I can think of who, before the days of Hitler, made a definite effort to stick up for Jews are Dickens and Charles Reade’. Thus he extolled one of the A.D.L.’s ‘Jew-baiters’ as a champion of Jews; in America the film of Oliver Twist was banned because of Fagin! This was the work of the A.D.L.; its representative, a Mr. Arnold Forster, announced:
‘American movie-distributors refused to become involved in the distribution and exhibition of the motion picture after the A.D.L. and others expressed the fear that the film was harmful; the Rank Organization withdrew the picture in the United States’. Later the picture was released after censorship by the A.D.L.; ‘seventy two eliminations’ were made at its command and a prologue was added assuring beholders that they might accept it as ‘a filmization of Dickens without anti-semitic intentions’. (In occupied Berlin the A.D.L. ban was final; the British authorities ordered Dickens withdrawn from German eyes).
I was in America at this time and thus saw the fulfilment of a prediction made in a book of 1943, when I wrote that, as the secret censorship was going, Chaucer, Shakespeare and Dickens would one day be defamed as ‘anti-semites’. I thought to strain probability, to make a point, but it happened in all three cases: a Shakespearean actor-manager visiting New York was ordered not to play The Merchant of Venice, Dickens was banned, and the defamationists put Chaucer on their black-list.
A private organization which can produce such results is obviously powerful; there is nothing comparable in the world. Mr. Vincent Sheehan wrote in 1949, ‘There is scarcely a voice in the United States that dares raise itself for the rights, any rights, of the Arabs; any slight criticism of the Zionist high command is immediately labelled as anti-semitic’. . .
How is the oracle worked? By what means has America (and the entire West) been brought to the state that no public man aspires to office, or editor feels secure at his desk, until he has brought out his prayer-mat and prostrated himself to Zion? How have presidents and prime ministers been led to compete for the approval of this faction like bridesmaids for the bride’s bouquet? Why do leading men suffer themselves to be paraded at hundred-dollar-a-plate banquets for Zion, or to be herded on to Zionist platforms to receive ‘plaques’ for services rendered?
The power of money and the prospect of votes have demonstrably been potent lures, but in my judgment by far the strongest weapon is this power to control published information; to lay stress on what a faction wants and to exclude from it all that the faction dislikes, and so to be able to give any selected person a ‘good’ or a ‘bad’ press. This is in fact control of ‘the mob’. In today’s language it is ‘the technique of propaganda and the approach to the masses’, as Dr. Weizmann said, but it is an ancient, Asiatic art and was described, on a famous occasion, by Saint Matthew and Saint Mark: ‘The chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude . . . The chief priests moved the people . . .’
In forty years the A.D.L. perfected a machine for persuading the multitude. It is a method of thought-control of which the subject-mass is unconscious and its ability to destroy any who cry out is great . . .
The A.D.L. (and the American Jewish Committee) ‘set out to make the American people aware of anti-semitism’. It informed Jews that ‘25 out of every 100 Americans are infected with anti-semitism’, and that another 50 might develop the disease. By 1945 it was carrying out ‘a high-powered educational program, geared to reach every man, woman and child’ in America through the press, radio, advertising, children’s comic books and school books, lectures, films, ‘churches’ and trade unions. This program included ‘219 broadcasts a day’, full-page advertisements in 397 newspapers, poster advertizing in 130 cities, and ‘persuasions’ subtly incorporated in the printed matter on blotters, matchbox covers, and envelopes. The entire national press (‘1900 dailies with a 43,000,000 circulation’) and the provincial, Negro, foreign-language and labour newspapers were kept supplied with, ‘and used’, its material in the form of ‘news, background material, cartoons and comic strips’. In addition, the A.D.L. in 1945 distributed ‘more than 330,000 copies of important books carrying our message to libraries and other institutions’, furnished authors with ‘material and complete ideas’, and circulated nine million pamphlets ‘all tailored to fit the audiences to which they are directed’. It found ‘comic books’ to be a particularly effective way of reaching the minds of young people, soldiers, sailors and airmen, and circulated ‘millions of copies’ of propaganda in this form. Its organization consisted of the national headquarters, public relations committees in 150 cities, eleven regional offices, and ‘2,000 key men in 1,000 cities’.
The name of the body which supplied this mass of suggestive material never reached the public. During the 1940’s the system of ‘syndicated writers’ in New York or Washington enveloped the entire American press. One such writer’s column may appear in a thousand newspapers each day; editors like this system, which saves them the cost of employing their own writers, for its cheapness. Through a few dozen such writers the entire stream of information can be tinctured at its source . . . By all these means a generation has been reared in America (and this applies equally to England [and Canada. A.T.]) which has been deprived of authentic information about, and independent comment on, the nature of Zionism, its original connection with Communism, the infestation of administrations and capture of ‘administrators’, and the relationship of all this to the ultimate world-government project.’ 
In 1949 Douglas Reed traveled throughout the United States prior to writing his book, Far and Wide, which was his first-hand impressions of America and a final summation of the influences that Political Zionism was having upon the nation to that point. It was to be his final publication prior to the Zionists imposing a general ban on his works which eventually led to a virtual annulling of his name in published circles around the world.
His conclusions though have, as in the case of Insanity Fair again proven to be the most prophetic of the 20th Century in terms of how the Zionist agenda functions and what its ends are designed to produce. As he states in a chapter called ‘Zionism Paramount’, America suffers from ‘three servitudes’: those being the influences of Russian Communism (a product of Zionism) which had infiltrated the bureaucratic levels of government during Roosevelt’s tenure as president; the debilitating effects of organized crime; and the greatest of all, Political Zionism. He writes:
‘The three forces which weaken the whole structure of American public life in effect serve the strongest among themselves, Political Zionism, which stands behind the seats of the mighty while the others work in lesser places, if to similar ends of power-over-politicians. The proof of this supremacy is to be found by a simple test: the extent to which public discussion is permitted . . . At the topmost level, a virtual ban on public discussion of Political Zionism proves the paramountcy of its sway in American affairs. As in England, the open expression of doubt about this territorial ambition, and support for it, has been almost driven underground in recent years. An imperial thrall has been laid on America in this matter. Traditional Americans, whose forebears detested laws of lese-majesty and the genuflections of courts, now find their leaders performing an even humbler obeisance in this direction; like foremost politicians in England, they thus emulate those Rumanian nobles who long bowed to the Sultan’s rule, vainly hoping to keep rank and possessions. The Soviet ban on ‘anti-Semitism’ (which was in effect a veto on public discussion of the origins of Communism) has in practice been extended to the British island and the American Republic in the matter of Political Zionism. It is lese-majesty [i.e. treason A.T.] in a new form and because of it present-day Americans and Englishmen do not as a rule see the grave future courses and penalties to which support of Political Zionism has committed them.’
It takes little extrapolating to see that all which Reed described in his foregoing comments dovetails smoothly with the apparent convoluted, confusing and tumultuous period that we’re now experiencing in global politics. To elaborate further upon that subject must remain the labour of another article and another time. What is essential here is that readers note the connectedness of events and the fact that the Political Zionists are still very much alive and alert to their diligent and determined effort to destroy the sovereignty of nation-states, serve the interests of Israel and bring in the ill-fated New World Order under the auspices of their original plan, the United Nations.
To those ends organizations such as the B’nai Brith and the A.D.L. have evolved and continue to act as Zionist watchdogs and public censors. It is not surprising therefore that they would eventually attack even those of Jewish decent such as Michel Chossudovsky for Political Zionism’s bold and ambitious plans for global dominance owes allegiance only to its proponents and thus their exclusive and racial policies of imperialism continue to pose a direct threat to both the Christian and Moslem world. Our ultimate freedom therefore depends upon our ability to combat this censorship of free speech which continually keeps the occult nature of Poltitical Zionism hidden from the public eye.
Arthur Topham is the publisher/editor for the Radical Press. He lives in British Columbia, Canada. He can be contacted at email@example.com
* In fact though not in form. The secret police in countries where the institution is native have their entire power and resources of the state behind them; indeed, they are the state. In America Zionism built the nucleus of a secret police nearly as effective in many ways as those prototypes. It could only become equally effective if it gained full control of the state’s resources, including the power of arrest and imprisonment, and in my judgment that was the ultimate goal.
 The book can be found in the U.S.A. at Abebooks.com
 Controversy of Zion, Page 242
 Dr. Joseph Kastein according to Reed was a ‘zealous’ Zionist historian who wrote the book, History and Destiny of the Jews, (Eng. trans., London, 1933). He is extensively quoted by Douglas Reed in his book Controversy of Zion.
 Controversy of Zion, Page 243
 Controversy of Zion, Page 339
 Dr. Chaim Weizmann was a tireless proponent of Zionism. Having supplanted Theodor Herzl as the leader of the World Zionist Organization back in 1904 his influence throughout the formative years of the first half of the 20th Century upon the creation of Israel is well documented. He eventually became Israel’s first Prime Minister in 1948.
 Reed had first-hand experience of this practise. In 1952 the Canadian Jewish Congress requested that Canadian booksellers refuse to carry his books.
 Controversy of Zion, Pages 340 342
 Controversy of Zion, Pages 342-345
 Far and Wide, Page 274.