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.
Until next week, this is Kevin Alfred Strom reminding you of the words of Richard Berkeley Cotten: “Freedom is not free; free men are not equal, and equal men are not free.”
Kevin Alfred Strom – American Dissident Voices broadcast of January 10, 2004