|May 2nd, 2012||#21|
Join Date: May 2009
May 1: Israel military radio holds 'party' for Trotsky
Blues, beer, 'Bella Ciao' and smattering of Bolshevism
(ANSAmed) - TEL AVIV - In honour of May 1, hundreds of Israelis crowded into a Tel Aviv club where, on the initiative of the Israeli military radio, an evening was held in honour of the Russian philosopher and revolutionary Leon Trotsky. While blues alternated with Russian revolutionary songs from loudspeakers and waiters poured up mugs of beer, screens showed archival images of the theoretician of permanent revolution: from the political rise of Russia at the beginning of the past century to his exile in Russia and assassination by a Stalinist hit man in 1940. Made up of professional journalists and conscripts, the Israeli military radio answers to the Defence Ministry but often allows for expressions of anti-conformism. Yesterday, at the entrance to the locale, soldiers in uniform were seen with red, revolutionary-style pins in front of posters with Trotsky's face printed expressly for this occasion by the Israeli Armed Forces magazine Bamahane. For two hours (broadcast live across the country), university professors, folk singers and actors took turns recalling the revolutionary born into a middle-class Jewish family as Aryeh Ben-David Bronstein.
The myth was reconstructed step by step: from the exhausting escape from a Siberian detention camp (1907) to his becoming commander of the Red Army. And then, after exile, his courageous speaking out against Stalinism. And so it was learned that during his time in Mexico Trotsky received Labour representative Bebe Edelson who advised him in vain to move to Tel Aviv, then under the British Mandate. In reality, Trotskyism never actually got to Israel, except for at the beginning of the 1970s when (in the wake of student uprisings in Europe) the small revolutionary group Mazpen was formed, which seems to have since been definitively dissolved.
And so it is therefore highly unlikely that the evening organised by the inventive journalist-popularizer Eran Sabag will have any direct impact on Israel's political sphere. The commander of the military radio, political journalist Yaron Dekel, told ANSAmed that no one had objected in even the slightest way to the evening in Trotsky's honour. He went on to quote Plato, adding ''there is only one negative things, and that is ignorance. And there is only one positive things: knowledge.'' His broadcaster will therefore be holding other similar events in the event, he said, while the radio ended the evening on the notes of the ''Red Flag'' and ''Bella Ciao''.
|October 24th, 2012||#22|
Join Date: May 2009
Henry Srebrnik: "The Old Left, the New Left, and the Jews"
"......But the two are more of a seamless web than many people realize, despite the fact that the newer radical movement showed disdain for the hide-bound old Communists.
The connecting thread is the Jews of New York."
Henry Srebrnik: The Old Left, the New Left, and the Jews
"This past May, I attended a conference on “Jews and the Left” held at the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research in New York. Some 240 participants, from as far away as Chile, England, Israel and Lithuania, came to hear papers dealing with Jews in both the old and new lefts of the 20th century, and the role of Jewish women in these movements.
Among the distinguished speakers were Harvey Klehr of Emory University, Tony Michels of the University of Wisconsin, Riv-Ellen Prell of the University of Minnesota, Paul Berman of New York University, Antony Polonsky of Brandeis, Alice Kessler-Harris of Columbia, and Michael Walzer of Princeton. There was plenty of heated debate and discussion.
A few days later, I took in the play “4000 Miles,” by Amy Herzog, at Lincoln Center. It’s the story of the 91-year-old widow of a once-celebrated Communist writer and activist, and her 21-year-old grandson, whose life has been shaped by post-1960s culture.
All of this got me thinking about the political link between the two left-wing movements. The so-called “Old Left” was led by the Communist Party (CPUSA), and that organization almost collapsed after 1956, when its members learned, to their sorrow, that the Soviet state they had been worshiping for decades was, under Joseph Stalin, actually a murderous tyranny.
The political space the Communists left behind would, within a few years, be filled by a less dogmatic “New Left,” led by student radicals in groups like SDS, the Students for a Democratic Society, founded just four years later.
But the two are more of a seamless web than many people realize, despite the fact that the newer radical movement showed disdain for the hide-bound old Communists.
The connecting thread is the Jews of New York.
In 1939, according to Professor Klehr, some 40 percent of the 39,000 CPUSA members were Jewish, and concentrated in big cities, New York in particular. Half of the party’s cultural apparatus, centered in New York, was Jewish, added Tony Michels.
When Henry Wallace ran for president on the Communist-inspired Progressive Party ticket in 1948, about one third of his vote came from Jews.
Indeed, the history of American Communism “cannot be understood without Jews,” said Professor Michels.
The party collapsed in the 1950s, and by 1960 had just 3,000 members. But the children of Jewish Communists, so called “red diaper babies,” would fill the ranks of the leadership of the New Left.
People like Mark Rudd, who led a student revolt at Columbia University in 1968, were typical.
Of the fifty-nine individuals who gathered in Port Huron, Michigan in June 1962 to issue the SDS Port Huron Statement, the most influential manifesto that ever came from the student left, between one-third to one-half were Jews, according to Columbia University professor Todd Gitlin, a former president of SDS.
We can see how the one movement morphed into the other by looking at two seminal cultural events: the Peekskill riots of 1949 and the iconic Woodstock music festival twenty years later.
The catalyst for the Peekskill rioting was an announced concert by African-American singer Paul Robeson, known for his Communist affiliations. The concert, organized as a benefit for the Civil Rights Congress, a Communist-directed group, was scheduled to take place on August 27 just north of Peekskill, NY.
Before Robeson arrived, a mob of locals attacked concert-goers with baseball bats and rocks. The local police arrived hours later and did little to intervene. Thirteen people were seriously injured, Robeson was lynched in effigy and a cross was seen burning on an adjacent hillside.
Many of those who came were Jews in various Communist-front organizations. This was the era of McCarthyism, and the Communist Party was on the defensive.
Fast-forward 20 years to August 15-18, 1969 and the height of the counter-culture. The Woodstock Festival, like the Peekskill concert, was held outside New York, in the Catskills, long a Jewish vacation area. (In the 1940s, many of the resorts were frequented by the same left-wing Jews who were at Peekskill.) There was more of a Jewish connection to Woodstock than people remember. It, too, had a Jewish flavor; many of the singers and groups were Jews.
The venue where it took place was owned by Max Yasgur, a Jewish farmer born in New York City, whose parents were East European Jewish immigrants. Most of his non-Jewish neighbors opposed the festival, but unlike in 1949 at Peekskill, there was no violence. The amorphous New Left, with its music and literature, had penetrated more deeply into the American mainstream than its predecessor. After all, it was not bound to the Soviet Union and had no need to apologize for that country’s misdeeds.
But the Old and the New left were both, in their different ways, part of American Jewish history.
Henry Srebrnik is a professor of political science at the University of Prince Edward Island in Charlottetown, PEI, Canada.
|January 23rd, 2013||#23|
Join Date: Nov 2006
"And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever."-Revelation 11:15, Holy Bible, (KJV)
|July 9th, 2013||#24|
Join Date: Jan 2013
The Triumph of Communism
The Triumph of Communism
By Andrew Hamilton
July 9, 2013
Ideologically, communism has triumphed.
Ethnically, Jews rule the roost, wielding unchecked power. Everybody serves them—whites, blacks, Mestizos, Muslims, mongrels, everyone.
This dual victory is not surprising. Jews and totalitarianism go together like bread and wheat. You can have freedom or you can have Jews, but you can’t have both.
We have Jews, and therefore unfreedom. The totalitarianism of the synagogue, the ghetto, and the shtetl has been magnified, exteriorized, and imposed upon the entire world.
But didn’t Communism “collapse”? Didn’t it “fail”?
As an undergraduate, I took an upper-level course in Scandinavian politics. The professor was a Left-wing Scandinavian American who maintained a summer house in Norway to which he repaired each year. Recently, I observe, King Harald V appointed him Knight First Class of the Royal Norwegian Order of Merit for his promotion of research and university collaboration between the United States and Norway.
One day we fell into a discussion about whether Scandinavia was communist or not. Already by that time I maintained it was.
He said it was not. Why? “Because the means of production are privately owned.”
Well, if that is your definition of communism, arguably communism did not triumph.
But a realist must ask himself at what point oppressive regulation and the power to interfere, tax, condemn, seize, and destroy property nullifies the very concept of private ownership.
At any rate, my label of “communism” is not dependent upon such a highly formalistic definition, but rather on the Orwellian essence of totalitarianism as brilliantly explicated in the novel 1984, whose world is an imaginary amalgamation and extrapolation of the Soviet Union and Socialist Britain.
Unsurprisingly, a Jewish hate publication tricked out as a “scholarly” journal once investigated whether George Orwell was “anti-Semitic.” The academic hack who wrote the piece claimed to have found no evidence of anti-Semitism in Orwell’s background whatsoever, which seems miraculous in light of what he wrote.
Sam Francis’s concept of “anarcho-tyranny” is a useful adjunct to describe the weirdness of the contemporary world but, suspiciously, the “anarchy” always promotes specific groups and behaviors, and at any rate is enabled by communists (e.g., the ghetto riots and burning of US cities in the 1960s, Muslim and colored riots in Europe today).
“Democracy” is a farce, in which massive social changes like universal surveillance, wholesale violation of civil liberties, and replacement of indigenous European populations through replacement migration are swiftly rammed through as massive bills without discussion or debate. Legislators, mere rubber stamps—never mind the public—are treated with contempt, and not consulted.
As a consequence, lawmakers have become ambitious placeholders, members of parties without a dime’s worth of difference between them, selected by a tiny clique of oligarchs, monitored closely by the controlled media and “watchdog groups,” and set against one another in periodic dogfights called elections. If a candidate says anything politically incorrect, he’s out.
Pundits, the media, and the populace get very excited over these events, which are as exciting as NFL games. The presidential race is akin to the Super Bowl.
Traditional forms of Communism—Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, Maoism—still thrive, especially in pockets of academia. Every traditional sect retains more social, financial, and intellectual backing, more respectability and vigor, than do white nationalism, “anti-Semitism,” “racism,” “xenophobia,” “male chauvinism,” and “homophobia” all rolled into one.
Perceptive observers will note that after the “fall” of Communism no mass brainwashing/persecution akin to de-Nazification took place; there were no show trials or hangings; no camps, mass starvations, or ethnic cleansings; no media campaigns, ritual denunciations, reparations, or trials against Communists such as are still conducted against Germans and Germany.
“Ex”-Communists remain ensconced in the global ruling elite, in the UN, the EU, NGOs, transnational organizations, as heads of state (Vladimir Putin) and other top-level government officials, academics, and journalists. President Obama has a well-known “ex”-terrorist friend. In South Africa, Rhodesia, and South West Africa, the black ruling class is comprised entirely of “former” Communists and terrorists.
Communist bloc Jews poured into the West thanks to enablers like US Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson (D.-Wash.), and immediately occupied top-level positions in our universities, government, and businesses (e.g., Sergey Brin of Google). They also arrived as oligarchs and mobsters.
Today, Left-wing totalitarianism holds unchallenged sway over both state and society.
An Iniquitous Religion
Jewish-run societies, communist societies, are thoroughly “religious,” dogmatic, fanatically anti-scientific, and anti-empirical. But it is religion turned on its head. Good is “evil” and evil “good.” The ruling class is saturated with hate.
When Venezuelan Mestizo Hugo Chavez in 2006 said to the UN, after ostentatiously crossing himself, “Yesterday the Devil [George W. Bush] came here. Right here. And it smells of sulphur still today. Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the Devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world,” he was of course telling the truth.
But Bush was only a mouthpiece for Jews and the Left, something Chavez, also a religious communist, would never admit. Consequently, he effectively attacked the “white” United States instead, a fiction.
Furthermore, Chavez, his friend Fidel Castro, and the United Nations are, like Bush, of their father the Devil. They were murderers from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in them. Chavez’s cavil was a dispute between gangsters.
In a piously iniquitous society such as ours, one cannot help but laugh at the antics of contemporary “atheists” like the late Christopher Hitchens or evolutionist Richard Dawkins, who, in attacking Christianity, posture as brave crusaders against prejudice while bowing reverently to the real idols of the day—Jews, the Holocaust, “anti-racism,” etc. They are as superstitious and benighted as anyone who ever lived. Such noisy charlatans would spontaneously combust if freedom of speech suddenly materialized.
“Atheism” amounts to little more than anti-Christian bigotry. It is not really anti-religious. It is eminently safe (safety is a sure tip-off as to what transgresses, or does not transgress, the Party line). Any religion that opponents can freely kick and maul to a bloody pulp while winning fame, fortune, and plaudits for doing so has no power.
Moreover, “Christians” and their institutions worship the same idols as atheists. They long ago abandoned their precepts and God, and openly humble themselves before Jews.
Jews, by contrast, wield true power, so “atheists” and Christians alike keep their mouths tightly shut when it comes to serious criticism of Judaism.
One of the few principled atheists I’m aware of was Revilo Oliver. He did not worship Jews, and his atheism was not hypocritical.
As noted, communism is the antithesis of freedom. Jews and the Left hate freedom and systematically crush it.
Jews, the Left, and government limit freedom of speech to the State, Jews, Left-wing exponents, pornographers, and huge media companies. (Actually, speech is tightly monitored even on the local level.)
The last-named are an interesting case study in so-called freedom of speech and thought.
Media companies, including those on the Internet, are in reality great public utilities or common carriers monopolizing the single most important forum of modern life—access to facts and the formation of attitudes and public opinion. We are told that they can censor anything they like because they are “privately owned.”
To make matters worse, the power to censor is effectively delegated to a tiny handful of tax exempt ethnic/religious entities such as the Jewish ADL which monitor content and tell businesses what to forbid, supply key boilerplate passages in terms of service contracts relating to freedom of speech, impose governmental “hate speech” laws via their powerful lobbying arms, compile and furnish lists to media and Internet companies, software filtering and anti-virus firms, and government agencies, including the police and secret police, of ideologically, politically, racially, and religiously “forbidden” websites, publications, organizations, and individuals who allegedly express “dangerous,” “hateful,” “racist,” or “anti-Semitic” views.
Upon the enormously distorted public discourse that results democratic politics depends. Social issues as immense as the destruction of races, replacement migration, obliteration of overseas nations, and the elimination of civil liberties are removed completely from democratic discussion or debate.
All because media firms, too many of which are owned and staffed by Jews and Leftists, are “private” companies.
Well, your business or residence is also private, but you cannot sell them to whomever you wish. Nor can you refuse to do business with whoever you choose, or hire whoever you want. No private club, organization, or even religious institution, unless it is run by Jews or some other favored group, can limit its membership in the manner of its choosing.
“Private,” thus, only matters in law when it benefits Jewish or communist interests. Otherwise it does not.
Westerners have no right to speak or associate in any way not sanctioned by Jews or the State, for that is “hate.” Jews and the Left, on the other hand, are free to hate anyone they choose.
The Apparatchik’s Peril
The biggest danger for ambitious Establishment politicians, bureaucrats, academics, journalists, or “artists”—any pious hewer to the Party line—is that, thanks to the elimination of free speech, association, democracy, and legal protections, they will run afoul of forbidden thoughts themselves, and the blade may one day come whistling down on their own politically correct necks.
Many a goodthinker died under Communism or rotted in concentration camps thanks to the inevitability of this happening. The circle of permissible discourse shrinks continuously, and ideological transgressions, or alleged transgressions, become weapons in intra-elite power struggles.
Such is the way of the Left. Such is the way of power. Once law and tolerance have been tossed overboard, the list of enemies expands. After whites and Arabs it is Christians, after Christians milquetoast conservatives, after conservatives, mainstream liberals, then “deviationists,” and on and on. Communism is fueled by hate and an unbridled lust for power.
It is remarkable, even amusing, how surprised politically correct victims invariably are by this inevitable turn of events, despite their thorough knowledge of and eager participation in so many previous purges, mass killings, assassinations, tortures, frame-ups, and so on.
This can’t be happening to me! It is all a ghastly mistake. If only Comrade Lenin . . . Trotsky . . . Stalin knew, I would be exonerated. I’m loyal! I’ve always been loyal!
It is comical to see this happen over and over again. Life, or freedom, comes to an abrupt end even for many who joyfully harmed so many defenseless people.
Such occurrences, though large in absolute numbers, are too few to be redemptive. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Nevertheless, it is the only thing communism gets right, even if only inadvertently.
Under the rubble
This feature of Left-wing totalitarianism, though as predictable as the rising of the sun, never affects the thoughts or behavior of acolytes in the least. Even in the dock they remain uncomprehending, bewildered.
But blood must flow, corpses multiply, and torture chambers echo with the screams of luckless victims.
Leftism itself compels it!
|July 9th, 2013||#25|
Join Date: Nov 2012
Excellent points in that article. Communism has morphed into what it is today. A form of Marxism where the regulations have the same effect as outright government ownership.
|January 14th, 2014||#26|
Join Date: May 2009
The Jewish Dream of a Communist Europe
|February 22nd, 2014||#28|
Bread and Circuses
A Jüri Lina film
Based on the book “Under the Sign of the Scorpion” by Jüri Lina
This film by Jüri Lina shows how the freemasons, the international bankers, and the communists joined forces in an unholy alliance and through the Bolshevik Revolution of November 1917 established in Russia the most brutal and dehumanising slave society the world has ever seen.
The Russian writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn in 1974 admonished his countrymen: “Live wit-hout lies!” This applies equally to the West. The Truth in our time is in no-way self-evident. Most official facts about communism are not true. Solzhenitsyn emphasized: “In our country the lie has become not just a moral category, but a pillar of the state.”
The facts have been suppressed both in the East and the West. The film “In the Shadow of Hermes” is an important documentation of those financial masonic forces that cold-bloodedly wor-ked behind the scenes through communism to profit from the suffering of others.
The director, Jüri Lina, stresses that it is his duty to tell the truth about communism and its grey eminences, and not just superficially treat its psychopathic symptoms, while the truth today is not highly valued.
History is made every day – but by whom? The answer is given in this film, the aim of which is to unmask the truth, despite the falsifications of history, so meekly reported by the media.
To know the real history of communism is the best insurance against ideological impostors.
The film is in Swedish with English subtitles.
|February 22nd, 2014||#29|
Radical Racial Anarchist
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Minnesota-[FEMA Region V]- ZOG Occupied United States
According to the anarchist thinker Mikhail Bakunin Karl Marx was entirely funded by the Rothschilds. His publishing, campaigns, and activities. Everything. He called it a conspiracy of the central banks.
Who are the Rothschilds? One of the oldest and richest Jewish families all of Europe that have a long history within banking.
Later after World War II it was also the Rothschilds that funded the creation of the Israeli state.
|February 23rd, 2014||#30|
Bread and Circuses
The EU also have commissars not elected by the people.
The plan of the left-wing EU Commissars is to gradually reduce the Nationhood of each member country to that of a federal state, leaving limited powers only, taking control of fiscal, defence and foreign policy.
It is a new form of communism, we can call it blue communism.
|February 23rd, 2014||#31|
Radical Racial Anarchist
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Minnesota-[FEMA Region V]- ZOG Occupied United States
You're absolutely correct Rick Holland in your assessment.
|March 11th, 2014||#32|
Bread and Circuses
|June 3rd, 2014||#33|
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Europa, Serbia
I have same opinion about that communism created Jews, but Jews created todays new democracy too!!! Jews splited Christianity on 3 large parts, Orthodox, Catholic and Protestants, so they gived reason to White People fight between our self! I even dont believe in Bible because Jews wrote the Bible, I believe that Jesus Christ existed, but not in his 12 followers, in those 12 maybe there was Zionists too who tryed to destroy Aryan bravery and make us soft instead greatest warriors!
This is how they created commmunism and democracy, to White Race fight and kill each others, WW2 is the best picture of this and ''Cold War'' wich is propaganda too and every happens on the world is made to avoid Aryan Race to think about immigrants and real problems! So Zionists made ''problem'' or via their main weapon, Medias, they simplly destroying moral, system of valuable and doing everithing so Aryan White Race become stupid, unmoral and to be weak!
Adolf Hitler knew this very well and successfuly wake up Germany against ZOG, push them out from every single work place in Germany and Third Reich is still most beutiful period for one Nation(Germany) until war started caused by Jews using England as biggest allies and England push USA in the war!!!
|June 5th, 2014||#34|
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Alpine central european area
Blog Entries: 4
I was read "communist manifesto" and saw what mason on 33. degree (top degree of masons),jew what have blood relation with rabbis teaching all non-jews. What amazing accent on working class he put,workers rights that must have fight with burgeoise,well all people here must know that jew wrote jokes in this manifesto. Instruction for write this comic book he received directly by New Testament in "acts of the apostles",but he "forgot" put God. What is big joke in Marx writing? Joke is that one jew who isn't never working hard work giving advice to real workers what they must done. This we can tell each worker who work hard for his bread: "non-worker Marx isn't your friend,do you really belive that man who never worked hard have decision for your problems?" We all know who have had decision for problems of workers,his name is Adolf Hitler who have been worker (read chapter about Vienna in Mein Kampd,I think that this is third chapter),who really know what is hard work and because of this he created national socialism for Germans and given example on which way must Europan nation modelate its own policy but this socialism hadn't been good for fake socialists communists,yes we all know why,jews models can't survive If they have real opponents of his fakes.
Last edited by Fico; June 5th, 2014 at 06:58 PM.
|October 12th, 2014||#35|
Bread and Circuses
|November 1st, 2014||#36|
Join Date: Nov 2003
Blog Entries: 34
State Department document 861.00/1757 was sent on 2 May 1918, from Moscow by US Consul General Summers to the U.S Department of State reporting that...
"Jews predominate in local Soviet government, anti jewish feeling growing among local population which tends to regard oncoming Germans as deliverers."
State Department document 861.00/2205, was sent from Vladivostok on 5 July 1918, by US Consul Caldwell to the U.S Department of State noting...
"50% of Soviet government in each town consists of Jews of the worst type, many of whom are anarchists. It would be a grave mistake on our part to officially recognize Bolshevik who scarcely represent [blank] of the population."
US Military Intelligence officer, one captain Montgomery Schuyler, sent a report to Washington from Omsk on 1 March 1919, describing in detail the Jewish role in the Russian Revolution...
"It is probably unwise to say this loudly in the United States but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since its beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest type..."
US Military Intelligence officer, one captain Montgomery Schuyler, sent a report to Washington from Vladivostok dated 9 June 1919 stating that Jews [control Bolshevik Revolution]…
"These hopes were frustrated by the gradual gains in power of the more irresponsible and socialistic elements of the population guided by the Jews and other anti-Russian races. A table made in 1918 by Robert [Hilton], the correspondent of the London Times in Russia, shows that at that time there were 384 commissars including 2 Negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen, 22 Armenians and more than 300 Jews. Of the latter number 264 had come to Russia from the United States since the downfall of the Imperial Government."
Last edited by Alex Linder; November 1st, 2014 at 07:19 PM.
|November 2nd, 2014||#37|
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Kikesville, Hymietown
"Some call it Communism; I call it Judaism." (--"Red Rabbi" Stephen Wise, when asked in 1935 by a reporter to comment on Communism).
No jews, no problems.
Never trust a jew.
|May 2nd, 2015||#38|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The wild frontier
Secede. Control taxbases/municipalities. Use boycotts, divestment, sanctions, strikes.
|May 10th, 2015||#39|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The wild frontier
Who stole our culture? Williams S. Lind
Sometime during the last half-century, someone stole our culture. Just 50 years ago, in the 1950s, America was a great place. It was safe. It was decent. Children got good educations in the public schools. Even blue-collar fathers brought home middle-class incomes, so moms could stay home with the kids. Television shows reflected sound, traditional values.
Where did it all go? How did that America become the sleazy, decadent place we live in today – so different that those who grew up prior to the ’60s feel like it’s a foreign country? Did it just “happen”?
It didn’t just “happen.” In fact, a deliberate agenda was followed to steal our culture and leave a new and very different one in its place. The story of how and why is one of the most important parts of our nation’s history – and it is a story almost no one knows. The people behind it wanted it that way.
What happened, in short, is that America’s traditional culture, which had grown up over generations from our Western, Judeo-Christian roots, was swept aside by an ideology. We know that ideology best as “political correctness” or “multi-culturalism.” It really is cultural Marxism, Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms in an effort that goes back not to the 1960s, but to World War I. Incredible as it may seem, just as the old economic Marxism of the Soviet Union has faded away, a new cultural Marxism has become the ruling ideology of America’s elites. The No. 1 goal of that cultural Marxism, since its creation, has been the destruction of Western culture and the Christian religion.
To understand anything, we have to know its history. To understand who stole our culture, we need to take a look at the history of “political correctness.”
Early Marxist theory
Before World War I, Marxist theory said that if Europe ever erupted in war, the working classes in every European country would rise in revolt, overthrow their governments and create a new Communist Europe. But when war broke out in the summer of 1914, that didn’t happen. Instead, the workers in every European country lined up by the millions to fight their country’s enemies. Finally, in 1917, a Communist revolution did occur, in Russia. But attempts to spread that revolution to other countries failed because the workers did not support it.
After World War I ended in 1918, Marxist theorists had to ask themselves the question: What went wrong? As good Marxists, they could not admit Marxist theory had been incorrect. Instead, two leading Marxist intellectuals, Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary (Lukacs was considered the most brilliant Marxist thinker since Marx himself) independently came up with the same answer. They said that Western culture and the Christian religion had so blinded the working class to its true, Marxist class interests, that a Communist revolution was impossible in the West, until both could be destroyed. That objective, established as cultural Marxism’s goal right at the beginning, has never changed.
A new strategy
Gramsci famously laid out a strategy for destroying Christianity and Western culture, one that has proven all too successful. Instead of calling for a Communist revolution up front, as in Russia, he said Marxists in the West should take political power last, after a “long march through the institutions” – the schools, the media, even the churches, every institution that could influence the culture. That “long march through the institutions” is what America has experienced, especially since the 1960s. Fortunately, Mussolini recognized the danger Gramsci posed and jailed him. His influence remained small until the 1960s, when his works, especially the “Prison Notebooks,” were rediscovered.
Georg Lukacs proved more influential. In 1918, he became deputy commissar for culture in the short-lived Bela Kun Bolshevik regime in Hungary. There, asking, “Who will save us from Western civilization?” he instituted what he called “cultural terrorism.” One of its main components was introducing sex education into Hungarian schools. Lukacs realized that if he could destroy the country’s traditional sexual morals, he would have taken a giant step toward destroying its traditional culture and Christian faith.
Far from rallying to Lukacs’ “cultural terrorism,” the Hungarian working class was so outraged by it that when Romania invaded Hungary, the workers would not fight for the Bela Kun government, and it fell. Lukacs disappeared, but not for long. In 1923, he turned up at a “Marxist Study Week” in Germany, a program sponsored by a young Marxist named Felix Weil who had inherited millions. Weil and the others who attended that study week were fascinated by Lukacs’ cultural perspective on Marxism.
The Frankfurt School
Weil responded by using some of his money to set up a new think tank at Frankfurt University in Frankfurt, Germany. Originally it was to be called the “Institute for Marxism.” But the cultural Marxists realized they could be far more effective if they concealed their real nature and objectives. They convinced Weil to give the new institute a neutral-sounding name, the “Institute for Social Research.” Soon known simply as the “Frankfurt School,” the Institute for Social Research would become the place where political correctness, as we now know it, was developed. The basic answer to the question “Who stole our culture?” is the cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School.
At first, the Institute worked mainly on conventional Marxist issues such as the labor movement. But in 1930, that changed dramatically. That year, the Institute was taken over by a new director, a brilliant young Marxist intellectual named Max Horkheimer. Horkheimer had been strongly influenced by Georg Lukacs. He immediately set to work to turn the Frankfurt School into the place where Lukacs’ pioneering work on cultural Marxism could be developed further into a full-blown ideology.
To that end, he brought some new members into the Frankfurt School. Perhaps the most important was Theodor Adorno, who would become Horkheimer’s most creative collaborator. Other new members included two psychologists, Eric Fromm and Wilhelm Reich, who were noted promoters of feminism and matriarchy, and a young graduate student named Herbert Marcuse.
Advances in cultural Marxism
With the help of this new blood, Horkheimer made three major advances in the development of cultural Marxism. First, he broke with Marx’s view that culture was merely part of society’s “superstructure,” which was determined by economic factors. He said that on the contrary, culture was an independent and very important factor in shaping a society.
Second, again contrary to Marx, he announced that in the future, the working class would not be the agent of revolution. He left open the question of who would play that role – a question Marcuse answered in the 1950s.
Third, Horkheimer and the other Frankfurt School members decided that the key to destroying Western culture was to cross Marx with Freud. They argued that just as workers were oppressed under capitalism, so under Western culture, everyone lived in a constant state of psychological repression. “Liberating” everyone from that repression became one of cultural Marxism’s main goals. Even more important, they realized that psychology offered them a far more powerful tool than philosophy for destroying Western culture: psychological conditioning.
Today, when Hollywood’s cultural Marxists want to “normalize” something like homosexuality (thus “liberating” us from “repression”), they put on television show after television show where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual. That is how psychological conditioning works; people absorb the lessons the cultural Marxists want them to learn without even knowing they are being taught.
The Frankfurt School was well on the way to creating political correctness. Then suddenly, fate intervened. In 1933, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party came to power in Germany, where the Frankfurt School was located. Since the Frankfurt School was Marxist, and the Nazis hated Marxism, and since almost all its members were Jewish, it decided to leave Germany. In 1934, the Frankfurt School, including its leading members from Germany, was re-established in New York City with help from Columbia University. Soon, its focus shifted from destroying traditional Western culture in Germany to doing so in the United States. It would prove all too successful.
Taking advantage of American hospitality, the Frankfurt School soon resumed its intellectual work to create cultural Marxism. To its earlier achievements in Germany, it added these new developments.
To serve its purpose of “negating” Western culture, the Frankfurt School developed a powerful tool it called “Critical Theory.” What was the theory? The theory was to criticize. By subjecting every traditional institution, starting with family, to endless, unremitting criticism (the Frankfurt School was careful never to define what it was for, only what it was against), it hoped to bring them down. Critical Theory is the basis for the “studies” departments that now inhabit American colleges and universities. Not surprisingly, those departments are the home turf of academic political correctness.
Studies in prejudice
The Frankfurt School sought to define traditional attitudes on every issue as “prejudice” in a series of academic studies that culminated in Adorno’s immensely influential book, “The Authoritarian Personality,” published in 1950. They invented a bogus “F-scale” that purported to tie traditional beliefs on sexual morals, relations between men and women and questions touching on the family to support for fascism. Today, the favorite term the politically correct use for anyone who disagrees with them is “fascist.”
The Frankfurt School again departed from orthodox Marxism, which argued that all of history was determined by who owned the means of production. Instead, they said history was determined by which groups, defined as men, women, races, religions, etc., had power or “dominance” over other groups. Certain groups, especially white males, were labeled “oppressors,” while other groups were defined as “victims.” Victims were automatically good, oppressors bad, just by what group they came from, regardless of individual behavior.
Though Marxists, the members of the Frankfurt School also drew from Nietzsche (someone else they admired for his defiance of traditional morals was the Marquis de Sade). They incorporated into their cultural Marxism what Nietzsche called the “transvaluation of all values.” What that means, in plain English, is that all the old sins become virtues, and all the old virtues become sins. Homosexuality is a fine and good thing, but anyone who thinks men and women should have different social roles is an evil “fascist.” That is what political correctness now teaches children in public schools all across America. (The Frankfurt School wrote about American public education. It said it did not matter if school children learned any skills or any facts. All that mattered was that they graduate from the schools with the right “attitudes” on certain questions.)
Media and entertainment
Led by Adorno, the Frankfurt School initially opposed the culture industry, which they thought “commodified” culture. Then, they started to listen to Walter Benjamin, a close friend of Horkheimer and Adorno, who argued that cultural Marxism could make powerful use of tools like radio, film and later television to psychologically condition the public. Benjamin’s view prevailed, and Horkheimer and Adorno spent the World War II years in Hollywood. It is no accident that the entertainment industry is now cultural Marxism’s most powerful weapon.
The growth of Marxism in the United States
After World War II and the defeat of the Nazis, Horkheimer, Adorno and most of the other members of the Frankfurt School returned to Germany, where the Institute re-established itself in Frankfurt with the help of the American occupation authorities. Cultural Marxism in time became the unofficial but all-pervasive ideology of the Federal Republic of Germany.
But hell had not forgotten the United States. Herbert Marcuse remained here, and he set about translating the very difficult academic writings of other members of the Frankfurt School into simpler terms Americans could easily grasp. His book “Eros and Civilization” used the Frankfurt School’s crossing of Marx with Freud to argue that if we would only “liberate non-procreative eros” through “polymorphous perversity,” we could create a new paradise where there would be only play and no work. “Eros and Civilization” became one of the main texts of the New Left in the 1960s.
Marcuse also widened the Frankfurt School’s intellectual work. In the early 1930s, Horkheimer had left open the question of who would replace the working class as the agent of Marxist revolution. In the 1950s, Marcuse answered the question, saying it would be a coalition of students, blacks, feminist women and homosexuals – the core of the student rebellion of the 1960s, and the sacred “victims groups” of political correctness today. Marcuse further took one of political correctness’s favorite words, “tolerance,” and gave it a new meaning. He defined “liberating tolerance” as tolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the left, and intolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the right. When you hear the cultural Marxists today call for “tolerance,” they mean Marcuse’s “liberating tolerance” (just as when they call for “diversity,” they mean uniformity of belief in their ideology).
The student rebellion of the 1960s, driven largely by opposition to the draft for the Vietnam War, gave Marcuse a historic opportunity. As perhaps its most famous “guru,” he injected the Frankfurt School’s cultural Marxism into the baby boom generation. Of course, they did not understand what it really was. As was true from the Institute’s beginning, Marcuse and the few other people “in the know” did not advertise that political correctness and multi-culturalism were a form of Marxism. But the effect was devastating: a whole generation of Americans, especially the university-educated elite, absorbed cultural Marxism as their own, accepting a poisonous ideology that sought to destroy America’s traditional culture and Christian faith. That generation, which runs every elite institution in America, now wages a ceaseless war on all traditional beliefs and institutions. They have largely won that war. Most of America’s traditional culture lies in ruins.
Now you know who stole our culture. The question is, what are we, as Christians and as cultural conservatives, going to do about it?
We can choose between two strategies. The first is to try to retake the existing institutions – the public schools, the universities, the media, the entertainment industry and most of the mainline churches – from the cultural Marxists. They expect us to try to do that, they are ready for it, and we would find ourselves, with but small voice and few resources compared to theirs, making a frontal assault against prepared defensive positions. Any soldier can tell you what that almost always leads to: defeat.
There is another, more promising strategy. We can separate ourselves and our families from the institutions the cultural Marxists control and build new institutions for ourselves, institutions that reflect and will help us recover our traditional Western culture.
Several years ago, my colleague Paul Weyrich wrote an open letter to the conservative movement suggesting this strategy. While most other conservative (really Republican) leaders demurred, his letter resonated powerfully with grass-roots conservatives. Many of them are already part of a movement to secede from the corrupt, dominant culture and create parallel institutions: the homeschooling movement. Similar movements are beginning to offer sound alternatives in other aspects of life, including movements to promote small, often organic family farms and to develop community markets for those farms’ products. If Brave New World’s motto is “Think globally, act locally,” ours should be “Think locally, act locally.”
Thus, our strategy for undoing what cultural Marxism has done to America has a certain parallel to its own strategy, as Gramsci laid it out so long ago. Gramsci called for Marxists to undertake a “long march through the institutions.” Our counter-strategy would be a long march to create our own institutions. It will not happen quickly, or easily. It will be the work of generations – as was theirs. They were patient, because they knew the “inevitable forces of history” were on their side. Can we not be equally patient, and persevering, knowing that the Maker of history is on ours?
Secede. Control taxbases/municipalities. Use boycotts, divestment, sanctions, strikes.
|August 6th, 2016||#40|
Join Date: Jul 2014
The Sixty Million
Jews & Bolshevism, Part 1
Dara Halley-James 16,256 words
Part 1 of 5
The following continues an extended series of excerpts from the penultimate draft of Dara Halley-James’ forthcoming book The Sixty Million: How Leading Jewish Communists, Zionists, and Neocons Brought on a Dozen Holocausts.
Background to Jewish-Peasant Relations
By the year 1000, Jewish societies had virtually no peasants. Operating ‘higher on the food chain’, they became an integral part of the privileged classes. Even the lower-level jobs many Jews occupied made them far better off than a serf.
Serfdom or partial serfdom existed in Prussia, Austria-Hungary, Poland and Russia. Until the 1880s, most Jews lived where their key social function was to mediate the oppression of the peasants on behalf of Crown and nobility. In Poland and the Pale, writes Shahak, Jews “were employed as the direct supervisors and oppressors of the enserfed peasantry — as bailiffs of whole manors (invested with the landlord’s full coercive powers) or as lessees of particular feudal monopolies such as the corn mill, the liquor still and public house . . . or the bakery, and as collectors of customary feudal dues of all kinds.” Thus Jews were the face of exploitation for the peasantry, as well as the embodiment of the town dweller, there being few others.
It is richly ironic that Jews would play the leading role in Communism. Rabbis were the most loyal and zealous supporters of the powers-that-be, the more reactionary those powers the better. Jews were positioned all the more favourably under strong regimes retaining a feudal character. The development of a national consciousness was to be feared. In sum, the society of classical Judaism found itself in total opposition to the surrounding Gentile society, except the king or king-replacing nobles. The Jews were not persecuted. Au contraire, they were protected by the upper clergy. They were protected by the nobility. Where Jews had problems was with with lower clergy who were close to the peasants, with the peasants themselves and with any rising Gentile middle class resentful of the privileging of alien competitors.
Persecutions were always from below, until the Nazis. Shahak observes that “in all the worst anti-Jewish persecutions, that is, where Jews were killed, the ruling elite — the emperor and the Pope, the king, the higher aristocracy and the upper clergy, as well as the rich bourgeoisie . . . were always on the side of the Jews. . . . [T]he fact remains that they did defend the Jew.” Massacres were a by-product of peasant rebellions. Only if the government were weak and declining would it stand aside and let pogroms happen, as happened if only through incompetence in late Czarist Russia. When strong, the government might intensify legal discrimination, but would not tolerate pogroms.
There are many examples of persecution of Jews by the lower orders that have gone down in Jewish history as officially-sanctioned when nothing could be further from the truth. Revenge attacks for the Black Death were strictly by the lower orders in defiance of the Pope and the whole Catholic Church. As mentioned above, when the Ukrainian nationalist Chmielnicki led Cossacks and serfs against extreme oppression, and tens of thousands of Jews were reportedly killed, Jews would ever after remember and fixate upon the Jewish death toll and attribute the disaster to supposedly-gratuitous anti-Semitism. In fact, insists Shahak, “even more horrible atrocities and ‘counter-terror’ [were committed] by the Polish magnates’ private armies [upon Chmielnicki’s forces].” Unbelievably, any modern-day anti-Israel vote in the UN by the Ukraine is attributed by the Israeli press to the legacy of Chmielnicki.
Continues Shahak, “Everywhere, classical Judaism developed hatred and contempt for agriculture as an occupation and for peasants as a class, even more than for other Gentiles — a hatred of which I know no parallel in other societies. This is immediately apparent to anyone who is familiar with the Yiddish or Hebrew literature of the 19th and 20th centuries.” Many “east-European Jewish socialists . . . were themselves tainted with a ferocious anti-peasant attitude inherited from classical Judaism.” (This perhaps explains why Stalin could rely on Jews like Lazar Kaganovich to impose the Terror Famine on ‘peasants’ in 1932-33.) Thus Jews opposed the Catholic clergy’s promotion of peasant cooperatives. The tradition would persist even into the 1980s in the racist denigration of the Russian people by many a Jewish dissident in the USSR.
It’s worth emphasizing that the king or prince would grant a charter to the Jewish community, giving it autonomy and giving the rabbi the power to dictatorial powers over that community. Rabbis wouldn’t have to pay taxes. The better the relationship between ruler and Jewish authorities, the more tyrannical those authorities would be. No one has heard of the following inquisition because it was conducted by Jews: Pedro I allowed the Jewish authorities of Castile to set up a national inquisition against Jewish religious deviators, a century prior to the more infamous Inquisition.
The 1500s through the 1700s was perhaps the most superstition-ridden era in Judaism’s history. And Polish Jewry was the most fanatical in this regard. ‘Jewish autonomy’ sounds great, but it was deployed to stifle original or innovative thinking, writes Shahak, “to promote the most shameless exploitation of the Jewish poor by the Jewish rich in alliance with the rabbis, and to justify the Jews’ role in the oppression of the peasants in the service of the nobles . . .” In Poland in the 1700s, a chasm of hostility opened up between the Jewish elite (rabbis and the rich) and the Jewish masses. When eastern Poland became part of the Russian Pale, this class conflict between Jewish strata fed the resentment of Jewish revolutionaries. Voilà: the bankruptcy of classical Judaism helped stir the cauldron of revolution.
Jewish Roots for Communism?
The Jewish version of the Enlightenment was called the Haskalah. Its proponents believed there was a need for a top-to-bottom critique of Jewish society. This worthy if halting first step was, by fanaticism, transformed into a stampede toward revolutionary agitation which culminated in Bolshevism. A turning point had occurred, as we have seen, when Ukrainians stoked with what Cantor calls “the ferocious resentment built up in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries against the Jewish agents of the Polish landlords who exploited and oppressed them,” rose up in 1648. Chmielnicki’s pogroms killed upwards of 40,000 Polish Jews, a collective trauma for Jews in what had been a Polish paradise for them for a century and a half.
By 1666, they had found a messiah, ever-so-briefy: Sabbatai Zevi. Cantor writes of how mass hysteria gripped Jewish communities throughout Europe and the Mediterranean as thousands upon thousands prepared for a triumphant return to Zion. Many went so far as to exhume the bodies of dead relatives to take with them, in the expectation of resurrection! As crazed as modern-era fundamentalist Christians awaiting The Rapture, Jewish families lingered pitifully on rooftops with bags packed, awaiting ‘Angel Airlines’ to transport them to Jerusalem. How different was this desperately-intense millennial craziness from the revolutionary fervor that would arise in the Pale two centuries later? “Trotsky’s was the mind of an apocalyptic Cabalistic visionary transformed by modernity into a completely secular and materialist millennial prophet,” suggests Cantor. But Trotsky was merely at the forefront of a veritable phenomenon. Crows Cantor, “The Jews, once emancipated and given the opportunity for mobility were genetically so superior that market capitalism could not accommodate some of this superior species, and . . . [they] reacted to this rebuff by becoming . . . reds.” (my emphases: one wonders how 99 percent of human civilization’s advances managed to occur absent contributions from such genetically-superior beings and remind Cantor that even the 1 percent may not have been worth 73 years of Communism and its attendant catastrophes bored into the heart of the 20th century.)
Young Jewish revolutionaries took to heart what non-Jewish ones turned a blind eye to, that is, Marx’s depiction of money-mania (capitalism) as Jewish, with communism as emancipation from that state of mind. Jews became the most ardent capitalists and anti-capitalists. In fact, concedes Cantor, the data does support the contention that Jews were both capitalists and communists, something that French and German critiques of the Jews pointed out in the 1920s and 1930s, to the scorn of Jewish intellectuals. As for the ‘Jews and Communism’ connection, Jewish apologists and even supposedly-objective historians would rather just sweep the whole thing under the carpet.
But it can’t be done. The Blackwell Companion to Jewish Culture says of Marxism: “There is no precedent for the direct impact that this intellectual edifice has had on world history . . . [Marxism] exercised a powerful hold upon actual and potential followers . . . because it had more in common with the Old Testament-like prophecy than modern social science . . . [Marx’s] tone was one of rage and fury . . . [This dovetailed with] the deep-seated Jewish revulsion of Gentiles . . . Jews would not have had the impression of truly changing their intellectual code in joining the Marxist stream . . . [Jewish Marxists found] themselves mainly in the German and Russian Social Democratic movements, and were even largely instrumental in the formation of these movements. . . . For example, most members of the first Russian revolutionary group, the ‘Emancipation of Labor group’ were Jews . . . [A] large proportion of Jews figure among the founders of the Marxist tradition, and . . . many Jews have found their places, following Marx himself, within the revolutionary movement, in communist parties and Trotskyite groups . . . [Theirs was] a rejection of the world as it existed and the search for a radical-revolutionary solution by destroying the existing world and building a better one in its place. This desire for destruction in turn contributed not a little to fanning the flames of antagonism between the frustrated Jew and the rest of the world.”
Jewish-American writer Diana Trilling would one day ask rhetorically: “[I]s there not . . . a discernable path between Marx’s formulation of a social absolutism and the concentration camp of National Socialism?” Yes, since although the Nazis scorned Communism, they borrowed some of its totalitarian innovations — such as the Gulag slave-labor camp, much studied by Himmler. Indeed, as Jewish-American philosopher Sidney Hook remarked in the year of Kristallnacht (1938), “It was from Stalin that Hitler learned the art of uprooting and wiping out whole groups and classes of innocent citizens” (my emphases). Of course, Stalin’s régime was loyally supported by its bedrock Jewish intelligentsia, bureaucracy and secret police who dutifully carried out such measures. But we’re getting ahead of ourselves here.
Clement Greenberg summarizes for us: “Marx and other emancipated Jews tried to hurry the Messiah by looking for him in Gentile history and foreseeing the immanent conversion of the Gentiles — not exactly to Judaism, but to a community to which Jews could assimilate themselves.” It was like a Jewish ‘hostile takeover’ of Gentile history for which Jews could appropriately serve as the avant-garde now that Jewish interests and ideas of Jewish origin were taking precedence over Christian predecessors. Cantor observes that if one rummages through ‘the baggage’ of supposedly-secular Jewish intellectuals and their supposedly-secular perspectives on modernity, one can always root out ‘borrowings from’ or ‘reactions to’ Jewish theology and ethics.
Only radical intellectuals could transmute a specific population’s longing for improvements in conditions into a rejection of the whole socio/political system. Unlike any other strata of humanity, intellectuals harbor grievances of a universal nature, and believe desired changes require restructuring of all of society, placing intellectuals at the top. And of course, this implied an avant-garde of Jewish intellectuals, otherwise what would be the point? (The phenomenon would repeat with the ‘Red-diaper’ Jewish leaders of 1960s protest; not just Vietnam policy had to change, the whole system had to come crashing down.)
In 1903’s Second Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, 26 Marxist organizations were represented by 43 delegates. About half the delegates were Jewish. The Jewish Bund wanted national status for Jews within Russia, but the internationalists Martov (Jewish), Trotsky (Jewish) and Lenin (a quarter Jewish) fought against it, and won. By 1905, “None of the social democratic leaders doubted that the dictatorship of the proletariat would come in due course” (my emphases). Indeed, the Bolsheviks despised the parliamentary system, even while the tentative 1905 revolution gave Russians a parliament of sorts. However, the contemptuous dismissal of the parliamentary principle, when the first shoots of democracy were just beginning to show, was catastrophic for Russian ‘socialism’ and would forever tar the very idea of socialism with that dismissal and its replacement by the dictatorial ways of Communism.
The Schiff Factor, Reviewed
As noted above, one could say that Jewish-American banker Jacob Schiff inaugurated the 20th century’s 1914-1950 civil war in the West by bankrolling the Japanese defeat of the Czar. This was the first victory and a very inspiring one for an Oriental over an Occidental power. And it did have the salutary effect of provoking a near-revolution in Russia, followed by some significant democratic measures. Grant Schiff that much.
But his efforts would drastically would overshoot the mark. Even the Jewish Communal Register of New York City (1917-18) conceded that, “[Schiff] financed the enemies of the autocratic Russia and used his financial influence to keep Russia away from the money market of the United States.” The weakening of the Czarist regime continued, and paved the way for Bolshevism a dozen years later. The advent of Bolshevism would tear apart Europe. How? Via both Bolshevism’s nemesis, Nazism, and Bolshevism’s fruition — after overcoming its nemesis — thereby setting back Western Europe by a generation in the process, and Eastern Europe by two generations.
In World War I, the financially-strapped “[T]sarist Russia was . . . less able to mobilize its forces . . . Recruits were sent into battle without ammunition, adequate clothing, or sufficient food,” writes Lindemann. And Schiff’s financial strangulation of Russia was largely responsible. By starving the Czar of loans, Schiff rendered the Russian army ineffective, dragged out the war and obliged Britain to adopt extreme measures to draw the U.S. into the war by way of an effective substitute for pathetic Russia.
At the same time Schiff was making loans to those who opposed the Czar, including revolutionaries who were desperate to pull Russia out of the war even at great cost. Come the February revolution, Kerensky’s government was so broke on account of the war and its inadequate financing that Kerensky had no alternative but to appease the few British and American banks from whom the Czar did manage to obtain loans by agreeing to continue Russia’s war effort, a disastrous decision that increased popular support for the revolutionary parties.
Later, with Bolshevik Russia out of the war and no more eastern front to siphon off German troops from the western front, it was all the more necessary, if Britain and France were to win or at least not lose the war, to draw the U.S. into the fray. But absent the work of one Fritz Haber, a German Jewish scientist, Germany would have had to sue for peace well before the ‘game-changing’ entry of America into the fray.
The Haber Factor
High-pressure synthesis of ammonia is what Fritz Haber, director of the new Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physical Chemistry and Electrochemistry in Berlin, initially sought. The aim was to produce fertilizer and increase yields. For this he would co-win a Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1920 along with Carl Bosch who devised the engineering aspects of the process.
But at the outset of World War I, writes Haber’s biographer Dietrich Stoltzenberg, German industry had, at most, six months-worth of ammonia reserves. Ammonia was needed to make nitric acid, a necessary component of explosives. Nitrate reserves had declined precipitously and without another source of supply, further production of explosives would soon cease. The British still ruled the sea lanes, so re-stocking from Chile was a dubious proposition. The impending ammunition shortage meant that Germany would be obliged to seek peace long before November 1918.
By the end of 1914, the Ministry of War was demanding a great expansion in ammonia production via the Haber-Bosch process. Germany wound up producing close to 200,000 tons of nitrogen this way. Absent Haber (and engineer Bosch), Germany would have been obliged to seek peace well before the Russian revolution and the American entry into the war occurred. Insist Medwar and Pyke, “But for him, Germany would almost certainly have lost the First World War within a year.” And that would have transformed the history of the rest of the 20th century — for the better.
Then there was poison gas. The 1907 Hague Convention on War on Land had been ratified by nearly all the states of Europe. It forbade the use of poisonous chemical weapons. France broke this International law in a trivial way, allowing Germany to break it in a substantial way. Yes, the French had experimented with tear gas first, but it was Haber who was responsible for inundating the battlefields of France with poison gas. In the battle of Ypres, 7,000 were poisoned and 350 killed by gas attacks. Haber would open the floodgates.
First came the German Ministry of War’s chemical weapons fund. Stoltzenberg notes that the initiator of this fund was doubtless Haber. He was always pushing for greater cooperation between the military and the scientists, of which there was little pre-war, but which he deemed vital. When it came to developing and testing chemical weapons and gear protecting against gas, Haber interjected himself into discussions, explanations, and negotiations with the military on gas warfare tactics, on production of the chemical weapons, and on every other aspect of the subject from A to Z.
Haber became utterly obsessed. All else in his life was shoved into the background. He ignored his wife and family. He tried to enlist his friends and acquaintances in his chemical-warfare crusade. He set everything aside that was unrelated to his war-work, focusing almost exclusively on chemical warfare. He was living for his profession alone. Stoltzenberg concedes: “He not only pushed forward the research on and development of the chemicals used but also exerted considerable influence on the engineering technology for turning them into weapons and advised on their use in battle.” His devotion to this project was such that his badly-neglected and perhaps disapproving wife committed suicide.
During the spring of 1915, Fritz Haber was pre-occupied 24/7 with preparations for a chlorine attack at Ypres. He would even drop in on the eastern front to prepare gas attacks there too. Stoltzenberg states plainly that “toward the end of 1915 the intensive work directed by Haber . . . made chemical warfare a reality.” Haber did much more than his duty. He became absolutely consumed with developing gas warfare, and wanted to continue even after the war ended. It wasn’t very effective. In fact, gas warfare was of limited tactical or strategic value. Haber was obliged to develop effective gas masks as well. The French even got stepped-up mustard gas onto the battlefield first, so the whole idea backfired on German soldiers.
But poison gas warfare did make World War I an even worse hell for both sides than it already was. “There is no question,” writes Haber’s biographer, “that Fritz Haber was the initiator and organizer of chemical warfare in Germany. He never denied this.” The escalated ghastliness imposed upon soldiering was partly responsible for the very great reluctance of Western nations to go to war against Hitler in the mid-1930s when he could easily have been defeated. More importantly, as above, Haber’s contributions to synthesizing ammonia enabled Germany to carry on past the first Russian revolution of 1917 and past the end of America’s isolationism. Absent Haber, Germany would have been obliged to arrange an armistice with the Czar or Kerensky, and a key plank of the Bolsheviks’ platform would have been pulled out from under it. And most importantly, America would not have become involved. As we shall see, Haber’s prolonging of World War I past early 1917 would constitute the most disastrous intervention by a scientist in world history.
Haber wanted to see even further development of chemical weapons post-war and suggested a new scientific institute to carry out the research. During the 1920s, he helped military leaders keep abreast of new developments in chemical warfare. Never having fought in the war himself, Haber lectured that gas weapons were no more inhumane than bullets and shrapnel. However, the Red Cross’s main objection was that in a combined attack, “incendiary and high-explosive bombs can render ineffective every conceivable protective measure against chemical weapons.” Nonetheless, for several years after the war, he participated in the secret preparation of chemical weapons. Haber was hooked on the inflicting of a very nasty form of death on Germany’s enemies who would then return the favor.
Haber also believed that pest control was a peacetime avenue for continuing his gas research. Laments Stoltzenberg, “It is indeed macabre and tragic that the Zyklon process started in Haber’s laboratory was used to kill countless Jews . . . during World War II.” The daughter of Haber’s half-sister, her husband and their two children were reportedly gassed.
The February Revolution and Kerensky’s Provisional Government
The February 1917 revolution in Russia was successful in forcing the Czar’s abdication, but the Provisional government could not cope with revolutionary agitation. Vis-à-vis Jews, Kerensky’s government granted them full civic rights, and this was hailed by even the anti-Semitic press. That should have been the end of it for Jews. All the restrictions upon them were lifted. Practically-speaking, there was no reason for Jews to go any further, unless the messianic was more important than the practical.
The February Revolution was the real item. This was the revolution that today’s self-styled Progressives should be hailing. But they ignore it. Shockingly, most are unaware of it. There’s a reason. Writes Solzhenitsyn: “[N]o, the February Revolution was not something the Jews did to the Russians, but rather it was done by the Russians themselves . . . True, there were already many Jews among the intelligentsia by that time, yet that is in no way a basis to call it a Jewish revolution.” As per “main animating forces,” this was a Russian ethnic Revolution.
Solzhenitsyn is only partially sympathetic to the February Revolution given its short-changing and short-circuiting of the grand Russian tradition, so he is not tempted to snatch credit for it from the Jews. It’s unfortunate for Jews that they cannot claim credit here because the February revolution, absent the Soviet sequel, was beneficent, especially toward the Jews. In fact, its first broad legislative act was the repeal of all restrictions based on religion and nationality. It didn’t name Jews as such, but Jews were the most obvious beneficiaries, intentionally so. Did ordinary Russians object? Not a hint of a single pogrom ensued. Four Jewish senators and four deputy ministers were named to Kerensky Government, a promising start for a group so long shut out of power. In fact, a worry arose amongst Jews that that should Provisional government flop, a right-wing coup might ensue and be particularly punitive toward Jews as the February Revolution’s most striking beneficiaries. This was Jewish paradise: gained. Stunningly, though, other Jews would turn this grand victory, largely bestowed upon the Jews by the democratic representatives of the Russian populace, into paradise lost, lost not only to Russia’s Jews but to all Russians.
Solzhenitsyn relates how, during the February-October Kerensky interval, “On the very heights, in the Executive Committee of the Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies, invisibly ruling the country in those months, two leaders distinguished themselves: Nakhamkis-Steklov and Gummer-Sukhanov [N-S and G-S]. On the night of March 1st to March 2nd they dictated to the complacently-blind Provisional Government a program which preemptively destroyed its power for the entire period of its existence.” Solzhenitsyn implies that both N-S and G-S were Jewish. In the greatest irony of the 20th century, ‘“The Jewish society got everything it fought for from the Revolution, and the October Revolution was altogether unnecessary for the Jews, except for a small slice of young cutthroat Jews [such as N-S and G-S], who with their Russian internationalist brothers accumulated an explosive charge of hate for the Russian governing class and burst forth to “deepen the revolution.”’
Solzhenitsyn elaborates: “The February Revolution was carried out by Russian hands and Russian foolishness. Yet at the same time, its ideology was permeated and dominated by the intransigent hostility to the historical Russian state that ordinary Russians didn’t have, but the Jews—had. So the Russian intelligentsia too had adopted this view . . . And so this intransigence overcame moderation.”
Solzhenitsyn continues: “[T]he Executive Committee of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies, which was formed within hours of the Revolution, appears very different [from the ethnic Russian cast of the February Revolution]. This [very un-Russian] Executive Committee was in fact a tough shadow government that deprived the liberal Provisional Government of any real power, while at the same time, it criminally refused to accept responsibility for its power openly. By its ‘Order No. 1,’ the Executive Committee wrested the power of the military and created support for itself in the demoralized garrison of Petrograd. It was precisely this executive Committee, and not the judiciary, not the timber industrialists, not the bankers, which fast-tracked the country to her doom . . . The Executive Committee quite purposely destroyed the army in the middle of a war.” This way the army would pose no threat to the Revolution. But how could the Russian population support a war conducted by an army deliberately rendered terminally dysfunctional? It could not, and Kerensky would pay the price.
Who were these Committee malefactors? “[M]any members of the Committee concealed themselves from the public eye behind pseudonyms: who was ruling Russia? No one knew.” Apart from a dozen soldiers there just for show, “From the other thirty . . . who actually wielded power, more than half were Jewish socialists . . . Less than a quarter were Russians.” So, more than half the behind-the-scenes committee that singlehandedly subverted the government brought to power by the ethnically-Russian-engineered February Revolution were Jews!
The author emphasizes that, “with . . . disdain for the entire Russian historical heritage, all that internationalist ilk — Gummer-Sukhanov and his henchmen from the malicious Executive Committee — steered the February Revolution.” So: leading Jews would be crucial not only to the success of the Bolshevik Revolution in October, but to the Executive Committee’s undermining of the Provisional government, which the Bolsheviks capitalized upon. In fact, it was a Jew named Mark Natanson who was first to voice the idea of dissolving the constituent assembly.
The Russian Nobel Laureate is adamant that, “above . . . all of Russia . . . stood the power of one body—and it was not the Provisional Government. It was the powerful and insular Executive Committee of the Petrograd Soviet, and . . . after June, [its] successor the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (CEC) — it was they who had in fact ruled over Russia.” It was even more riven by factionalism and disagreements over basic policies than was the Provisional Government. “The Presidium of the first All-Russian CEC of the Soviet Workers’ and Socialists’ Deputies (the first governing Soviet body) consisted of nine men. Among them were the Socialist Revolutionaries (SRs) A. Gots and M. Gendelman, the Menshevik, F. Dan, and the member of the Bund, M. Liber . . . The prominent Bolshevik, L. Kamenev, was [a member].” Thus of the nine, five were Jews. Only one was as an ethnic Russian! Others were Georgian, Armenian, or of some other minority. Of the The All-Russian Executive Committee of the Soviet of Peasants’ Deputies, only three members were actual peasants. Seven were Jews.
In other words, the power that would determine Russia’s future had fallen into the hands of ‘foreigners’, foreigners with grudges against Russian society from top to bottom. And in Solzhenitsyn’s view, during the era preceding the revolution, “the restrictions on Jews were nowhere near as oppressive and unreasonable as claimed by Jewish activists . . .” Their grudges were out of all proportion to the injustices inflicted upon them by the old guard, as their revenge on the old guard would likely be.
Because of the above-noted intransigent Jewish hostility toward the Russian state as such, which had infected the Russian intelligentsia as well, the momentum of revolutionary fervor could not be halted. “The favorite slogan of 1917 was ‘Expand the Revolution!’” All socialist parties worked to implement it, even though consolidating the revolution’s gains to that point would have been a safer bet.
Solzhenitsyn reminds us that, “it was Zionism that became the most influential political force in the Jewish milieu,” and this strengthened throughout 1917. Even orthodox movements were more popular than socialist ones. There were 300,000 ‘card-carrying’ Russian Zionists by September.
But this very fact would have a pernicious effect on the West as bad as Communism. Britain by mid-1916 had been in danger of being obliged to sue for peace on German terms. To dissipate that spectre, Britain needed to keep Russia in the war and get the U.S. into the war on Britain’s side. To accomplish the former, Britain was willing to make the Zionist prospect more compelling, which might convert many Jewish revolutionaries to Zionism, puncture revolutionary zeal and keep Russia in the war against Germany. The way to do this, counselled British Zionists, was for Britain to publically declare its intent to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine should Britain win the war and annex Palestine from the Ottoman Empire, a Geman ally. It would be called the Balfour Declaration. It seemed that to win the war would require that Russian Zionists stifle the anti-war Revolution brewing and that American Zionists convert President Wilson from an isolationist to a pro-war stance. It was the latter gambit that succeeded and wound up sufficing to defeat Germany and Turkey, which did transfer Palestine to British authority, a prerequisite for carrying out the Balfour Declaration’s intent.
The premature Bolshevik Uprising of July 3-4 targeted not the “already impotent Provisional Government but the Bolsheviks true competitor — the Executive Committee.” So Jewish was the Committee that the Bolsheviks cynically exploited incipient anti-Semitism by siccing the public on it. Many Jews of the Committee were subsequently named to a commission to officially investigate failed Bolshevik coup. Out of socialist solidarity, no Bolsheviks were punished. This would be the first of several instances of non-Bolshevik Jews deciding to go along with a Bolshevik initiative despite formally belonging to a rival socialist party. Of course, as was the case with every ethnic or religious group in Russia, most Jews were against Bolshevism. “Yet they were debilitated by their socialist views,” in opposing it, observes Solzhenitsyn. In other words, for all the difference it made, most non-Bolshevik revolutionary Jews might as well have been Bolsheviks themselves.
To be as inclusive as possible, Kerensky seconded the catastrophic notion of granting amnesty to Trotsky and Co., which brought Trotsky and his mostly-Jewish fellow revolutionaries back from exile in America. In addition, writes Solzhenitsyn, “two famous trains . . . crossed hostile Germany without hindrance and brought to Russia nearly 200 prominent individuals, 30 in Lenin’s and 160 in Natanson-Martov’s train, with Jews comprising an absolute majority (the lists of passengers of the ‘extraterritorial trains’ were for the first time published by V. Burtsev). They represented almost all Jewish parties, and virtually all of them would play a substantial role in the future events in Russia.”
They were “former emigrants, revolutionaries, and draft escapees — now they were all ‘revolutionary fighters’ and ‘victims of Tsarism’.” Investigation in Canada found that “Trotsky travelled not with flimsy Russian papers, but with a solid American passport, inexplicably granted to him despite his short stay in the USA and with a substantial sum of money, the source of which remained a mystery.” “Among the returnees were the famous V. Volodarsky, M. Uritsky and Yu. Larin . . . author of the ‘War Communism economy’ program.” “Similarly, members of Trotsky’s group . . . the jeweler Melnichansky, the accountant Friman, the tyropgrapher A. Minkin-Menson, and the decorator Gomberg-Zorin . . . respectively [would head] Soviet trade unions, Pravda, the dispatch office of bank notes and securities, and the Petrograd Revolutionary Tribunal.” All these names and the ones that follow were Jewish.
Other returnees of looming importance included, “ . . Doctor of Biology Ivan Zalkind [who] actively participated in the October coup and then in fact ran Trotsky’s People’s Commissariat of Internal Affairs. Semyon Kogan-Semkov became the “political commissar of Izhevsk weapons and steel factories” in November 1918; that is, he was in charge of the vindictive actions during suppression of a major uprising of Izhevsk workers known for a toll of victims in the thousands . . . [including] 400 workers . . . gunned down . . . in a single incident.” “Tobinson-Krasnoshchekov later headed the entire Far East as the secretary of the Far East Bureau and the head of local government. Girshfeld-Stahevsky under the pseudonym “Verhovsky” [would command] a squad of German POWs and turncoats. That is, he laid the foundation for the Bolshevik international squads; in 1920 he [would head] clandestine intelligence at the Western front; later in peacetime, he would, on orders of the Cheka Presidium, organize an intelligence network in Western Europe.”
Other Jewish returnees had yet to be Bolshevized: “. . . Yakov Fishman, a member of the Military Revolutionary Committee of the October Coup . . . participat[ed] in the Left Socialist Revolutionary insurrection in July 1918 . . . [He would be posted with] the Military Intelligence Administration of the Red Army.” Returnee Yehim Yarchuk was “. . . an Anarchist Syndicalist . . . [soon] delegated by the Petrograd Soviet to reinforce the Kronstadt Soviet; during the October coup he . . . [would bring] a squad of sailors to Petrograd to storm the Winter Palace.”
As noted above, Kerensky also made the catastrophic decision to continue the war effort so as not to jeopardize bank loans mainly from the U.S. Though Jacob Schiff “provided substantial credit to the Kerensky government,” writes Solzhenitsyn, the damage wrought by his anti-Russian alliance of bankers throughout the war was decisive. By April 1917, “. . . Russian finances . . . were on the brink of total collapse.” Without the prior wartime boycott by Schiff and by a whole slate of other bankers that Schiff had persuaded to not grant loans to imperial Russia, thus all but cutting off the Czar, Kerensky would not have been as beholden to the handful of banks that did support the old regime and might have had the option of taking Russia out of the war. That would have gone a long way toward appeasing the Russian population and taking the wind out of the sails of the revolutionary parties.
Instead, Kerensky’s having allowed the return of Trotsky and Co. would facilitate Lenin’s seizure of power, irrespective of the Bolsheviks’ failure to obtain more than a quarter of the vote in the few elections held early on. Discontent was rife, and Lenin could wait in the wings with a highly-organized resolute alternative to Kerensky’s indecisive and faltering government. So even the Provisional government, let alone the future Bolshevik government, was too internationalist in its focus. In acting to re-animate its fight with Germany and thereby discourage U.S. sources from halting financing contingent on Russia not making a separate peace with Germany, and in appeasing ethnic minorities such as the Jews, Kerensky was insufficiently attentive to the need of the majority.
Continues Solzhenitsyn, “From the first day after the February revolution, central newspapers published enormous numbers of announcements about private meetings, assemblies and sessions of various Jewish parties, initially mostly the bund, and later Pale Zionists, Socialist Zionists, Territorial Zionists, and the Socialist Jewish Workers’ Party (SJWP). Already by March 7th we read about an oncoming assembly of the All-Russian Jewish Congress.” Obviously most of the organizing of all that must have occurred while Jews were still under the supposed iron fist of the Czar. Moreover, in 1917 St. Petersburg, “Yiddish papers were started. Schools at all levels were established. Artistic and cultural organizations were founded. Jewish culture had been unleashed . . . These Jewish activities are all the more amazing given the state of general governmental, administrative and cultural confusion in Russia in 1917.”
Obviously Russia’s Jews knew that this was to a significant extent a Judeo-philic government that had taken power. The Bolshevik regime, only several months down the road, would solidify that trend. There would be no Jewish pogroms in 1917. There were merely two drunken rampages by revolutionary soldiers in retreat, and store-front damage afflicted Jews more only because they owned more stores.
As for Jacob Schiff, who had bankrolled Jewish revolutionary groups in Russia, he basically lost interest after the Czar was toppled. He then threw in his lot with the Zionists because he feared that Jewish assimilation would follow in the wake of the civic equality now made law in Russia. Had he not anticipated greater assimilation under the revolution’s universalistic rubric? Apparently not. Now Palestine rather than revolutionary socialism should be the vehicle to carry Jewish ideals worldwide. The deadly trajectories of each would overlap and criss-cross in the coming decades, turning Europe and then the Mid-East upside down. As already noted above, Schiff came to personally embody these ‘two worst ideas of the 19th century’.
Naturally, Jews eagerly entered into Russian institutions from which they had previously been excluded, including the military. Following the February revolution, Jews soon made up 40 percent of all top elected officials in the army. The officer corps rather than the ranks of common soldiers is where the Jews of the military would wind up. Solzhenitsyn recounts a striking incident of ethnocentrism among certain Jewish officers: They had their soldiers sing ancient Jewish songs. Solzhenitsyn asks incredulously, “Did they not understand that Russian soldiers would hardly follow such officers?” Separate battalions were organized for most ethnic groups, but Jews insisted upon integration into the army. Complaints about poor acceptance of Jewish army officers were met with a storm of indignation on the part of Jews and the Left. Obviously, with the army being such a key Russian institution, Jews wanted to be in a position of influence, not segregated in an ethnic ghetto. Stunningly, in less than a year a Jew would be stand at the head of the new USSR’s new army.