Semitic Controversies

The Insane Philo-Semitism of The Quarterly Review

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:31:00 +0000

Derek Turner’s ‘The Quarterly Review’; the pseudo-successor to ‘Right Now’, is one of the many periodicals on the nominal ‘far right’ to which I subscribe, but it is actually; in many ways, one of the more interesting precisely because it doesn’t go in too much for hyperbole and it has some noteworthy scholars; such as Frank Ellis, Kenneth Royce Moore and Dwight Murphy, who edit and contribute to it. It specialises in High Tory and occasional Libertarian opinion pieces particularly in relation to European current affairs.

Now like my comments on the Socialist History Society’s near obsession with the chosen people: I note that ‘The Quarterly Review’ has a similar obsession in spite of being on the other end of the political spectrum in both the traditional linear and the more modern matrices-based graphical representation of it. Now; unlike the Socialist History Society, ‘The Quarterly Review’ has only one jew; as far as I can ascertain, on its staff in the personage of Paul Gottfried who is on the advisory board of the publication.

In spite of this; as I have said, the periodical spends an inordinate amount of time on the jews and some of its contributors; Frank Ellis perhaps most notably, seem inordinately obsessed with the ‘persecution’ allegedly suffered by and general beatitudes apparently owing to the jews.

American Editor Mark Brennan ruminates on Walt Rostow; a jewish economist significantly responsible for the Vietnam war, and argues that ‘he was right in the end’ in contrast to his fellow jews who chose the path of socialism (he really means Marxism here). (1) While Ellis; in the next article, then promptly tries to assert the canard that Stalin was ‘anti-Semitic’ (arguable but only in the sense of sans context) (2) while failing to note that some of Stalin’s major cronies in the persecution of the ‘rootless cosmopolitans’ from 1948 to 1953 were themselves jewish (much as those killing Rabbis and Hasidim during the civil war were often jewish themselves) and that the campaign wasn’t so much against jews per se (it was partly directed against Zionist feeling among the jews) but against Soviet intellectuals as a group of whom the jews made up a large and significant percentage.

The problem with Ellis’ type of argument is that assumes an absolute valuation of what being ‘anti-Semitic’ entails and as Gavin Langmuir and Matthias Bunzl; among others, have noted the problem of assigning absolute labels to anti-jewish sentiment is a tricky one. The waters have also been notoriously muddied by Israeli propagandists and their willing/unwilling cronies who have long sought to call everyone and their aunt ‘anti-Semites’ as a way of deflecting any and all criticism of Israeli actions and maintaining the jewish community’s selective mythos.

Such arguments; arguing that such and such a historical character was anti-Semitic, are common but also very difficult to cogently make as they are often assigning much later valuations to their subject without considering context (i.e. ex post facto). That is why I myself and other historians like me have preferred to take a minimalist approach to matters of anti-jewish sentiment assignation and argue for the study of the micro-historical case before assigning rhetorical adjectives like ‘anti-Semitic’ to individuals, groups or events. In the particular case of Stalin: Ellis conveniently leaves out the fact that Stalin was notoriously paranoid against everybody and behaved; as Vadim Birstein has recently argued, more as a ‘mafia boss’ than a dictator per se.

Of course: the need for a reasoned and carefully thought out analysis of Stalin’s reasons for his liquidations and trials of jews between 1948 and 1953 isn’t considered by Ellis possibly because he feels it is self-evident. However it is not and nor does Ellis consider; even if for a moment, the possibility that jews might have actually provoked this outbreak of alleged persecution on Stalin’s part. After all such thoughts are heretical and verboten even to so prolific and otherwise praise-worthy an un-PC scholar as Ellis.

That said Ellis also obsessively claims the ‘holocaust’ happened (I mean come on Frank have you actually read the ‘witnesses’ and ‘documentation’) and that we can believe the general fantasies of ‘jewish inmates’ who seem to have memorial faculties beyond that of mere human beings as well as the ability to make the impossible possible. No mean thing even for the ‘Chosen of Hashem’ I’d wager.

Apparently the critical spirit; so fundamental to a good scholar, only goes so far and one can’t possibly question the founding myth of the modern political and intellectual world. That said Ellis does; in fact, more or less worship Israel (3) and holds persecution by the oh-so-evil Nazis as being an indicative totem for an individual or group’s desirability. (4) After all he holds the ‘White Rose’ movement; everything that Ellis I’d imagine ideologically is against, as being a bastion of moral courage!

Paul Gottfried; the jew of the outfit, focuses on the issue of jewish support of Bismarck in his review of Steinberg’s new biography of the man of ‘Blood and Iron’: Otto von Bismarck. He notes that attacks on the Iron Chancellor; such as Steinberg’s, are particularly supported by ‘jewish liberals’ (5) and that Steinberg fails to evidence the ‘direct connection’ between Hitler and Bismarck as well as the fact that some of Bismarck’s most loyal supporters (i.e. of Bismarck’s National Liberal party) were jewish and that jewish bankers underwrote most of Bismarck’s aggressive policies including the famous Kulturkampf.

I agree with Gottfried’s point that Bismarck’s politics and Hitler’s have little to do with each other, but I’d also point out that Hitler’s politics; that of anti-Semitic volkisch nationalism (which is incidentally my own preferred brand), owes the basis of its thought to Bismarck’s time and was; as Alexander Jacob has pointed out, a direct intellectual descent of the politics that Bismarck’s own policies fostered.

However Gottfried isn’t being particularly disinterested here as he is writing to convince others; possibly even himself, that jews have nothing to fear from the authoritarian right and that as a political philosopher of well-known anti-democratic views (based on Carl Schmitt’s beautiful legal and philosophical demolition of representative ‘democracy’ as a political system) he is offering an ‘alternative’ to jews (of a sort anyway) in his brand of philo-Semitic (well he is a jew) authoritarian patriotism.

The editor of the outfit; Derek Turner, indirectly praises Guillaume Faye for his support of Israel and ‘disbelief in Jewish plots’ (6) as well as offering support for Christian fundamentalist lunatics in the United States. (7) While the deputy editor; Leslie Jones, seems to believe that Christianity is actually Judaism and that this is a very positive thing. (8) Although contributor Peter Stark sees the historical issues surrounding Christianity, in particular its direct links to Mithraism, far more clearly than does Jones. (9)

Mark Brennan; the American editor, also seems to think readers would be interested in his nonsensical views on the ‘holocaust’ and how it happened (he predictably tries to avoid the nasty little issues of feasibility and documentary support), but that doesn’t stop him opining on a supposed magnum opus of ‘holocaust scholarship’ (two words that simply don’t belong together). (10) Interviewee Ron Paul opines that Israel is; in effect, controlled by the American government (11) and that the illegal immigrant community will simply go home if state aid stops being given to them. (12)

Two words: oh dear.

What is behind all this insane philo-Semitism?

I think it is a mix of factors, but we may summarise these as follows:

A hankering for someone who ‘stands up’ for perceived Western (read Christian) values and the partial identification of that personage in the Israeli battles against various opponents: the most vocal of whom are radical Muslims.
An emotional need; which is rationalised intellectually, to distance themselves from the more traditional far right beliefs; which I myself hold, particularly opposition to jews that prevents fundamental beliefs on the assumption maker’s part being challenged (i.e. Britain sacrificed itself to stop the ‘evil Nazis’).
The belief that as Christianity is equitable with Judaism that this therefore means that jews are ‘friends of the West’ and are to be treated as allies rather than its most deadly enemies as more traditional far right beliefs would; rightly, assert.

I suppose you could say it all comes down to the same problem that Revilo Oliver observed in the late 1960s: conservatives simply can’t pull themselves away from their own beliefs to get to the core of the issues. Nietzsche’s demand that we get to the fundamental assumptions and facts behind an issue are all the more poignant in this light and in this we can say; with much justification, that ‘The Quarterly Review’ represents a bastion of high and mid brow intellectuals who just can’t bear to take the last jump from ardent conservative to revolutionary nationalism as they; as Slavoj Zizek observed of his fellow leftists, want a conservative revolution without the characteristics of a revolution.

Such is the world in which we live: revolutionaries who cannot stomach actual revolution, liberals who condemn liberties and conservatives who aren’t sure what they want to conserve.

Oh well: c’est la vie.

References

Mark Brennan, 2011, ‘From Rags to Riches – what next for the Western Consumer?’, Quarterly Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, p. 59
Frank Ellis, 2011, ‘The Time of Great Death’, Quarterly Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, p. 69
Frank Ellis, 2011, ‘The Promised Planet’, Quarterly Review, Vol. 5, No. 1, p. 23
Frank Ellis, 2010, ‘Banking on Germany’, Quarterly Review, Vol. 4, No. 4, p. 48
Paul Gottfried, 2011, ‘The Sinking of Bismarck’, Quarterly Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, p. 79
Derek Turner, 2010, ‘Futurology Imperfect’, Quarterly Review, Vol. 4, No. 4, p. 60
Derek Turner, 2010, ‘A Matter of Moral Courage’, Quarterly Review, Vol. 4, No. 3, p. 3
Leslie Jones, 2010, ‘Cross of Iron’, Quarterly Review, Vol. 4, No. 4, p. 66
Peter Stark, 2010, ‘Last Post for the Bronze Age in Catalonia’, Quarterly Review,Vol. 4, No. 3, p. 29
Mark Brennan 2010, ‘The Last Word in Holocaust Scholarship’, Quarterly Review, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 67-69
Peter Gemma, 2010, ‘Commonsense and Conscience in Congress’, Quarterly Review, Vol. 4, No. 3, p. 8
Ibid, p. 10

Why I Fight

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 18:52:00 +0000

It is a strange intellectual double world in which I am forced; by dint of my all too public occupation, to live in: on the one hand the sunny world of mainstream scholarship and on the other the twilight underground of anti-Semitic thought. I find it somewhat exhilarating to be able to express my actual views on the subject of the jews here without compromises and without having to hide behind academic jargon and phraseology. Here I can just be myself as I would like to: polemical and insightful in equal measure I’d hope (although I have no real idea if I am either sometimes).

However I do wonder sometimes why I fight and why I spend as much time as I do fighting this good fight against seemingly impossible odds. I guess you could say I fight because I simply see no other alternative but to fight, because there is simply very little left that one can truly care for in modern society and in the crazy jew-worshipping world of academe. Like the Spartans those few of us who are inclined to criticise jews are greatly outnumbered by the numberless apologists for jewry who swarm over any perceived or real criticism of jews and/or Israel that you make and claim that this makes you ‘biased’ (far more so than them apparently).

The spreaders of Hasbara have never had it so good, but at the same time even they feel that something is wrong. Academics and journalists have successfully stood up to the paid and unpaid agents of Israel and jewry: they have also increasingly begun to make the connection that all critics of Israel must inevitably chose to make or be rendered ineffective: Israel is the jews and the jews are Israel.

To be sure there are plenty of jews who claim to be anti-Zionist in varying degrees, but even most of these don’t oppose Israel’s existence as such but rather wish to restrain Israel’s anti-gentile policy making as opposed to disassembling the jewish state. That is hardly ‘anti-Zionist’ but rather more simply opposition to right-wing Zionism not the left-wing Zionism of say the old Poale Zion, which preached cooperation not competition between jews and non-jews. That said the old left-wing Zionists are something of an anachronism today: there is not too much water under the bridge and the river is overflowing. That river is a river of blood: the blood of all the tens of thousands of victims of Israeli policy making as well as those killed by the jews to create their little ‘state’.

There can be no peace with Israel precisely because Israel will brook none. Oh yes it will ask for a new peace accord and may even sign some agreement, but it will only use that as a time to rebuild its resources; military and propagandistic, to enable it to go on the offensive once again.

Israel is one of those states throughout history; the Soviet Union is another, which operates in its own localised unreality. In that Israel is politically and economically dependent on the power of the jewish Diaspora and its ability to smooth economic and political relations with powerful countries to allow its companies and agencies to compete. It is; in essence, wholly dependent on its Diaspora and that dependency forms the basis of the long-running official and unofficial spat between the jewish Diaspora and Israel.

Israel strives to be economically independent precisely so that it can expand and do whatever it likes in the Middle East without having the moderating influence of its current chief sponsor: the United States. I say moderating influence precisely because even though the Israel Lobby is extremely powerful it is not yet powerful enough to force the United States to totally abandon its own interests in the region or countermand the influence of what Israel Lobbyists like Mitchell Bard have been quick to term: ‘the Arab Lobby’.

It is that situation; the total domination of Israel over the United States and Europe, that I fight against and I chose to potentially sacrifice my own career and reputation to destroy the cancer that has been eating away at Europe for the last several decades if not longer. That fight as I have said is a lonely one as although there are numerous academic nationalists: there are few academics who are prepared to address the issue of the jews without the intellectual camouflage of anti-Zionism.

Even though some scholars have successfully stood up to the Israel Lobby; Mearsheimer and Walt most famously, so many others have wilted when put under pressure and unfortunately that includes many historians who have been accused of everything from ‘whitewashing Hitler’ to outright anti-Semitism. It is about time scholars stood up and were counted: I know we are all primarily concerned with our research and it is just so easy to occupy one’s self solely with that as it is uncontroversial in the main and is the foundation of all our careers, but at the same time: what is more important?

Researching the polity of ancient Rome or fighting the polity that is destroying Rome’s modern successors?

You choose.

The Homosexual as Jew-Baiter: Petronius’ Satirical Attack on the Jews

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 21:18:00 +0000

Petronius Arbiter is a little known character in Roman history eclipsed as he is by his ill-fated and much maligned patron: the Emperor Nero. However Petronius does; in some ways, deserve to be better known as the probable author of the fragments we have of the text of ‘The Satyricon’. I say fragments precisely because we have unfortunately; or fortunately, little of the original text left to us.

However what we have of it will shock even the most ardent libertine as in it Petronius is probably portraying the Emperor Nero; at least in part, as his central character in spite of being one of Nero’s closest confidents until; as Tacitus relates, (1) Nero had premonitions of Stalin and decided to kill his confident because he ‘knew too much’. The acts related are principally homosexual and paedophilic in nature; quite literally a good part of the existent work is essentially a hymnal to sexual intercourse with young male children that would make even NAMBLA blush, and thus it is hardly surprising that the work has long been unknown outside of specialists and when it began being published in translation: it was excerpted in; frequently jewish-owned, pornographic publications.

In spite of the vile nature of the treatise itself it does have one significant reference to jews in one of the disjointed fragments we have. To wit:

‘A Jew may adore his god in the sky,

And pour out his woes to the ears of the sky,

But unless he shorten his scabbard to see,

That the tip of his penis will always hang free,

He’ll be driven from home to a city in Greece,

And spend all his Sabbaths – eating in peace,’ (2)

Petronius’ point here is beautifully made in that he echoes a popular Roman and Greek observation about the jews in the absurdity of their worship and devotion to Yahweh who; unlike any other God, does not manifest himself on earth and as such offers no proof of his existence. Yahweh has no idols and does not offer miraculous interventions for his followers and in fact does nothing to win them over to his worship. In the Roman and Greek view of the world: the Gods and Goddesses were anthropomorphic and were as fickle and capricious as men and women (essentially a form of highly-evolved human), but the jews conceived of something wholly new: a God bent on; and delighting in, sadistically punishing, torturing and murdering his followers while offering no actual incentive to worship him other than terror.

The Romans and Greeks simply couldn’t conceive that it was in any way sane to worship a God who offered no advantages to his followers as they operated in a world where the worship of the divine was almost both a democracy and evolutionary meritocracy where anyone could more or less become a member of whatever cult and belief system they chose. The saner cults tended to survive and the more outlandish tended to fall by the wayside or be supressed if they had begun to take on a subversive nature (such as the numerous suppressions of the cult of Isis in Rome).

Petronius is observing; through the medium of satirical rhyme, that the jews worship a God that they can’t prove ever existed in the first place and that their bleats and whines to the empty sky; filled with no God, are the nonsense of a monstrously deluded and highly superstitious people. After all if Yahweh exists; Petronius reasons, then the jews wouldn’t have been conquered by the Romans and wouldn’t be constantly be in revolt against Roman civilisation.

Petronius’ delightfully vicious swipe at Yahweh and his personal cult of lunatics is further represented in his remarks about circumcision and the tip of a jew’s penis ‘always hanging free’. An allusion; of course, to Judaism’s status as a barbaric eastern religion in Roman and Greek eyes as well as poking fun at the way that jewish men emasculate themselves before Yahweh. In this sense Petronius is furthering his criticism as well by suggesting that if a jew cares to learn reason and enjoy life then he will be rejected by his or her fellow jews; ‘he’ll be driven from home’, and then the jew concerned can enjoy life away from his or her barbarous religion in the civilised world (represented by ‘a city in Greece’). Petronius right identifies the covenant of circumcision as the cornerstone of Judaism; albeit the symbolic one, and the embodiment of jewish barbarity on par with that of the Egyptians and Arabs in Petronius’ mind. (3)

This allusion to jews choosing to live outside of Judaism in ‘a city in Greece’; i.e. in civilisation, is more perceptive than it might at first sound in that it is a direct reference to the Hellenizing jews of this period who either minimized or rejected Judaism: plumping instead for Greek philosophy and logic. They were much hated by their highly religious kin to such an extent that calls for their mass murder as a mitzvah to Yahweh were not uncommon at the time and nor are they today.

What Petronius is saying here is very simply that while worshippers of Judaism; and hence in his view jews as a people, are superstitious, barbarous and backwards: those jews who spurn their birth-right and try to live and think as Romans and Greeks do are praiseworthy as they are no longer called to war with the gentiles and can sup with them in apparent peace.

Thus in some respects Petronius' thought is an example of pagan anti-Judaism that is; of itself, praiseworthy, but not without defect as he has not gone far enough in his understanding of Judaism and merely treats it as a naïve national superstition as opposed to the bloodthirsty biologically-based cult that it; in fact, was then and to some extent is still now.

References

Tac. An. 17:18-19
Anthologia Latina (1973 edition): Fragment 696
Petr. 102

US Troop deployments in Israel?

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 17:29:00 +0000

I reproduce the following article from Whiteout Press as it is worth reading and; as far as my information goes, generally accurate: it also hasn't received nearly the amount of recognition that it deserves. To wit:

US Troops going to Israel

January 2, 2012. Jerusalem. In one of the most blacked-out stories in America right now, the US military is preparing to send thousands of US troops, along with US Naval anti-missile ships and accompanying support personnel, to Israel. It took forever to find a second source for confirmation of this story and both relatively mainstream media outlets are in Israel. With one source saying the military deployment and corresponding exercises are to occur in January, the source providing most of the details suggests it will occur later this spring.

Calling it not just an “exercise”, but a “deployment”, the Jerusalem Post quotes US Lt.-Gen Frank Gorenc, Commander of the US Third Air Force based in Germany. The US Commander visited Israel two weeks ago to confirm details for “the deployment of several thousand American soldiers to Israel.” In an effort to respond to recent Iranian threats and counter-threats, Israel announced the largest ever missile defense exercise in its history. Now, it’s reported that the US military, including the US Navy, will be stationed throughout Israel, also taking part.

Also confirming the upcoming US-Israeli military missile exercises is JTA.org - 'global news service of the Jewish people'. In their account, they report, 'Last week, plans for Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, to visit Israel in January were leaked to Israeli media; his visit likely will coincide with the largest-ever joint U.S.-Israel anti-missile exercise'.

While American troops will be stationed in Israel for an unspecified amount of time, Israeli military personnel will be added to EUCOM in Germany. EUCOM stands for United States European Command in preparation for anticipated Iranian missile attacks upon Israel, the US is reportedly bringing its THAAD, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, and ship-based Aegis ballistic missile systems to Israel. The US forces will join Israeli missile defense systems like the Patriot and Arrow. The deployment comes with “the ultimate goal of establishing joint task forces in the event of a large-scale conflict in the Middle East”.

The Jerusalem Post reports that US Lt.-Gen Frank Gorenc was in Israel meeting with his Israeli counterpart, Brig.-Gen Doron Gavish, commander of the Air Defense Division. While there, the US General visited one of Israel’s three ‘Iron Dome’ anti-missile outposts. The Israeli Air Force has announced plans to deploy a fourth Iron Dome system in the coming months. Additional spending increases in the Jewish state will guarantee the manufacture and deployment of three more Iron Dome systems by the end of 2012. The Israelis are hoping to eventually have at least a dozen of the anti-missile systems deployed along its northern and southern borders.

In a show of escalated tensions in the region, Iran test fired two long range missiles today. One, called the Qadar, is a powerful sea-to-shore missile. The other was an advanced surface-to-surface missile called the Nour. According to Iranian state news, the Nour is an ‘advanced radar-evading, target-seeking, guided and controlled missile’. Additionally, the Iranian military reportedly test-fired numerous other short, medium and long-range missiles. Yesterday, Iranian authorities reported that they test-fired the medium-range, surface-to-air, radar-evading Mehrab missile. Today is supposed to be the final day of Iranian naval drills in the Straits of Hormuz.

Iran recently made global headlines when it threatened to blockade the Straits of Hormuz if Europe and the US went ahead with their boycott of Iranian oil and the country’s central bank. One-quarter of the world’s oil passes through that waterway every day. President Obama has announced that a closure of the Straits was unacceptable and vowed to take whatever measures are necessary to keep the vital shipping lane open.Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said the large missile tests showed, “the dire straits of Iran in light of the tightening sanctions around her, including the considerations in the last few days regarding the sanctions of exporting petroleum as well as the possibility of sanctions against the Iranian Central Bank." While the chances of Iran going through with its threat of closing the Straits of Hormuz are slim, the deployment of thousands of US troops and naval ships to Israel shows the US isn’t taking any chances.

An anti-Semitic James Bond: Richard Hannay and the Jews

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 22:38:00 +0000

John Buchan’s most famous fictional character; Major General Richard Hannay, isn’t well known today, but if you had asked the same question only a few decades ago: you would have received a very different response. For Richard Hannay was the early twentieth century answer to James Bond.

Indeed Hannay was in many respects the inspiration for Ian Fleming’s James Bond, but Hannay is from a different era. He is deeply Presbyterian; as was Buchan himself, and for the kind of British public school values of honesty, fair play plus King and country that seem a quaint anachronism to the modern reader. Hannay; as Bond was and is, is a rather two dimensional character and Buchan’s writing to the modern eye; like Fleming’s, is rather lack in subtly and variety although it would have appeared very differently to a reader of the time when adventure stories of this type were the equivalent of a popular sitcom today.

Hannay; as I have intimated, was very much a product of his time and held somewhat conventional views, but he also exhibits some rather unorthodox ones for his time: particularly his stance on jewish question as well as the roles that jews play in the five John Hannay novels. It is perhaps amazing for a modern reader to realise that in these five novels: a jew is never once a positive character and is actually; if not the primary antagonist, one of the main enemies that Hannay faces in ‘Greenmantle’, ‘Mr. Standfast’ and ‘The Three Hostages’, which are the second to fourth novels respectively. In the first (‘The Thirty Nine Steps’) and the fifth (‘The Island of Sheep’) the jews are more incidental to the plot: however in ‘The Thirty Nine Steps’ in particular the jew is directly cast as an enemy of civilisation and the cause of the war.

In ‘The Thirty Nine Steps’ Franklin Scudder; a free agent working with the British Secret Service Bureau, remarks to Hannay that in Europe there was a ‘big subterranean movement going on, engineered by dangerous people’ and that this movement was composed of ‘educated anarchists’ who Scudder openly identifies as being jews. (1)

Indeed Scudder talks about how the jews seek to achieve two things: jewish rule through anarchism/socialism and making the maximum amount of profit as capitalists through the war and the revolution (particularly between Germany and Russia). The eerie parallel with the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion does not end there as Buchan makes Scudder say the following prophetic paragraph:

‘Everything would be in the melting-pot, and they looked to see a new world emerge. The capitalists would rake in the shekels, and make fortunes by buying up wreckage. Capital, he said, had no conscience and no fatherland. Besides the Jew was behind it, and the Jew hated Russia worse than hell.’ (2)

Indeed Scudder points out that the reason for this hatred of Russia was the pogroms of the 1880s and early 20th century. Scudder clearly identifies the jewish nation as being the puppet masters of; what Nesta Webster famously called, ‘the cause of world unrest’. Scudder goes on to declare that: ‘The Jew is everywhere, but you have to go far down the backstairs to find him.’ (3)

Scudder them summarises his point rhetorically as follows:

‘If you're on the biggest kind of job and are bound to get to the real boss, ten to one you are brought up against a little white-faced Jew in a bath-chair with an eye like a rattlesnake. Yes, sir, he is the man who is ruling the world just now, and he has his knife in the Empire of the Tsar, because his aunt was outraged and his father flogged in some one-horse location on the Volga.’ (4)

These words were published in 1915 so they manage to anticipate the words of the Protocols of Zion (in their English translation as far as I know Buchan was not able to read Russian) by two years!

Hannay himself comments in response that ‘the Jew-anarchists seems to have got left behind a little’ in Scudder’s thought, (5) but this should not be taken as a counter-point but rather as Hannay feeling that Scudder had not sufficiently explained the connection as yet. We may take it this way largely because Scudder has elucidated the point by alluding to the monopolistic nature of socialism and what that means for capitalists: i.e. a captive monopoly that they can exploit should they so wish. Hannay has just not understood the common themes that unite these two apparently disparate groups: although he clearly understands and identifies with Scudder’s ideas later.

It is also clear that Scudder is by far Hannay’s intellectual superior; given that he is responsible for actually uncovering the German plot to start the First World War, while Hannay tends to foil his opponents more through his dogged pursuit and physical endurance; plus general British values, than by startling deductions.

Indeed Hannay doubts Scudder’s deductions about the jewish role in the German plot later; calling it ‘eyewash’ (6) and mere ‘bias’ on Scudder’s part, (7) only to discover that Scudder was actually right in the first place. (8)

Perhaps even more ironically Hannay himself; some pages before calling Scudder’s thoughts on ‘jews and high finance’ ‘mere bias’, actually confirms he implicitly agrees with Scudder’s essential point when he declares:

‘When a Jew shoots himself in the City and there is an inquest, the newspapers usually report that the deceased was “well nourished”.’ (9)

This is rather at odds to the simplistic interpretation that Buchan is making Hannay question and undercut the sentiments that Scudder expresses precisely because in ‘Greenmantle’ (published in 1916) we find it stated quite overtly that the Ottoman Empire had been driven into war by jewish and gypsy leaders. (10) In addition Hannay’s close friend Peter Pienaar; who is later revealed to be a South African fighter ace, comments that jews are usurious capitalists which take their most noxious form in the form the ‘Polish-Jew pedlar’. (11) This is hardly a challenge to Scudder’s sentiments as expressed at the beginning of ‘The Thirty Nine Steps’, but rather a reinforcement of them!

Hannay also observes that one can tell a jew from mere sight (12), that a jewish left-wing novelist named Aronson was ‘the worst kind of blighter’ (13) and some of the jews working for world revolution were ‘academic anarchists’ (many of whom were pro-Bolshevik Freemasons) (14) who were working against the Allied war effort. (15) It is also worth noting that Hannay once again; in ‘Mr. Standfast’ (published in 1919), confirms he believes that Scudder was right when he notes that jewish ‘international finance-touts’ were working both to continue the war in the name of profit and bring about a ‘melting-pot’ scenario from which would arise a new jewish-dominated world. (16)

One of these agitators; associated with the then widely-known anarchist-syndicalist group ‘Industrial Workers of the World’, (17) was named Gresson and was a red-haired Polish jew. (18) Gresson; of course, is named as an agent of Bolshevik Russia and an active agitator of stopping the First World War so that the ‘working classes of the world’ could unite and massacre the hated non-jewish bourgeois. (19)

One of the facilitators of Gresson’s activism on behalf of Bolshevik Russia and his general incitement to class war is nicknamed ‘the Portuguese Jew’ (20) by Hannay and as Buchan never elucidates whether he is or is not jewish: we must take Hannay’s observation at face value. Hannay however discovers that ‘the Portuguese Jew’ is actually a Professor of Celtic Languages at a Welsh College and this is clearly meant to convey to the reader that ‘the Portuguese Jew’ was looking to stir up sectarian and separatist sentiments in Wales (21) in much the same way that Arthur Lane later asserted was the case. (22)

‘The Portuguese Jew’; whose real name was Ehrlich, (23) is latter revealed to be the second-in-command of the German intelligence network (24) and a consummate agent of the jewish Bolsheviks and Capitalists that Buchan places in Hannay’s way.

In ‘Mr. Standfast’ Hannay returns to the role of jewish high finance in helping German espionage circles to fight the Allies when he recounts how an Austrian jew made fifty thousand dollars profiting from an Allied invention by selling it to the Germans. (25) This role of jews in high finance is most emphatically brought to light in Buchan’s fourth Hannay novel: ‘The Three Hostages’ (published 1924). This in spite of the confirmation by Hannay again of the connection between the jews and communism when he states:

‘All the places with names like spells – Bokhara, Samarkand – run by seedy little gangs of Communist Jews. It won’t go for ever. Someday a new Genghis Khan or Timour (26) will be thrown up out of the maelstrom. Europe is confused enough, but Asia is ancient Chaos.’ (27)

This affirmation of the jewish role in communism is appositely placed (28) just before the introduction of a representative of jewish high finance; Julius Victor, who Buchan tells us held sway over even the most powerful of governments. (29) Julius Victor is trying to get his daughter back from a man of indeterminate origin called Solomon Medina; who I would argue is actually based directly on the famous jewish British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli (who is directly compared to), (30) so that she can marry into the family of a penniless French aristocrat: the Marquis de la Tour du Pin. (31)

Victor does receive a positive mention in that he is regarded as preferable; although not by much, to Medina: (32) all this does however is reinforce the sense of ‘other’ than it is clear that Hannity; and many other characters, feel when perceiving jews in their midst. Indeed Hannay discovers a degenerate dancing club where European women are drugged by a largely jewish clientele and then sexually exploited. (33) Julius Victor’s jewish daughter has been brought there by Medina to be exploited according to his as an exercise in his ‘occult powers’ of hypnotism. (34)

The secret entrance to this club for jews seeking to bed drugged non-jewish women is found in a shop owned by a jewess who is also acting as the keeper of Julius Victor’s daughter: Adela. (35) We also discover that Solomon Medina’s manservant; Odell, is actually a ‘black-bearded jew’ and has been Medina’s primary agent in the kidnappings he has undertaken. (36) Hannay even suggests that Solomon Medina’s ‘occult powers’ are a communist device caused by the reawakening of ‘Shamanism’ in the Soviet Union (37) of which Medina is later discovered to be an agent as a ‘Jacobite Count’. (38)

This is hardly compatible; as the simplistic and apologetic philo-Semitic interpretation tries to suggest, with Buchan making Hannay undercut Scudder’s thoughts on the jewish relation to both anarchism/socialism and capitalism. In fact Buchan here is actually stressing quite the opposite: that upon careful examination of the facts of the matter one cannot but help see said jewish relation to left-wing politics and capitalism. Indeed Buchan’s posturing of Hannay in ‘The Thirty Nine Steps’ to dismiss Scudder’s revelations of the jew as the proverbial puppet master behind the curtain as ‘mere bias’ only to have that ‘mere bias’ turn out to be true situation in ‘Greenmantle’, ‘Mr. Standfast’ and ‘The Three Hostages’ is arguably an attack on those who simply dismissed the connection of jews to world events because they couldn’t believe it could be true.

Thus one cannot but help seeing that the idea that Buchan intended to undercut the ‘prejudices’ and ‘biases’ of his day about the jews is quite unfounded and in fact the converse is actually far more arguable on the basis of Buchan’s own words in the novels that chronicle the adventures of his most famous character: Major General Richard Hannay.

References

(1) John Buchan, 1992, ‘The Complete Richard Hannay’, 1st Edition, Penguin: London, p. 8
(2) Ibid.
(3) Ibid.
(4) Ibid.
(5) Ibid, p. 9
(6) Ibid, p. 33
(7) Ibid, p. 75
(8) Ibid, pp. 167; 544
(9) Ibid, p. 52
(10) Ibid, pp. 113-114; 244
(11) Ibid, p. 205
(12) Ibid, pp. 224-225; 405; 435
(13) Ibid, p. 374
(14) Ibid, pp. 387; 843
(15) Ibid, p. 385
(16) Ibid, pp. 387; 518
(17) Ibid, p. 402
(18) Ibid, p. 405
(19) Ibid.
(20) Ibid, pp. 435-437
(21) Ibid, p. 509
(22) Arthur Lane, 1935, ‘Aliens in Wales’, The Patriot, Vol. 29, No. 717, p. 374
(23) Buchan, ‘The Complete Richard Hannay’, p. 607
(24) Ibid, pp. 576-577
(25) Ibid, pp. 535-535
(26) Buchan here means the Mongol conqueror and equal of Genghis Khan: Tamurlane.
(27) Buchan, ‘The Complete Richard Hannay’, pp. 664-665
(28) Ibid, p. 676
(29) Ibid, pp. 671; 767
(30) Ibid, p. 706
(31) Ibid, p. 705
(32) Ibid, p. 742
(33) Ibid, pp. 748; 824-825
(34) Ibid, p. 811
(35) Ibid, pp. 816-821
(36) Ibid, pp. 824; 879-881
(37) Ibid, p. 869
(38) Ibid, p. 886

How you shouldn’t view the Jews: A Reply to Dr. D (Part II)

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 20:41:00 +0000

D then asks the valid rhetorical question: ‘Why do we tend to distrust the Jews?’ He proceeds to assert that ‘very few Jews are violent’, ‘very few Jews are known to steal’ and ‘very few Jews engage in property damage or vandalism’. Now unfortunately for D all three of these statements; with the possible exception of the second due to the qualifier; ‘known’, that D has inserted, are quite incorrect.

Jews are actually quite a violent people, but not in the way that D is thinking of violence. It is true that although few jews; outside of the Revisionist Zionist community, will go out and physically beat people up today: it has actually been quite common the past. A former director of the Anti-Defamation of B’nai Brith; Nathan Perlmutter, proudly tells the story in his book; ‘The Real Anti-Semitism in America’, of how he once beat up an old man in the street for simply expressing criticism of the jews. Perlmutter sees this as a positive event (hence why he recounts it with pride) and a not dissimilar attitude to violence has been taken by the Israeli state in general and jews historically. Good examples may be found in the jewish gangsters of the early twentieth century; most famously ‘Murder Inc.’, the early jewish Bolsheviks who; during the Russian civil war, routinely killed Rabbis and Hasidim as well as gentiles and the three bloody jewish revolts against the Romans which were extremely violent undertakings that stretched beyond the bounds of Palestine to cities such as Alexandria and Cyrene.

That said however D does; in fact, have some reason to make the claim that jews are not a violent people as such: in that jews as a rule of thumb have never been wonderful soldiers and tend towards violence when the opponent will find it very hard or impossible to meaningfully strike back. As D later notes jewish culture is primarily oral in nature and Judaism believes; at least on the face of it, that to elicit the truth one should debate till one is blue in the face. This oral culture combined with the jewish method of parenting; which inspires the creation of the proverbial ego monster, has further created a strong desire among jews for vengeance: a desire which is heightened by the great Maimonides’ ruling that the eternal enemies of jews; the tribe of Amalek, have descendants still on the earth who the jews are divinely commanded to exterminate.

If one combines this with the belief; often overstated but never-the-less existent, of jewish powerlessness within the Diaspora to attain their goals by direct means then one realises that the lively jewish interest in revenge and fulfilling it only when the chance of effective retaliation is slightly is actually a learned behaviour. Jews simply don’t believe in being violent in the same way that D and myself; as non-jews, do in that to us violence is something to be used directly and without guile. Whereas a jew does not think in quite the same way rather seeing open violence as ‘goyische’ (something that only gentiles would do); similar to how jews perceive body-building and gymnastics outside of the Israeli military, and that violence to a jew should be used to ‘sate’ ones feelings of revenge when one has the chance to do so. This is why; for example, jews tended not to be front-line soldiers in the World Wars but behind-the-lines troops or in support functions.

It also why; as authors such as Rich Cohen have pointed out, jewish units were not often allowed into occupied Germany by the Western Allies because jews were well known to want to do things like ‘rape BDM girls’ and generally murder Germans who; as Elliot Horowitz has noted, they perceived as representatives as amalek. Similarly the USSR encouraged just such behaviour among all its troops, but particularly among its heavily jewish security and blocking detachments.

D; in his analysis, has left out this and has instead made an unjustified assumption in telling us that jews are not prone to violence. However D does not also state that jews are; like it or not, historically and currently disproportionately in positions of high influence within the media and communications industry so it is not very likely that any overt violence caused by jews will be widely acknowledged and spread by most media and communications industry outlets outside of possibly the local area. This stands in direct parallel; as I hope D is aware, with the media and communications industry attitude regarding any violent act; in word or deed, that is committed against a jewish person or group, which will; with near certainty, be widely acknowledged and spread by most media and communications industry outlets. I might further add; without stretching the logic beyond the evidence, that this difference between how the media and communications industry treats jew-on-gentile and gentile-on-jew violence suggests that jewish priorities and interests are predominant in the media and communications industry and that therefore the jews exercise both considerable and highly significant influence in that industry.

D’s next assertion; that ‘very jews are known to steal’, is tied to this media and communications industry dominance as D; as I intimated before, has introduced the qualifier; ‘known’, into the equation and in that fact D is largely correct: if a jew steals then it isn’t likely to be well known outside a few ‘too-large-to-conceal’ issues where a jew has primarily or even significantly stolen from other jews who then; in a form of group sanction, reject the jews concerned by throwing the glare of coverage on the media and communications industry on him or her. Two obvious examples of this are the Ponzi scheme of jewish financier Bernard Madoff; many of whose investors were jewish (including Yeshiva University), and the Agriprocessors scandal where this top producer of Kashrut meat products was found; at their main plant in Postville, Ohio, to be in gross violation of both United States law governing the slaughter of animals and Judaism’s halakhic rulings for what is to be considered kosher and what should be considered treif.

In both cases the implications were significant and widespread within the jewish community and in both cases the spotlight of the media and communications industry was reactively directed on those jews concerned. This does not mean however that jews are not prone to theft, but rather that; as with violence, their theft is not commonly that of stealing old ladies’ handbags in the street rather they tend to; as Richard Lynn has recently observed, go in for ‘white collar crime’ meaning intelligent theft that is much harder to detect and prove as it offers considerably more reward and incentive than snatching handbags in the street. This fits into the assertion; which D later makes, that jews have considerable business acumen: they do, but that business acumen is easily (like the physical strength of an able young male) turned to illegal ends if a suitable opportunity presents itself and the individual concerned is either suitably desperate or believes he simply will not be caught.

D unfortunately does not make this link and once again I believe this to be because D; although asserting that is necessary to know something of the jews to have an opinion on them, has not followed his own sage advice and done his research properly.

Unfortunately for D we do know that jews have something of a reputation as thieves historically speaking and this reputation is not unfounded as if we; for example, read the memoirs of Gluckel of Hameln; until fairly recently the earliest detailed historical record from a jewish woman we have, then we find several mentions of jews acting both as thieves and confidence tricksters. She informs us that these individuals were not just jews of bad family and upbringing but included highly thought-of yeshiva students. One finds not dissimilar accounts of jewish theft if one carefully reads the Torah for example with Joseph using trickery and con-artistry to steal from the Egyptian people; via the medium of tax farming and confiscation, during the ‘years of plenty’ and thus creating an artificially high price of grain when the ‘years of famine’ kicked in.

Thus unfortunately D is incorrect once again as he appears to be thinking predominately in situ and assuming that what appears to be the case today is what must have been the case yesterday. It is also most unfortunate that D does not apply his not inconsiderable talents to the Biblical story, which paint a most unflattering portrait of jews as a nation; to paraphrase Strabo, of murderers and thieves.

The third assertion that D makes is perhaps the least incorrect of the three when he asserts that jews do not often engage in damaging property or vandalism: on the face of it D is quite correct here. Few jews tend to engage in say spray painting walls and mindless vandalism outside of cases like that of a jewish female student in New York who claimed that she was being persecuted by anti-Semites after her door had swastikas daubed over it (which; as before stated, the media and communications industry were not slow to seize upon), but was subsequently discovered to have been ‘persecuting’ herself via footage from a hidden camera of her painting the swastikas. One also brings to mind the firebombing of the Institute for Historical Review in California by the Jewish Defence League for no more reason that said Institute had said things of which jews in general; and the JDL especially, disapproved.

As D’s wording is specific one must concede he is right as far as it goes, but the problem with D’s pointis actually that it is too specific and misleads the readers by tacitly suggesting that jews do not engage in vandalism and the infliction of damage of any kind on others. This is not the case precisely because while jews do not tend to throw Molotov cocktails; for much the same reason as they don’t tend to be overtly violent unless there is little change of effective retaliation against them, they will engage in other forms of vandalism most notably in the form of ad hominem or put more simply: deliberately vandalising a person’s reputation. Examples of this are almost innumerable but prominent among them are ex-President Jimmy Carter; who was and is called an ‘anti-Semite’ by jews worldwide for nothing more than offering a trenchant critique of Israel’s dealings with the Palestinians, and ex-Congressman Paul Findley whose reputation has been subject to long-running smears based on his opposition to what has been termed ‘the Israel Lobby’ in the governing circles of the United States.

So while D may be somewhat correct due to his specific charges he; unintentionally I think, misleads his reader into believing that the jews do not often commit vandalism as a group.

D then; after his three assertions about the jews, makes another surprising claim: that he doesn’t understand why; if there are so many equally blameable gentile high financiers, jewish banking families; particularly the Rothschild dynasty, are singled out as being a major party responsible for financing wars. D wonders; with reasonable justification, why jews are singled out and gentiles are not.

Unfortunately this is once again a false dilemma as it asserts that jews are always singled out specifically as being the agent of wars, which simply isn’t true. It isn’t the jews that tend to get singled out, but rather the Rothschild dynasty who; to answer D’s point directly, are largely responsible for their own sinister reputation as they used; and have continued to use, it to further their business and private interests. If D were to consult a standard history of the Rothschilds such as Count Egon Corti’s or more recently Niall Fergusson’s then he would understand that the Rothschild mystique is largely of Rothschild devising. The most famous example of which is Nathan Rothschild’s knowledge of the outcome of the battle of Waterloo: it is a myth, but a myth that the Rothschild family has used to its great advantage.

The jewish community has not helped matters here as it has historically used the Rothschild dynasty as an indication; to paraphrase Cecil Roth, of the ‘contribution of jews to civilisation’ and the alleged integral part the jew has played in western civilisation. D does not account for this jewish self-promotion in his analysis, which once again demonstrates the unfortunate reality that D has not listened to his own advice.

Due to this unfortunate error in his research D’s dilemma is a false one precisely because the point he is trying to make it that jews are unfairly stigmatised for their business acumen when similar examples of gentiles are not, but he doesn’t account for the self-promotion that has allowed this stigmatisation to take place. In any case however this stigmatisation is not without some truth as jews have historically dominate; and to a lesser extent currently dominate, the banking and financial professions in significant disproportion to their representation in a given population. This has meant when they do get involved in politics they have a large capital base on which they can call for assistance should they require it.

D also ignores that throughout history many banking families; not just the Rothschilds, have been stigmatised as too powerful: a good example being the Fugger family who were the Imperial Bankers to the Holy Roman Empire as well as numerous European princes and other potentates. It isn’t just the Rothschilds as D claims, but rather that the Rothschilds (and the Warburgs) are the most recent examples of powerful banking families who use their financial clout and business acumen to wield political and intellectual clout as they see fit. D’s complaint that the argument as to whether the Rothchilds should have lent money to the countries of the world during the 19th and 20th centuries to enable them to fight wars is another tautology on his part. This is precisely because his complaint brings us no closer to clarifying his actual point and position on the matter.

Indeed I would point out that D is essentially taking the Rothschilds out of their context here after trying to put them in context to defend the jews. To explain: D asserts that uniquely jewish business acumen is; partly or wholly, responsible for the Rothschild rise to financial prominence, which then inevitably givens them an unspecified amount; although presumably large, amount of political and intellectual influence, but then wonders why people notice that the Rothschilds are jewish (with supposed uniquely jewish business acumen) and not notice the; presumably, not so especially or uniquely talented gentile bankers.

It is; as you might say, a Catch 22 that D does not explain, but rather unfortunately leaves it to his reader to try and figure out the point he is trying to make.

How you shouldn’t view the Jews: A Reply to Dr. D (Part I)

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 20:25:00 +0000

Recently browsing through the Blogosphere; as I sometimes do when I am not feeling up to conducting research, writing another book or working through a novel, I came across an article by a chap who writes under the pseudonym; ‘Dr. D’, at the ‘Sarah Maid of Albion’ blog. The article concerned is entitled: ‘How should we view the Jews?’ Unfortunately the article is from July 2010 so it is very slightly dated, but as it isn’t too old I have taken the view that it is worth replying to it from the perspective of an educated anti-Semitism. As ‘Dr. D’ is courteous and thoughtful in his writing I shall observe the academic pleasantries as opposed to my preferred polemical style on SC.

D starts off by juxtaposing the two most common forms of non-jewish reaction to jews: the philo-Semitic (the jews are generally good) and the anti-Semitic (the jews are generally bad). His example of the philo-Semitic camp (most Evangelical Christians [well in the US anyway]) is reasonable, but his example of the anti-Semitic camp (the Protocols of Zion proponents) is highly misleading. This is unfortunate as D remarks that ‘we should first know something about’ the jews before we form an opinion: I would point out that D unfortunately has not followed his own creed here as it is plain as day that he knows very little about opponents of the jews (historically or currently) or even the jews in some instances.

I am sure D would disagree upon reading my comments here, but it is worth understanding that although the Protocols of Zion are the most famous anti-jewish text in this day and age: their believers were never the majority of anti-Semites as far as I can ascertain but rather a very vocal minority (rather like pagans in the Third Reich). Unfortunately some authors on the Protocols; who are often jewish, have propounded a large number of myths surrounding their reception and the belief in them beyond the early years of their mass publication in the West (i.e. from 1917 to the mid-1920s).

Be that as it may be: D’s example of the anti-Semitic camp is poorly chosen as it represents only one strand (and not even a major one) of anti-jewish thought and certainly doesn’t in any way equate to the widespread and unusual belief systems of Evangelical Christians regarding jewishness. A better example that D could have used would have been the anti-Semitic groups of the 1880s and 1890s in France and Germany, which; although less useful rhetorically speaking, would more accurately describe anti-jewish thought in both its historic and modern contexts in much the same way that the Evangelical Christian example does (perhaps more so than D is aware).

I am somewhat surprised at D’s comment that the West ‘enjoys’ the ‘benefits’ of a ‘Judeo-Christian heritage’ regardless of one’s present beliefs, which is a tautology as it simply reasserts the premise without giving the required clarity as to why this is the case. Disproving such an assertion is simple enough as it merely requires a thought experiment.

To wit: if; as D posits, the West has acquired ‘benefits’ from its ‘Judeo-Christian heritage’ then surely it has equally acquired ‘benefits’ from various genocidal actions that it has undertaken round the world, which therefore means that the ‘anti-Imperialist’ arguments of ‘national liberation’ used by Marxists and leftists in their various different shades of crimson are correct. In essence: you can’t have your cake and eat it. All or none must be true: unless we do as Nietzsche exclaimed and get back to the core of the issues concerned.

The core of the issue is; of course, biology and its necessary concomitant when trying to understand any biological group: sub-species (better known as race). I don’t propose to point out at length the need to understand history as an exponential and evolving series of individual and group conflicts, but rather to simply observe that the ‘Judeo-Christian heritage’ that D wishes to ascribe such positive values to and derive benefit from has equally been applied to very different peoples with very different effects. Need I remind D of the huge gulf that separate say the Church of Rome from the Coptic Christians of Egypt and the apparent lack of value the Copts have derived from their ‘Judeo-Christian heritage’ in comparison to the West?

After all if it is the ‘values’ and ‘spirituality’ that make the man: then surely we are dealing with the long-debunked theory of the Tabula Rasa (the ‘Blank Slate’) here (which essentially posits a pseudo-Lamarckian view of human biology and the resultant veiled denial of Mendelian genetics)? I don’t wish to ascribe views; that D may not hold, to him, but I would question whether D has fully understood the necessary implications of his arguments; whether he views them as rhetorical or factual, in a wider context.

Thus the objective constant; per the scientific method, cannot be the ‘Judeo-Christian heritage’ of the West that D puts forward, but rather it has to be an objective constant that does differ and does dispassionately alter the socio-cultural expression of a given idea and we have just such an objective constant in biological groups also known as races.

D also incorrectly asserts that the ‘basis’ of ‘civil law’ is Christian (actually Roman and Greek), our customs (a seriously mixed bag often with non-Christian roots) and that everything we know has grown out of this ‘Judeo-Christian’ background. I’d agree with the latter point to an extent, but again D is unfortunately guilty of overstating his case (and in a sense misrepresenting it by doing so) as he doesn’t clarify that it is only a part of the background.

If ‘Judeo-Christian’; a term I personally object to, ideas have played a large background part to things then so have earlier non-Christian ones as well as later secular ones by virtue of the same logic. Need I remind D that the Italian Renaissance has not without reason been styled as the re-emergence of paganism in Europe as it resulted from the rediscovery of pagan art and intellectuals, of which stories are still told (for example the artists who paid to be lowered into Nero’s palace so they could study and paint the luxurious frescos).

In essence: you cannot ascribe single causative status to the so-called ‘Judeo-Christian heritage’ as it is but one of many worldviews that necessarily have impacted the values and ideas that D holds dear if we choose to look at history in terms of ideas, philosophies and intellectual fashions/fetishes. It is also noteworthy that in ascribing to a ‘Judeo-Christian heritage’ a causative power then D is subscribing to the position that an abstract idea; as what on earth is the ‘Judeo-Christian heritage’ specifically (it could literally be almost anything), causes an objective fact (the power of the West) to occur. That is rather like suggesting that because the Prophet Mohammed was the Chosen of Allah then the mountain must therefore have sprouted legs and gone to Mohammed in spite of the objective fact that we know mountains cannot move anywhere on their own.

D then makes the statement that if we should have an opinion about the jews then we should know something about with which I generally occur given that I believe that if one deals with the reality of the jew then the world will applaud anti-Semites; like me, but if we don’t deal with that reality and make the jew a cruel and inhuman monster then the world will have justified contempt for anti-Semites like me. That said while it is clear to me that D has read some literature on the jews: I would question the factual nature of a lot of his assertions about both Judaism and jews.

After an orthodox; if misguided, evangelical exegesis on the origin of the jews D makes a categorical error when he asserts that ‘to be a Jew came to be one who followed the Law of Moses’ as that leaves out the meaning of the ‘Chosen People’; i.e. that that status is handed down from father to son; if you will, not from a confession of religious faith. The jews were already; at this time, associating jewishness not with confession of faith, but with being descended from the Israelites that Moses allegedly brought out of Egypt (600,000 if one believes the Gemara). I am this surprised to find that D leaves out any mention of the Prophets Nehemiah and Ezra; for example, who preach that exact doctrine to the Israelites and note that while he cites a passage from Genesis he does not cite others that contradict his assertion of a confession of faith being sufficient. The only example I can immediately recall from the Tanakh where a confession of faith is thought to be sufficient to be regarded as a jew; of a sort, is Ruth the Moabitess who is something of an exception to the rule and is probably part of the origin; or at least the rabbinic justification, for jewishness being governed by the maternal line in all instances except for the Kohanim and Levites (where it is the paternal line that matters) from at least the era of the academies (but probably far earlier).

This lack of recognition of the biological nature of jewishness at this early juncture means that the remainder of D’s presentation on the history of the jewish kingdoms in Palestine and the sects at the time of Jesus is flawed. He further compounds his error by claiming that ‘Judaism is what makes a Jew, at least historically’ which is; I am afraid, not correct as while Judaism has served as the tool which has kept the jewish community together: the jewish sense of mission; even in this early period, and of having a unique and separate identity is obvious from even a brief reading of the academic literature on the subject.

A pointed case is the Hellenizing; i.e. secular, jews; a representative example being Philo of Alexandria: who while not exactly orthodox worshippers of Hashem sought to reconcile Greek and Latin philosophy with Judaism as it then existed. One wonders how D is to explain that if Judaism was the whole of the jewish experience at this early juncture: then how does explain the explicitly jewish individuals; like Herod Agrippa II, who acted in the jewish communities interests in Rome, but were not even slightly interested in Judaism?

Simply put: I am afraid D cannot do so within his outlined ideological position but rather uses an over-generalization to Christianise; for lack of a better term, Judaism and to make it more like later Christianity than later Judaism. One can quite easily see from D’s comments that he is using Saint Paul’s conception of the meaning of ‘gentile’ rather than the one common to Judaism at the time. This is probably merely an accidental expression of D’s own beliefs than anything malicious or deliberately misleading, but it never-the-less is dangerously lacking in context and does significantly mislead the reader.

D fails to highlight; due to this fundamental error, for example the well-known links between the Essenes and the Zealots: nor does he highlight that both groups started life as extremist variants within the Pharisees. The Essenes choosing a life of seclusion and abstinence following the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ in; what is sometimes argued as, an early form of monasticism. The Zealots fundamentally believed the same thing as the Essenes, but differed in the belief that they were the hand of Yahweh and could bring about the coming of the jewish Messiah by fighting the Romans tooth and nail as well as purifying Israel of those members who collaborated with the original; in jewish eyes, ‘evil empire’.

The difference between the two is perhaps best understood by putting it in the context of modern Judaism: those religious jews who are also Zionists believe that by recreating a jewish state in Palestine they can hasten the advent of the jewish Messiah (like the Zealots) and those religious jews who are anti—Zionists who believe that recreating a jewish state in Palestine does not hasten; and in fact prevents, the advent of the jewish Messiah (like the Essenes). Neither doubt each other’s fundamental religious beliefs, but rather their disagreement is about how to get to the desired state (the Messianic times when the jews rule the world).

Once again the lack of understanding on D’s part that Judaism both at this time and later followed a biological definition of what a jew was comes to the fore. As he fails to note that none of the four parties he mentions; the Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes and Zealots, all believed that membership of Israel was inherited not confessed and that their primary objection was not that non-jews were in Palestine, but that they were subordinated; as the Chosen of Yahweh, to a gentile power (the ‘Rome and Persia’ of the Mishnah). As well as that the definition of a gentile was such that one could not truly convert and usually became a ‘God Fearer’ (a concept from which the Noahide Laws derive whence a gentile unconditionally dedicates themselves to the service of jews as Yahweh’s ‘Chosen nation’) or at very best a ‘jewish soul born into an impure gentile body’ (meaning one is a lower class of jew, not a member of Israel as such and at a hereditary disadvantage in marital, social and religious terms etc).

D’s comments that Judaism is a legalistic religion; with which one can only agree as Arnold Toynbee did when he called it a ‘dead’ religion of ritual and form alone (which follows; for example, Voltaire’s mischievous critique of Judaism), and that ‘most’ of the Judaism of today has roots; in this particular epoch, in the ideas of the Pharisees is correct. However D then moves into a very confused discussion of Judaism and jewish identity when he tries to justify his claim that Judaism; as a confession of faith, makes the jew.

D doesn’t tell us why; after acknowledging that religious and non-religious jews exist within the same identity with a shared historical narrative and assumptions, ‘religious faith’ is the single causative factor of this shared identity; which some politically left-wing elements have sought to conflate with the biological concept of the nation through the medium of the term ‘national identity’, but rather makes the odd claim that ‘despite religious faith, they [the jews] exhibit all of the other characteristics of all Jews.’

This is yet another tautology as it doesn’t explain why; after splitting the jews into religious and secular (which is a gross oversimplification any way you look at it), that jews may still be understood as a religious community with non-religious jews exhibiting religious ‘characteristics’. The proverbial ‘elephant in the room’ here is that Judaism defines jewishness biologically and therefore the ‘other characteristics’ of this ‘religious group’ are; in fact, the characteristics of the jewish biological group. There is simply no way around that, but D refuses to mention it although it is clear to me that he understands; but does not wish to or cannot accept, that this is indeed the case.

Richard Krebs, Soviet Intelligence and the Jews

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 21:31:00 +0000

Richard Julius Hermann Krebs; better known by his pseudonym Jan Valtin, was a German Comintern and Soviet espionage agent who later defected to the West. He is an unusual man precisely because he was thoroughly dedicated Communist activist; who had attended the Lenin School in Moscow, and; for the cause he dedicated himself to, freely admitted that he had murdered and helped murder opponents of that cause. He is generally overlooked even in the academic literature because he published his autobiography; ‘Out of the Night’, (1) in 1941 during a time when the world was preoccupied with the early stages of the Second World War so Krebs’ story was forgotten as it wasn’t then ‘en vogue’. There is the odd mention of him in the academic literature as well as a recent German language biography of him. (2)

Valtin is another ex-Communist who has been abused as a ‘lying reactionary’ by left-leaning and outright Marxist academics, but he is also much harder than usual to discredit as being one (as unlike Louis Budenz, Whittaker Chambers and Elizabeth Bentley he never became a conservative figure nor did he ‘get religion’) particularly as he has strong anti-fascist credentials and his Dutch Communist wife; nicknamed Firelei, was allegedly killed by the SS in 1938/9 (although neither myself or Waldenfels have been able to find any proof of this). (3) Valtin was; like Budenz, Chambers and Bentley, in contact with very senior figures in the Comintern and global communist cause, in which he dealt with messengers from such senior (jewish) Bolsheviks as Karl Radek. (4)

Indeed Valtin’s description; from a position of knowledge, of Radek is rather insightful as he calls him ‘the Comintern’s most clever – and most cynical – propagandist’ who was the effective overlord of the KPD and the Comintern’s Western Secretariat (based in Germany) during the 1920s before the rise of Stalin. (5) Radek was; in spite of his egalitarian rhetoric about the ‘workers of the world uniting’, very conscious of his jewishness and of the jewishness of other high-ranking Bolsheviks and at the 1927 Comintern Congress in Moscow he made his opposition to Stalin on the basis of the latter’s lack of jewishness by presenting a simple riddle:

‘What is the difference between Moses and Stalin?

Moses took the Jews out of Egypt; Stalin takes them out of the Communist Party.’ (6)

It thus little wonder that Radek was purged by Stalin in the late 1930s, but as Conquest has correctly noted: this has little to do with Radek having been jewish and everything to do with Stalin’s general paranoia (7) and mafia-style of government that Birstein has recently stylized it as. (8) As Lindemann notes it is probably merely coincidental that many leading Bolsheviks purged by Stalin were jewish (9) as so many of the Bolshevik leadership at this point were jewish: (10) so it is little wonder that Stalin targeted jewish Bolshevik opponents (as it was hard not to) and then later several batches of more prominent jews given his obsessive need to see Trotskyite conspiracies everywhere undermining his power. (11)

Valtin; like both Chambers and Budenz, inadvertently reveals the reality of the massive jewish involvement in the upper echelons of the Comintern cadre and Soviet intelligence fraternity. Valtin names Hugo Marx as a major Soviet intelligence asset and one of Stalin’s gang of bank robbers in the ‘good old days’ of the pre-revolutionary Tsarist period of Stalin’s life. (12) It is not surprising that Marx was jewish and; as Mosse termed him, ‘representative of the articulate Jewish party membership’. (13)

Knowing of Marx’s jewishness makes it all the more interesting when Valtin recounts that he was ordered by Marx to give up command of his unit of approximately thirty hardy German Communist seamen to a ‘Levantine merchant’ called ‘Meyer’. (14) Of course; ‘Levantine merchant’, is a polite way of saying that ‘Meyer’ (Valtin makes clear he knew this was a pseudonym) was a jewish Communist who; as Valtin tells us, was recruiting working men for espionage work on behalf of the Comintern and Soviet intelligence. (15)

‘Meyer’s’ real name was in fact John Bornas and he; as far as I can ascertain, was jewish. After Meyer set up various safe houses for Communist agents in Hamburg, New York and Buenos Ares and charged Communist seamen for the privilege of using them. He was ordered to the Soviet Union by the GPU, refused and was deliberately exposed; along with ten other Communists who worked closely with him, to the German police (who rightly arrested and imprisoned him for espionage). (16) The reason that Bornas didn’t go back to the ‘Worker’s Paradise’ was; of course, that this was a euphemism for being executed in Communist circles at this time. (17)

A more senior jewish communist; and agent of the Comintern, was Felix Neumann who commanded the Hamburg ‘Red Hundreds’; a play on words on the anti-Semitic Tsarist ‘Black Hundreds’, which was the KPD’s nascent version of the Cheka. This evolved into what was called the ‘T-Units’; literally ‘Terror Units’, which was part of the secret apparat of the KPD and was to form the basis of the future Cheka. (18) In the meantime its role was to police German Communists and during the various Communist uprisings in Hamburg and Munich: to execute ‘class traitors’, ‘bourgeois’, ‘reactionaries’ and ‘counter-revolutionaries’ (in spite of a very recent attempt to play down the KPD death squad’s murderous activities in these revolts). (19) We should also note that like its German counterpart: jews played a key role in early Soviet secret police and repressive activities as even eminent jewish historians have had to reluctantly admit. (20)

That is not to say that Valtin does not make mistakes as he suggests that Belgian Soviet intelligence agent; Edgar Andree, had ‘slightly Jewish features’ (21) when he was; in fact, not jewish (rather the son of an Belgian iterant manual labourer and his wife).

Neumann however did not last in the vicious world of Soviet state-sponsored espionage and was captured and interrogated by the German police. Neumann broke under intensive questioning; remember he had just been trying to overthrow the state at the behest of the GPU and had at least personally murdered one man in cold blood, (22) and started leaking information to the police having obviously decided that his best bet at saving his life was to turn police informer. His fellow jewish Bolsheviks were understandably angry at this turn of events and an attempt of Neumann’s life failed. However not easily deterred the GPU successfully set one of its young rising Bolshevik stars; Heinz Neumann, to arrange the murder of the now marked jewish Bolshevik Felix Neumann. (23)

Heinz Neumann; scion of a wealthy jewish grain-dealing family from Berlin, (24) was a major figure in the history of International Communism having earned the nickname of the ‘Butcher of Canton’ for his role as a Soviet advisor to the Chinese Communist Party between 1924 and 1927 as well as in the KPD being one of its chief theoreticians. (25) Indeed Neumann was later the editor of the KPD’s main newspaper; ‘Die Rote Fahne’, and a close associate of Stalin, but was executed in 1937 as part of the latter’s famous purges (which particularly ravaged non-Russian Comintern cadre like Neumann).

One of the more interesting tit-bits that demonstrates Neumann’s utter ruthlessness is that when he was sent by the KPD to Moscow in 1923 with one Carl Kindermann whom he denounced the later as a ‘fascist spy’ because Kindermann; a homosexual, had propositioned him sexually. (26) We also know that Neumann was; like many male jews, fairly obsessed with bedding gentile girls: in Neumann’s case he liked his shiksa’s tall, blonde-haired and blue-eyed. (27) Not exactly the most pleasant person in the world now: was he?

I should note as an aside that Valtin himself was propositioned by a homosexual; pretending to be a Protestant Pastor, when he was working as a Soviet intelligence asset in California and Valtin promptly fled and caught the next train out of San Bernardino. (28)

Valtin also tells us that the KPD was under the direct control of the famous jewish Bolshevik Zinoviev in 1923 and that he could order them to revolt if he so wished it (while he stayed safe and sound in Moscow). (29) We then discover that yet another ‘Levantine merchant’; i.e. a jewish capitalist, was working for Soviet intelligence in Hamburg and had knowingly sold the Soviet Union at least one ship to aid it. (30) Such capitalist co-operation; jewish and non-jewish, may surprise some, but it wasn’t just the exception in this period but the rule (as the USSR was after all a large potential market) (31) and the perfidious ‘righteous gentile’ Raoul Wallenberg was a prominent example of this kind of ‘cooperation’ (although it didn’t stop him being killed by SMERSH after World War II). (32)

Valtin moves swiftly on to another major figure in Soviet intelligence in this period; Michael Avatin, a Latvian GPU operative who worked primarily in Europe and the United States specialising in sniffing out and exposing anti-Communist agents. Atavin’s girlfriend was a jewess from Warsaw: Malka Stifter. (33) The budding Stalinist couple had met while attending the Lenin School for Foreign Cadre in Moscow and Stifter was very young: Valtin puts her at under nineteen and from what I’ve been able to work out she was more like seventeen at the time. (34)

We are then told that Stifter worked as a Soviet espionage agent; specialising in subverting the military and police, in the Baltic States, Yugoslavia and her native Poland. Valtin credits Stifter; perhaps too generously, with being the principle ‘hidden hand’ behind the Polish military mutinies in Skiernivice, Lodz and Nova-Vileiko: whence she was arrested and interrogated by the Polish police. Wanting to break the Communist infiltration of and influence in their military: the Polish government authorised the use of extreme methods; including torture, to break Stifter who eventually threw in the proverbial towel and gave up a whole slew of Communist agents who were then exposed, driven out of the country, imprisoned or executed by the Polish police. Stifter was placed; in spite of her betrayal of her fellow Communists, on the rolls of the Communist martyrs. (35)

Valtin mentions that at least one of the Lenin School lecturers; Rosa Speculant, was jewish and later like Stifter was captured by the Polish police but unfortunately escaped the hangman’s noose. Speculant lectured on how to disseminate propaganda and in reward for her services a grateful USSR named a children’s home in Novorossisk after her. (36)

Valtin then mentions seeing a thirty-five page report he had made on the chances of inciting a race-based uprising in Hawaii on the desk of the jewish head of the Profintern: Solomon Lozovsky. (37) Lozovsky was a major figure in the Soviet Union till Stalin had him killed for cooperating with Zionists and showing jewish nationalist sentiments. (38)

Among his many of posts was the control of the Profintern (the Soviet international trade unionist network) from 1921 to 1937 (an unusually long tenure in the USSR) and the Soviet Information Bureau (to influence world opinion in favour of the USSR during and after World War II) as well as being a member of the powerful Central Committee of the Communist Party, the Supreme Soviet and a Deputy Foreign Minister. Lozovsky is usually ignored by critics of jews and it is worth mentioning that he is actually one of best case studies of jewish power in the USSR and that his jewish nephew was George Mink: a major figure in the Communist Party USA. (39) Mink; according to Valtin, like Heinz Neumann was a jew with a particular passion for bedding gentile women and tried to rape an attractive Danish maid in Copenhagen. (40)

Valtin next mentions a young German Communist named Hans Sorgers; who was an editor for an unspecified KPD periodical or publishing house, who was caught by the German secret police because he had become infatuated with a Communist jewess. Who after being picked up as potential Communist agent blurted out; under questioning, as much information as she possibly could to save her own skin regardless of her misguided lover’s life and her own professed beliefs. (41)

The next stop on Valtin’s whistle-stop tour of the jewish elements of the Comintern and Soviet intelligence apparatus is Paris where he is directed to the apartment of a jewish architect called Roger Walter Ginsburg. Whose spacious and luxuriant apartment on the fashionable Rue de Seine was the centre of much Soviet intelligence activity in both France and Western Europe. (42)

Ginsburg provided such services to Soviet intelligence as: acting as a dead drop location, communications hub, banker and passport forger. His wife; Doris Ginsburg, also translated Comintern and Soviet intelligence directives and material for this intelligence network running out of their apartment: she also acted as an impromptu interpreter. (43)

One of the Soviet agents; whose dispatches were sent through Roger Ginsburg, was a Jewish police superintendent in Tel Aviv: who was busy helping Arabs get to Moscow so they could be trained as Soviet intelligence assets to fight against ‘Anglo-French Imperialism’ in the Middle East. (44)

Around the time that Valtin met his wife-to-be; Firelei, he assisted a jewish Comintern asset named Hirsch who was to go to Galicia; a major centre of jewish culture no less, and help organise the ‘class conscious’ jews against the Poles in the name of the ‘world revolution’. Hirsch was however quickly caught by the Polish police and promptly hung for high treason. (45)

There ends the litany of jewish Bolsheviks that Krebs mentions in his ‘Out of the Night’; aside from some mentions of the infamous Bela Kuhn (but I judge that no introduction is necessary to his murderous regime and subsequent activities), which is very informative in telling us just how many jews got involved in working for ‘world revolution’ with the Comintern and Soviet intelligence. One wonders how some can continue to claim there was no significant jewish representation in international communism or among the Bolsheviks?

Puzzling indeed!

References

Jan Valtin, 1941, ‘Out of the Night’, 1^st Edition, Alliance: New York
Ernst von Waldenfels, 2002, ‘Der Spion der aus Deutschland Kam: Das Geheime Leben des Seemanns Richard Krebs’, 1^st Edition, Aufbau Verlag: Berlin
For example of the comparative leniency of the Third Reich towards Communist prisoners see the remarkable booklet Reinhard Rurup (Ed.), 1997, ‘Topography of Terror: Gestapo, SS and Reichssicherheitshauptamt on the “Prinz-Albrecht-Terrain”: A Documentation’, 6^th Edition, Verlag Willmuth Arenhovel: Berlin, which manages to indirectly inform us of this; to modern readers, startling fact (in spite of the clunky and badly translated English title).
Valtin, Op. Cit., p. 41
Ibid.
Albert Lindemann, 1997, ‘Esau’s Tears: Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews’, 1^st Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York, p. 452
Robert Conquest, 1968, ‘The Great Terror: Stalin’s Purge of the Thirties’, 1^st Edition, MacMillan: New York, p. 76
Vadim Birstein, 2011, ‘SMERSH: Stalin’s Secret Weapon. Soviet Military Counterintelligence in WWII’, 1^st Edition, Biteback: London, p. 25
Lindemann, Op. Cit., p. 453
Orlando Figes, 1997, ‘A People’s Tragedy: The Russian Revolution 1891-1924’, 1^st Edition, Pimlico: London, p. 696
Duncan Hallas, 1984, ‘Trotsky’s Marxism’, 2^nd Edition, Bookmarks: Chicago, p. 5
Valtin, Op. Cit., pp. 45; 110
George Mosse, 1971, ‘German Socialists and the Jewish Question in the Weimar Republic’, Leo Baeck Institute Year Book, Vol. 16, No. 1, p. 143
Valtin, Op. Cit., p. 47
Ibid.
Ibid, p. 48
Birstein, Op. Cit., p. 37
Valtin, Op. Cit., p. 57
David Olusoga, Casper Erichsen, 2011, ‘The Kaiser’s Holocaust: Germany’s Forgotten Genocide’, 2^nd Edition, Faber and Faber: London, pp. 282-287
Salo Baron, 1964, ‘The Russian Jew’, 1^st Edition, MacMillan: New York, p. 203
Valtin, Op. Cit., p. 58
Ibid, p. 66
Ibid, p. 67
Ibid.
Ibid.; Adolf Ehrt, 1990, [1933], ‘Communism in Germany: The Communist Conspiracy on the Eve of the 1933 National Revolution’, 1^st Edition, Noontide Press: Costa Mesa, p. 20
Valtin, Op. Cit., pp. 67-68
Ibid, pp. 140; 353
Ibid, p. 98
Ibid, pp. 83; 182
Ibid, pp. 96-97
Sean McMeekin, 2003, ‘The Red Millionaire: A Political Biography of Willi Muenzenberg, Moscow’s Secret Propaganda Tsar in the West’, 1^st Edition, Yale University Press: New Haven, p. 122
Birstein, Op. Cit., pp. 29-30
Valtin, Op. Cit. p. 111
Ibid.
Ibid, p. 116
Ibid, p. 138
Ibid, pp. 119-120; 203-205
Joshua Rubenstein, Vladimir Naumov, (Eds.), Laura Esther Wolfson (Trans.), 2005, ‘Stalin’s Secret Pogrom: The Inquisition of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee’, 2^nd Edition, Yale University Press: New Haven, pp. 385-386
Valtin, Op. Cit., pp. 309-310; Whittaker Chambers, 1952, ‘Witness’, 1^st Edition, Random House: New York, pp. 302-303
Valtin, Op. Cit., p. 312
Ibid, p. 143
Ibid, pp. 185-186; 470-471
Ibid, pp. 186-187; 484
Ibid, p. 189
Ibid, p. 210

Jews and Communism according to Louis Budenz

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 20:21:00 +0000

One of the major defectors from the Communist Party USA was the former editor of the ‘Daily Worker’ and Politburo member Louis Budenz; of Hungarian and Irish origin, who; like Whittaker Chambers, ‘defected’ after the ‘defeat of fascism’. He was; like many members of the CPs across the world at the time, originally drawn into communism as a way to defeat ‘the evils of Fascism’ in what we call the ‘Popular Front’ epoch of 1934/36 to 1939. Budenz; with Whittaker Chambers and Elizabeth Bentley, was a star witness on the organisation and attitude of the Communist Party USA as well as its underground organisation (the secret apparat) and the illicit funding that it received from the USSR through the medium of the Comintern to enable its attempted conquest of North America.

Budenz was something of a celebrity in his own lifetime and published four books on the basis of his communist experiences. He has; however, suffered from a hail of what can only be called abuse from left-leaning; or outright Marxist, academics who have questioned his testimony repeatedly and even simply dismissed him as a ‘lying reactionary’. The basis of this charge is largely because Budenz; like Chambers and former Marxist intellectuals like James Burnham, switched from a Marxist milieu to a conservative one, but what those who argue the ‘absurdity’ of the testimony; which has now been shown to be correct by archival documentation from the Comintern archives themselves, forget is that at this time the GRU (Soviet Military Intelligence); as well as the GPU, NKGB and SMERSH, still killed perceived or real high-profile traitors to their cause. A good example is Walter Krivitsky who was betrayed by Soviet mole Kim Philby in 1945 and the GRU simply smashed their way into his hotel room and killed him. Another is Leon Trotsky who the NKVD went to great trouble to kill and in whose killing Budenz indirectly assisted as a facilitator.

Critics of the ex-Communist witnesses also tend to forget that both Chambers and Budenz came from highly religious backgrounds; Catholic in these particular cases, and both of them confess; perhaps with too much hindsight, to having had longings for their faith during their time as Communists. Indeed much as their Christian faith made them susceptible; and paved the way for them, to become Communists: it was that same religious urge that actually; if their testimony is to be taken as read, got them out again. Indeed Budenz makes clear that he was influenced in his choice of socialism by Catholic intellectuals such as Hilaire Belloc: who argued for a form of Socialism; partly derived from Papal Bulls and the economic ideas of Saint Thomas Aquinas, known as Distributism.

Whether or not one is a Christian: this is interesting as it indicates; perhaps uncomfortably for some, that Christianity has a tendency to pave the way for Communism in at least some of its believer’s minds (‘Liberation Theology’ is another good example of it). As Christianity is a philosophy built on the idea of communalism and pacifism (well at least in most of its forms), which has lent itself to the tradition of Christian Socialism but perhaps more relevantly: Christianity in any variant is a complete belief system that must influence the choices made in any secular/terrestrial context, because if it doesn’t then how can one say that one actually believes in the Christian God?

That; when taken to its logical conclusion, means that Christianity in general is a form of weltanschauung; or philosophy of life, and if one strips away the belief in the Christian God then one can easily be left with not dissimilar; and highly emotive, assumptions to those made as the basis for socialism and communism. In essence Marxism simply offers an alternative; albeit secular, religion: although this has long been disputed by Marxists: most recently by Cohen. No prizes for guessing that yet another member of the tribe turns up as an academic Communist apologist.

This was the intellectual journey that both Budenz and Chambers document, which allowed them to become Communist high-flyers, but at the same time also prevented them from becoming hard-core materialists and thus also became a bit like Diogenes and his lamp in their minds. I have already covered Chambers’ innumerable mentions of the hugely disproportionate number of jews involved in Communist subversive activity in the United States, but Budenz is another man who; while not anti-Semitic or against jews in any way, shape or form, does in fact indirectly do a very good job of documenting their influence and power in the Communist Party USA.

I will adopt the same format that I used with my article on Chambers and simply list the jewish individuals Budenz mentions and then give the point he makes about them with the necessary reference. I also hasten to note that those I have listed below I have been able to find confirmatory evidence of having been jewish and I have left out any whom I can find no additional evidence; aside from my suspicion, of having been so.

To wit:

Solomon Adler

Soviet agent in the US Treasury Department (Budenz, ‘Techniques’, p. 281)

Israel Amter

Communist leader (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 101)

In charge of ‘national groups’; i.e. ‘civil rights’, pro-negro and pro-jewish, propaganda and organisation (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 205)

Leader of the Communist Party USA in New York State (Budenz, ‘Men’, p. 173)

John Arnold

Chief Editor of the Communist Party USA’s Yiddish newspaper: ‘Daily Freiheit’ (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 56)

Sol Auerbach (better known as James Allen)

Comintern representative in the Philippines (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 56)

Foreign Affairs editor of the Sunday edition of the ‘Daily Worker’ (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 307; ‘Cry’, p. 56)

Conducted espionage against the US military (Budenz, ‘Story’., p. 311)

Rudy Baker (nee Rudolph Blum)

Writer for the ‘New Masses’ (Budenz, ‘Men’, p. 18)

Carried out espionage activities against US and Canadian governments (Budenz, ‘Men’, p. 18)

Leonard Berkowitz

Communist Hollywood Film Script Writer (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 23)

Soviet agent in US Office of War Information (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 23; ‘Techniques’, p. 285)

Lionel Berman

Writer for the ‘Daily Worker’ (Budenz, ‘Men’, p. 219; ‘Techniques’, pp. 33-34)

Alexander Bittelman

Long-time communist leader and representative of the Comintern in North America (Budenz, ‘Men’, pp. 18; 78)

Chief Theoretician of the Communist Party USA (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 76; ‘Techniques’, p. 49)

Alfred Blumberg

Former Professor at John Hopkins University (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 162)

Communist leader in Washington D.C. (Budenz, ‘Men’, pp. 105; 253) and Maryland areas (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 162)

David Bohm

Soviet agent inside the United States’ atomic program (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 17)

Joseph Brodsky

Communist Party USA’s legal advisor and lawyer (Budenz, ‘Men’, pp. 44; 78)

Facilitated the Comintern’s funding of the Communist Party USA (Budenz, ‘Men’, p. 108)

Boris Bykov

Head of the GRU (Soviet Military Intelligence) in North America (till 1938) (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 61)

Esther Cantor

Writer for the ‘Daily Worker’ (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 84)

In charge of distributing Communist propaganda to negroes; and inciting them against the government, in the US (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 84)

Sam Carr (nee Schmil Kogan)

Long-time member of the National Committee of the Communist Party of Canada (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 280)

Morris Childs (nee Moishe Chilovsky)

Managed Communist Party USA’s funding from the Comintern (Budenz, ‘Men’, p. 86)

Worked as a Soviet espionage agent in North and Central America (Budenz, ‘Men’, pp. 86-87)

Joe Clark (nee Joseph Cohen)

Professor at Brooklyn College (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 161)

Writer for the ‘Daily Worker’ and ‘New Masses’ (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 161)

Judith Coplon

Soviet agent in the US Department of Justice (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 72

Crystal Eastman

Wife of Communist leader: Max Eastman (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 60)

Edited the Communist ‘Masses’ magazine (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 60)

Max Eastman

Edited the Communist ‘Masses’ magazine (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 60)

Gerhard Eisler (former leader of the German Communist Party [the KPD])

Representative of the Comintern in the United States (Budenz, ‘Story’, pp. 240-241)

Joseph Fields (nee Joseph Felshin)

Staff writer for ‘The Communist’ (Budenz, ‘Men’, p. 219)

Wrote for the ‘Daily Worker’ (Budenz, ‘Men’, p. 219)

Benjamin Gitlow

Leading communist functionary until 1928 (Budenz, ‘Story’, pp. 102-103; ‘Men’ p. 12;)

Advised against helping striking and by then desperate miners (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 93)

Later became a leading exponent of ‘anti-Communism’ (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 188; ‘Cry’, p. 117; ‘Techniques’, p. 310)

Arthur Gleason

Wrote for and was employed by left-wing magazine: ‘The Nation’ (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 61)

Member of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 61)

Founded the communist magazine: ‘Labor Age’ (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 61)

Ben Gold

Head of the International Fur and Leather Goods Workers Union. (Budenz, ‘Men’, p. 190; ‘Techniques’, p. 193)

Actively conspired to manipulate the American Federation of Labor while pretending not to be a Communist. (Budenz, ‘Men’, pp. 190; 202; ‘Cry’, pp. 75-76; ‘Techniques’, p. 188)

Jacob Gollos (nee Yakov Naumovich Reizen)

Chairman of the Communist Party USA’s Control Commission (Budenz, ‘Men’, pp. 39; 78; ‘Cry’, p. 66)

Headed the Communist holiday company: ‘World Tourists’ (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 238; ‘Men’, p. 55)

Was a Soviet espionage agent (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 238; ‘Techniques’, p. 123)

Michael Greenberg

Soviet agent in the Whitehouse (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 68)

Worked with the pro-Communist Institute of Pacific Relations (Budenz, ‘Techniques’, p. 284)

Abraham Heller

Managed the financial support given to the Communist Party USA by the Soviet Union (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 132)

Annalee Jacoby

Pro-Communist writer associated with the ‘Daily Worker’ (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 46; ‘Techniques’, p. 228)

Phillip Jaffe

Soviet espionage agent in China (Budenz, ‘Men’, pp. 53; 278; ‘Techniques’, p. 281)

Used US government documents; given to him by Soviet agents, to help the Chinese Communist Party. (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 35; ‘Techniques’, p. 286)

Important figure in the pro-Communist Institute for Pacific Relations (Budenz, ‘Men’, pp. 264-265; ‘Cry’, pp. 45; 50; 59; 63)

Albert Kahn

Communist author. (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 99)

Felix Kuzman

Soviet espionage and underground network courier (Budenz, ‘Men’, pp. 42; 74; 253)

Former member of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade (Budenz, ‘Men’, p. 81)

Harold Laski

British Communist author (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 100)

Confident of Karl Radek; a leading jewish Bolshevik, who told him of his opposition to Stalin and support of Trotsky. (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 138)

Avram Landy

In charge of Communist propaganda amongst Slavic groups in the United States (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 237)

Adam Lapin

Washington D.C. and a foreign correspondent of the ‘Daily Worker’ (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 230; ‘Men’; p. 269)

Daniel de Leon

Set up and ran communist and socialist trade unions to deliberately try and rival the American Federation of Labor (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 44)

Claimed everyone who disagreed with him was a ‘scallywag’ and a ‘scavenger’ (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 66)

Sam Liptzin

Writer for the Communist Party USA’s Yiddish newspaper: ‘Daily Freiheit’. (Budenz, ‘Men’, p. 70)

Jay Lovestone

General Secretary of the Communist Party USA (until 1928) (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 88)

Jacob Mindel

Soviet espionage agent in North America (Budenz, ‘Men’, p. 98)

Trained female Communists to seduce US military officers to learn military secrets (Budenz, ‘Men’, p. 130; ‘Techniques’, p. 116)

George Mink

High-Ranking Officer in the Abraham Lincoln Brigade (Budenz, ‘Men’, p. 124)

Steve Nelson (nee Steve Mesarosh)

Soviet espionage agent in North America (Budenz, ‘Men’, p. 34; ‘Cry’, p. 17)

High-Ranking Officer in the Abraham Lincoln Brigade (Budenz, ‘Men’, pp. 36; 124)

Helped the Chinese and German Communist parties (Budenz, ‘Men’, p. 37)

Moissaye Olgin

Communist leader (Budenz, ‘Men’, p. 42)

Author of ‘Why Communism?’ (Budenz, ‘Men’, p. 42; ‘Techniques’, p. 22)

Joseph Peters

Representative of the Comintern in the United States (Budenz, ‘Story’, pp. 138-139; ‘Men’, p. 78)

Joseph Pogany (former minister in the Bela Kuhn regime)

Representative of the Comintern in the United States (till 1938) (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 240; ‘Techniques’, p. 26)

Conducted espionage activities against the US Government (Budenz, ‘Techniques’, p. 26)

Abraham Lincoln Polonsky

Communist Hollywood Film and Radio Script Writer (Budenz, ‘Cry’, pp. 23-24)

Soviet agent in Office of Strategic Services (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p.24)

Julia Stuart Poyntz

High-Ranking Communist Party USA Leader (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 263)

Assassinated by the GRU (Soviet Military Intelligence) in 1938 for preparing to break away from the Communist Party USA (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 263; ‘Cry’, p. 130)

Mattias Rakosi

General Secretary of the Communist Party of Hungary (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 211)

Morris Rappoport

Communist leader in Washington state (Budenz, ‘Men’, p. 105)

Andrew Roth

Stole US Military documents for the Soviet Union (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 10)

Harry Sacher

Communist Party USA Lawyer (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 82)

Solomon Schwarz

Writer for the ‘Daily Worker’ (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 303)

Nathan Gregory Silvermaster

Soviet spy in the US government (Budenz, ‘Men’, pp. 105-106)

Jacob ‘Jack’ Stachel

Communist leader and representative to the Comintern (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 127; ‘Men’, p. 143; ‘Techniques’, p. 120)

Took his orders from Joseph Peters, Alexander Bittelman and Joseph Pogany. (Budenz, ‘Story’, pp. 188-189; 245; 251; 274; 335; ‘Men’, pp. 18; 40; 51; 267; 269)

Endorsed lying to serve the Communist cause (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 216)

Joseph Starobin

Foreign Affairs editor of the ‘Daily Worker’ (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 278; ‘Men’, p. 154)

Sid Stein

Communist Party USA’s Labor Commissar (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 84)

Alexander Trachtenberg

Long-time member of the Communist Party USA’s Central Committee (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 230; ‘Men’, pp. 78; 219; ‘Techniques’, p. 119)

Joseph Woodrow Weinberg

Soviet espionage agent inside the United States’ atomic program (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 17)

Robert William Weiner

Treasurer of the Communist Party USA (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 226; ‘Men’, p. 78)

In charge of a large private communist slush fund. (Budenz, ‘Men, pp. 107-108)

Louis Weinstock

Communist union leader (Budenz, ‘Men’, pp. 96; 197)

Max Weiss

Secretary of the Young Communist League (Budenz, ‘Men’, p. 46)

Harry Dexter White (nee Weiss)

Soviet agent in the US Treasury Department (Budenz, ‘Techniques’, p. 281)

Bibliography

Louis Budenz, 1947, ‘This is My Story’, 1^st Edition, McGraw-Hill: New York (‘Story')

Louis Budenz, 1948, ‘Men without Faces: The Communist Conspiracy in the U.S.A.’, 1^st Edition, Harper: New York (‘Men’)

Louis Budenz, 1952, ‘The Cry is Peace’, 1^st Edition, Henry Regnery: Chicago (‘Cry’)

Louis Budenz, 1954, ‘The Techniques of Communism’, 1^st Edition, Henry Regnery: Chicago (‘Techniques’)

The Jews of the Gulag Archipelago

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 23:10:00 +0000

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s seminal and best-known work is his monumental three volume tome; ‘The Gulag Archipelago’, which has received innumerable peons of praise from both those who claim that the Soviet Union; at least under Stalin and his successors, was not a socialist state and those who are firmly opposed to communism in any form. Solzhenitsyn’s work is unfortunately one of those works of literary genius that everyone praises, claims to have read and have; in fact, only read the first hundred or so pages. This problem has been the subject of an attempted remedy by Solzhenitsyn’s English language publisher; Harper Collins, who have released an edited and condensed one volume edition that has removed most of what may be termed ‘heavy reading’ from the work. (1)

Unfortunately this really hasn’t made the work any more readable in English translation and the selection made is rather repetitive at best, which is perhaps the major defect of the work in general. It is a disjointed series of essays around a common theme and perhaps is best described as a method of catharsis for Solzhenitsyn to come to term with his own experiences in Stalin’s gulags. On one score however ‘The Gulag Archipelago’ is itself extremely useful and that is in its first-hand account of the role of the jews as both prisoners and masters of the Gulag system.

At first you may gawk at this seeming contradiction in terms: how can the jew be both master and prisoner of Stalin’s gulags? Well; like the dichotomy between capitalism and communism, this case is also a false one, because much as a jew in Judaism can be both a jew and an atheist it results from a misunderstanding of the quintessential nature of the beast that it is studying. We know that a jew can be an anti-communist and still a believer in communism for which we have numerous examples like Leon Trotsky, Ernst Mandel, Theodor Adorno, Jay Lovestone to speak of merely a few of the better known cases. So why therefore is it so surprising that the jew was both master and prisoner of the Gulag system?

Indeed: as was the case with such jewish communist figures as Zinoviev, Kamenev, Slansky, Yezhov and others frequently the jewish Gulag master or apologist became a victim of the Gulag system itself. It is a delicious irony that the rapacious egoist nature of jews in general expressed itself so beautifully in the horrific surroundings of the Soviet death camps that Solzhenitsyn describes so well. For yesterday’s master was tomorrow’s slave and when this change in fortune came the attitude of the jews concerned almost invariably suffered a one hundred and eighty degree shift from being all for ‘harsh measures against the reactionaries and counter-revolutionaries’ to crying out for human rights under the ‘totalitarian’ system that they themselves had only recently been a key element.

When one considers the supposed ‘plight of Soviet jewry’ that began to be a Zionist; and often more generally jewish, hobbyhorse from the late 1960s onwards it becomes intelligible that the jews no longer perceived in general that the ‘total assimilationist’ position was valid and turned instead to the jewish ultra-nationalism of the Zionist demagogues. Indeed this time was a period of frequent attacks on Soviet institutions by young jews filled with hate and fanaticism for the impudent gentiles who they perceived had; like Pharaoh, imprisoned Yahweh’s holy nation and was preventing this self-chosen people from returning to Palestine (2) in full to terrorise, pillage and murder the native Arab population. (3)

Indeed works of this period; such as Elie Wiesel’s efforts (4), make direct comparisons to the plight of the Israelites under Pharaoh and endeavour to suggest that as Yahweh didn’t seem too bothered that it was up to the other ‘free’ members of the tribe to scream at the top of their lungs about ‘persecution’ and then have the; quite literal, chutzpah to invoke the alleged ‘holocaust’ against the very people who according to their own historical theories had ‘saved’ them from German attempts to make them work for a living. (5)

It thus clear that this change of heart among the jews came from material considerations rather some all-embracing change of heart on their part. If we consider that the essential element in the choice of jewish strategy made by individual jews is one of: ‘what do I think is good for jews?’ Then it becomes clear that before the February and then the October revolutions of 1917 the solution to their perceived troubles was debatable because both of the innovative solutions; Zionism and Socialism, were purely theoretical in nature and thus open to considerable elasticity of interpretation. (6)

However with the advent of Marxism-Leninism as a ruling ideology in the Russian Empire; soon to be renamed the Soviet Union, the debating terrain shifted as the jews were a conspicuous element in the new revolutionary government (7) and continued to be so throughout Lenin and Stalin’s reign (8) although they did begin to obviously decrease in overt power from the time of Stalin’s 1937 purges which swept aside much of the jewish old guard and then most of the rest of the partial de-judification of the USSR was achieved somewhat unintentionally by Stalin’s ‘rootless cosmopolitan’ and ‘Doctor’s Plot’ purges. (9) Or to quote Orlando Figes’ apposite summary: ‘Not many Jews were Bolsheviks, but many of the leading Bolsheviks were Jews.’ (10)

This new debating terrain was altered by the fact that now the socialists had created; and were able to look to, a homeland of their own in the form of the USSR. If the USSR continued its early promise to be a perceived new land of milk and honey for jews then it would prove that the socialist jews had been right all along: however this tie of socialist jewry to the philo-Semitism and fortunes USSR was to prove their undoing with the gradual de-judification of the Soviet Union that was gradually taken place, but most particularly at the high tide of Communism in 1949 when all jewry; even the most rabid Zionist, were publicly thankful to the USSR for ‘saving them’ from getting dirt under their fingernails.

It is one of those odd coincidences in history; that happen more often than prefer to think, that Stalin’s ‘rootless cosmopolitan’ campaign coincided with the desperate physical, intellectual, political and economic terrorism that had been unleashed by the now desperate and zealot-like Zionists across the world in order to create their ‘homeland for the jewish people’. While Stalin was liquidating intellectuals in general; a significant number of whom were jewish, for their lack of revolutionary ardour: the Zionists were busy liquidating the despised goyim who were preventing them from returning to their alleged ‘homeland’ and triggering the ‘Messianic times’ of jewry’s victory in the final battle with the forces of Gog and Magog (the gentile and gentile spirit respectively) in their apparently never-ending battle against the jewish emunah (spirit). (11)

The difference between the two camps at this point was that while socialism had had three decades to prove itself to the jews as a ‘land of milk and honey’: it had as yet failed to do so and was; in the jewish view, retracing its steps from the supposed ‘progress’ that it had made in emancipating the jews from their alleged ‘mass persecution’ in the first place. (12) However Zionism by contrast was in the ascendant as it was marshaling its terrorists around the world to force the British to cede Palestine to them as quickly as possible.

It had; while the Bolsheviks were busy warring with fellow members of the tribe in the Cadets, Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries in Petrograd and Moscow, obtained the Balfour declaration from the desperate British Empire to use their influence and power in the United States to bring that country into the First World War in spite of its isolationist stance. (13) In return; of course, for the British promise to create a homeland for the jews in Palestine and the recognition of the jews as a separate ‘nation among the nations’. (14)

The Zionists had also played a major role in creating the vengeful peace that was the Treaty of Versailles and the creation of the ‘League of Nations’ with their ‘Bill of Jewish Rights’ (15) as they also did to the Allies and ‘United Nations’ the end of the Second World War. (16) Is it thus any wonder with their international network of contacts; including many prominent Soviet jews, (17) that they should not have been increasingly seen as having the superior offering to the socialist jews?

In a sense Pierre Vidal-Naquet is right to assert that Marxism; although it may reasonably applied more widely to socialism, ‘never presented itself as a theory and a practice of liberating oppressed minorities’ (18) as the basis of all Marxist thought is the fundamental universal equality of men; (19) even that of Lenin who created the idea of the ‘national minority’ as a political expedient, (20) and as such the identification of being jewish; which might have seemed so negative in the days of the Tsarist Pale, (21) became something that jews were; and still are, in many cases unable to break with. (22)

Vidal-Naquet is also correct to assert that with the death of Trotsky Marxism as understood by the jews required a rebirth to be taken seriously as a solution to the problem of their existence once more. (23) He also correctly estimates that the extraordinary timing of; what he believes to have been, Stalin’s ‘anti-Semitic’ purges in contrast the creation of the State of Israel: all but destroyed socialism as a credible alternative to Zionism in the eyes of mainstream jewry. (24) With that destruction of socialism as an alternative solution to the jewish question: jewry; in general, began its significant turn to Zionism that manifests itself today most odiously in the form of the ‘Israel Lobbies’ that have been formed across the developed world from North America and Europe to South Africa and New Zealand.

We can thus begin to see from the foregoing discussion the dichotomy presented to us by the claims that the jew cannot be both master and prisoner of the Gulag system is a false one precisely because the jew’s beliefs of the moment are; as a rule of thumb, tied to their material circumstances, but yet in spite of this some jews will always remain clinging to the previous jewish intellectual/political fashion and indeed have continued to be significantly overrepresented in far-left circles to this day with the quintessential difference that in this instance they haven’t created and run the Cheka just yet. (25)

However before and during Solzhenitsyn’s days in the Soviet Union’s death camps: a substantial segment of the Cheka’s organisational descendants; the NKVD and SMERSH, was jewish (26) and certainly many of those who were involved in trying to creatively kill off Solzhenitsyn and his compatriots; including one or two jews who had failed in their intrigues against their tribal kin, (27) were in fact jews (28) and indeed many of the most active of these agencies investigators and persecutors were jews to Solzhenitsyn’s recollection. (29)

Evil hook-nosed figures like Naftaly Frenkel; one of the creators of the Gulag system, (30) Aron Solts; a major Soviet literary figure who helped cover up the reality of the Soviet death camps, (31) Ida Leonidovna Averbakh; who was one of the editors of the official Soviet book about the White Sea Canal which was a tissue of lies from start to finish, loom large, but other members of the tribe get a particularly noteworthy and delightfully vicious mention when Solzhenitsyn tells us:

‘Yes, and it was quite right for them to set forth on the banks of the canal the names of the six principle lieutenants of Stalin and Yagoda, the chief overseers of Belomor, six hired murderers each of whom accounted for thirty thousand lives: Firin – Berman – Frenkel – Kogan – Rappoport – Zhuk.’ (32)

Of course what immediately jumps off the page to anyone familiar with jewish surnames is that four of the six are immediately obvious examples, while the other two; Firin and Zhuk, are fairly common ones as well. I have little doubt that the overwhelming jewishness of those Solzhenitsyn referred to as ‘hired murderers’ has also occurred to him as his recent work on the power and massive overrepresentation of the jews in the Lenin and Stalin eras has shown. (33) In spite of the typical accusations of being an ‘anti-Semite’ (34) Solzhenitsyn has not uttered or written anything that could be reasonably classed as anti-Semitic; i.e. actively opposing jews as a biological group, although he has written much that has pointed out the historical reality of jewish involvement with events that many jews subsequently wish to try and claim they had no part in.

Solzhenitsyn quite understandably resents the huge suffering he and his fellow prisoners had to go through while the powerful jews sat at home with wives bedecked in jewels, (35) especially as he notes that these same members of the tribe have a ‘quarter of a million corpses’ on their hands. (36) One wonders though: where is the outcry is about these deaths?

One recent historian of the camps; Anne Applebaum, has sought to argue that there is a qualitative difference in-between alleged Soviet and Nazi genocides: seeking to maintain the ‘unique’ nature of supposed ‘holocaust’. Applebaum’s rather contrived argument is that because the Germans ‘gassed’ their victims; quite what method the dastardly Germans used is something the orthodox holocaustian scholars cannot seem to be able to work out, in purpose-built ‘factories of death’ this mass murder is ‘industrial’ in nature and therefore qualitatively different than the supposedly; by necessary implication, less ‘unique’ and more ‘normal’ methods employed by the Soviets of the bullet to the back of the head.

This claim is simply debunked by putting Applebaum’s claim into the medium of an allegory.

If one is a butcher and one wishes to kill a large amount of cattle then we have two choices: one can kill them individually by using a bolt-gun or one can use a mass-killing method like electrocution. If one kills the cattle by using a bolt-gun then is this qualitatively different to using electrocution given that all that has changed is method not how many people were killed or that the results are any different? The cattle are still dead and the objective has been achieved.

Are we therefore; using Applebaum’s logic, to assert that the killing the cattle by means of electrocution is ‘industrial’ and therefore qualitatively different to using a bolt-gun?

No: we can’t. As the method does not make something ‘unique’ or not as that is to suggest that the mass gassing undertaken by the Allies and Axis during World War I makes the deaths it caused qualitatively different to those caused by shrapnel, disease and the rifle bullet. That is; of course, intellectually absurd, but it is what Applebaum is actually asserting: that dead gassed jews are just special and the executed goyim are just so-so.

Applebaum’s claim is not a new one, but is simply representative of a strain of minimisation of Soviet atrocities (and jewish involvement in them); which Applebaum decries but then endorses by belittling them in the face of the monstrous myth of a jewish ‘holocaust’, and the maximization of alleged ‘Nazi’ ones. Or as Ellis has pointed out: National Socialist atrocities require the minimum possible evidence to be seen as genuine, while Soviet atrocities require the maximum possible evidence to be seen as genuine. (37) Ellis maybe as credulous as the next historian when it comes to National Socialist atrocities and; for reasons unknown to me, takes Solomon Mikhoels and the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee; who are responsible for a great many of the ‘truths’ of ‘holocaust studies’, seriously as ‘unbiased sources’ for what happened to the jews during World War II (38) and refuses to even consider other alternatives other than the ‘Nazis killed them all’. (39) However he gratifying displays scepticism when it comes to attempts to whitewash the Soviet Union, which Applebaum defends; perhaps unintentionally, by claiming that killing jews is ‘different’ to killing gentiles and is somehow worse.

I rather think survivors of the gulags who are all too well aware of the jewish aspect of the creation, management and sustaining of the system would be rather offended by the implied claim that just because they aren’t jewish their suffering is lessened. In fact: I rather think that is what Solzhenitsyn was getting at when talks of how the suffering of the prisoners was covered up the Soviet regime and simply just accepted by the outside world with the exception of a few tearful and lonely voices. (40)

He also notes the irony of Karl Marx’s secular halakhah; in this case his ‘Critique of the Gotha Programme’, being used by his fellow-traveling members of the tribe to justify working people to death as had not Marx said that what would save men from themselves was productive labour? (41)

He also notes the irony of the ‘correspondents from Kem’; Marxist apologists to a man, justifying these atrocities to their fellows and the wider world. One wonders how many of these apologists were jewish, but going by what we know about the heavy involvement of jews in Communist parties around the world: (42) one may think that Solzhenitsyn is here subtly attacking the jews and their deluded gentile lackeys for their simple will to believe any ‘true fact’; to use Orwell’s famous term, that Moscow wished to throw their way as either a main course or table scraps. (43)

Yet even then Solzhenitsyn documents the fundamental corruption that was rife in the camps (44) and no doubt the jews at their head took more than their fair share of the proverbial plunder not unlike those other members of the tribe and assorted other ‘true-believers’ who made a fast-buck out of the ‘socialist revolution’ only to skit off back to the United States and Europe when they had made their fortunes. (45) Or as Solzhenitsyn says so well: ‘Communists jailed Communists’, but not for corruption or greed rather for perceived or actual ideological deviancy in any form. (46)

Of course some of those jailed or killed for this deviancy were jews, but the majority of them weren’t although Ellis seems to see ‘markedly anti-Semitic’ signs everywhere in Stalin’s regime (47) as does Pinkus, (48) Montefiore (49) and Kostyrchenko (50) although this incorrect interpretation of Stalin's actions has been shown to be lacking in contextual understanding by Smith (51) and I would add: likely conceived as a conclusion a priori for which evidence was then selected. This lack of focus on gentile; and over-focus on jewish, suffering is perhaps not so much to belittle gentiles who suffered; as Applebaum to be sure offers profuse crocodile tears for them, but rather to cover up jewish involvement which once again we have a huge amount of evidence for as Haberer notes. (52)

This cover-up via demands that people; read non-jews, focus on only the ‘positive elements’ of a situation is expressed in modernity most offer by Zionists of the ilk of Alan Dershowitz who in his best-known work; ‘The Case for Israel’, declared that the alleged ‘anti-Israel bias’ should be ‘answered’ and ‘exposed’. (53) The idea being; of course, that if one expresses a negative opinion on something the jews have done then one is being irrational because one is apparently taking ‘only’ the negative points and not the positive into consideration and thus one is being biased and therefore irrational. One may simply explode this type of silly rhetorical argument by asking the counter-question of both those who minimize or deny the significant jewish involvement in mass murders in service to the Communist cause and those who do similar with Israel: why do you only take into account positive points in your analysis then?

Solzhenitsyn himself surely understands this issue as he himself stresses in his ‘The Jews in the Soviet Union’ that to highlight significant and important jewish involvement in communist crimes does not therefore put the entire jewish people the dock. This is correct as far as it goes, but I think we may go a little farther and say that the jewish people are as a guilty as those who of their kind who participated precisely because they have knowingly covered up for them.

Is not the person who knowingly obstructs justice in their own interest just as a guilty as those who knowingly committed the crimes concerned?

I think so!

References

(1) Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, 2003, ‘The Gulag Archipelago 1918 – 56: An Experiment in Literary Investigation’, 2nd Edition, Harper Collins: New York
(2) Yossi Klein Halevi, 1995, ‘Memoirs of a Jewish Extremist: An American Story’, 1st Edition, Little, Brown and Company: New York, pp. 135-137; Richard Rosenthal, 2000, ‘Rookie Cop: Deep Undercover in the Jewish Defense League’, 1st Edition, Leapfrog: Wellfleet, pp. 36-40
(3) Ilan Pappe, 2007, ‘The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine’, 2nd Edition, Oneworld: Oxford, p. xiii; Elliot Horowitz, 2007, ‘Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence’, 1st Edition, Princeton University Press: Princeton, pp. 3-4
(4) Elie Wiesel, 1987, ‘The Jews of Silence: A Personal Report on Soviet Jewry’, 3rd Edition, Schocken: New York, pp. 4-5
(5) The revisionist literature on the so-called ‘holocaust’ is considerable, but for an almost mind-numbingly detailed debunk of the orthodox claims about the most famous ‘extermination camp’ see Carlo Mattogno, 2011, ‘Auschwitz: The Case for Sanity’, 2 Vols., 1st Edition, Theses & Dissertations Press: Chicago
(6) William Henry Chamberlain, 1987, ‘The Russian Revolution’, Vol. I, 2nd Edition, Princeton University Press: Princeton, pp. 29-40; Erich Haberer, 2004, ‘Jews and Revolution in Nineteenth Century Russia’, 2nd Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York pp. 9-11; Albert Lindemann, 1997, ‘Esau’s Tears: Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews’, 1st Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York, pp. 425-426
(7) Robert Service, 2003, ‘A History of Modern Russia: From Nicholas II to Putin’, 2nd Edition, Penguin: London, pp. 249-250; Isaac Deutscher, 1967, ‘Stalin: A Political Biography’, 2nd Edition, Oxford University Press: New York, p. 605
(8) Ibid., p. 608; Nathaniel Weyl, 1968, ‘The Jew in American Politics’, 1st Edition, Arlington House: New York, pp. 197-207
(9) Jonathan Brent, Vladimir Naumov, 2003, ‘Stalin’s Last Crime: The Doctor’s Plot’, 1st Edition, Harper Collins: New York, pp. 8-9
(10) Orlando Figes, 1997, ‘A People’s Tragedy: The Russian Revolution 1891-1924’, 1st Edition, Pimlico: London, p. 696
(11) For example see Zalman Shazar’s (then President of Israel) comments in David Ben-Gurion (Ed.), 1966, ‘The Jews in their Land’, 1st Edition, Aldus: London, pp. 6-7
(12) Service, ‘A History of Modern Russia’, Op. Cit., p. 325
(13) To understand the reasons why this was necessary (the Allies were losing the war and badly) please refer to John Mosier, 2001, ‘The Myth of the Great War: A New Military History of World War One’, 1st Edition, Profile: London.
(14) S. Brodetsky, 1943, ‘The Balfour Declaration: Its Political Significance’, pp. 266-267 in Paul Goodman (Ed.), 1943, ‘The Jewish National Home’, 1st Edition, J. M. Dent: London
(15) Howard M. Sachar, 2003, ‘Dreamland: Europeans and Jews in the Aftermath of the Great War’, 1st Edition, Vintage: New York, pp. 34-42
(16) Bernard Wasserstein, 1997, ‘Vanishing Diaspora: The Jews in Europe since 1945’, 2nd Edition, Penguin: London, pp. 29-30
(17) Joshua Rubenstein, Vladimir Naumov (Eds.), 2005, ‘Stalin’s Secret Pogrom: The Postwar Inquisition of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee’, 2nd Edition, Yale University Press: New Haven, pp. 47-50; Deutscher, Op. Cit., pp. 606-608
(18) Pierre Vidal-Naquet,1996, ‘The Jews: History, Memory and the Present’, 1st Edition, Columbia University Press: New York, p. 123
(19) David McLellan, 1980, ‘The Young Hegelians and Karl Marx’, 3rd Edition, Papermac: London, pp. 75-77
(20) Robert Service, 2010, ‘Lenin: A Biography’, 2nd Edition, Pan: Basingstoke, pp. 468-469
(21) Vidal-Naquet, Op. Cit., p. 204
(22) Anne Applebaum, 2003, ‘Gulag: A History’, 1st Edition, Penguin: London, p. 257; for a non-Soviet example of the same type of behaviour see Ruth Dudley Edwards, 1987, ‘Victor Gollancz: A Biography’, 1st Edition, Victor Gollancz: London, pp. 215-220
(23) Vidal-Naquet, Op. Cit., p. 124
(24) Ibid, pp. 204-206
(25) Salo Baron, 1964, ‘The Russian Jew’, 1st Edition, MacMillan: New York, p. 203; Solzhenitsyn, ‘The Gulag Archipelago’, Op. Cit., pp. 30; 64
(26) Weyl, Op. Cit., p. 198
(27) Solzhenitsyn, ‘The Gulag Archipelago’, Op. Cit., pp. xviii; 8; 37; 115; 143; 167
(28) Ibid, p.187
(29) Ibid, pp. 75; 77; 118-119
(30) Ibid, pp. 187; 196-198
(31) Ibid, pp. 189-190
(32) Ibid, pp. 205-208
(33) Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, 2003, ‘Die Juden in der Sowjetunion’, 1st Edition, Herbig: Munich
(34) Applebaum, Op. Cit., p. 9
(35) Solzhenitsyn, ‘The Gulag Archipelago’, Op. Cit., p. 199
(36) Ibid, p. 208
(37) Frank Ellis, 2011, ‘The Time of Great Death’, Quarterly Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, p. 70
(38) Rubenstein, Naumov, Op. Cit., pp. 24-25
(39) Ellis, Op. Cit., p. 69
(40) Solzhenitsyn, ‘The Gulag Archipelago’, Op. Cit., pp. 188-192
(41) Ibid, p. 215
(42) Jerry Muller, 2010, ‘Capitalism and the Jews’, 1st Edition, Princeton University Press: Princeton, pp. 141-188
(43) Solzhenitsyn, ‘The Gulag Archipelago’, p. 241
(44) Ibid, pp. 314-319
(45) Sean McMeekin, 2003, ‘The Red Millionaire: A Political Biography of Willi Muenzenberg, Moscow’s Secret Propaganda Tsar in the West’, 1st Edition, Yale University Press: New Haven, pp. 123-143
(46) Solzhenitsyn, ‘The Gulag Archipelago’, Op. Cit., pp. 336-337
(47) Ellis, Op. Cit., p. 69
(48) Benjamin Pinkus, 2008, ‘The Soviet Government and the Jews 1948-1967: A Documented Study’, 2nd Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York, pp. 2-3
(49) Simon Sebag Montefiore, 2004, ‘Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar’, 1st Edition, Profile: London, pp. 559-561; Simon Sebag Montefiore, 2007, ‘Young Stalin’, 1st Edition, Weidenfeld & Nicholson: London, pp. 134-135
(50) Gennadi Kostyrchenko, 1995, ‘Out of the Red Shadows: Anti-Semitism in Stalin’s Russia’, 1st Edition, Prometheus: New York, pp. 14-20
(51) Jeremy Smith, 2005, ‘Stalin as Commissar for Nationality Affairs, 1918-1922’, pp. 53-56 in Sarah Davies, James Harris (Eds.), 2005, ‘Stalin: A New History’, 1st Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York
(52) Haberer, Op. Cit., pp. 149-55
(53) Alan Dershowitz, 2003, ‘The Case for Israel’, 1st Edition, John Wiley: London, p. xii

Jewish Testimony: Reva Mann

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 22:52:00 +0000

In ‘The Rabbi’s Daughter’(1) Reva Mann has given the world a fascinating look at the jewish psychology and how jews interact with each other. Although the work itself is simply a generalised autobiography what intrigues and fascinates is that Mann, despite writing with a generous amount of hindsight, expresses her own feelings and thoughts quite explicitly. By explicitly I mean language choice in that throughout ‘The Rabbi’s Daughter’ Mann discusses sexual intercourse and her thoughts concerning it and other lewd and bawdy acts. Hence ‘The Rabbi’s Daughter’ is not for those with a weak stomach for lewd language and is certainly not suitable for children to read. In this vein Mann gives us a perhaps unique insight into the mind of a jewish woman who is trying to find her way in the strange modern jewish world.

What makes Mann’s book more notable than other books in this genre is that Mann is the grand daughter of the second (Ashkenazi) Chief Rabbi of Israel, Isser Yehuda Unterman, and that she has, as she describes in ‘The Rabbi’s daughter’, swung between two extremes in jewish culture: The absolute hedonists and the strictest Hassidic sects. She herself had been brought up in a modern religious jewish household in London by her father, who was a rabbi there. This breadth of experience gives Mann’s thoughts and description of thoughts and feelings a wider application and thus enables one to dispense with the usual counter-arguments regarding such autobiographies in that they only cover one aspect of what is oft-called the ‘jewish experience’.

What I will do in this essay is analyse what Mann has written from the perspective of understanding why she has said what she has said, what it means and how we can fundamentally understand Mann as an example of jewish nature. We use Mann thus not only as an individual analysis, but as a gateway towards beginning to understand the mentality behind the external jewish façade, which is a hollow construct and does not stand up to rigorous investigation. Much of what you will read may seem strange and maybe slightly crazy; however, as strange and crazy as it may sound these are, to the best of my ability to understand them, the underlying thoughts and the mindset of Reva Mann.

Mann begins her story after she had decided that she wanted a ‘Torah-true’ life and that her old materialistic habits in pursuit of gratification were not what she wished to engage in anymore. We find her at the beginning of her book in a Hassidic religious school for jewish women: where she is reading the books relating to jewish law and lore (in this case ‘The Laws of Repentance’ by Maimonides or Rambam as he is better known). She particularly brings up the comparison to her past old life when she used to wear bikinis and when she first moved to Israel. She tells of us how she longs to wear her bikini again and to lose weight: since as she tells us she has put on a lot of weight due to all the sticky ‘kogel’ cakes that she eats at Shabbos. (2) She compares her ‘once high cheekbones’ and ‘beauty’ to her ‘dowdy maid’ appearance now.

It is theme that we find consistently repeated in ‘The Rabbi’s Daughter’ in that Mann describes a world where even the slightest infraction against the ‘laws of modesty’ is considered a very great sin. Mann throughout ‘The Rabbi’s Daughter’ tells us how consistently she is drawn between two worlds: that of what she knows is expected of her as a jewess and that which her mind and body aches for. She wishes to be religious, yet she is desperate to have extremely lurid sexual experiences with a fellow Hasidic jew. This Mann tries to mediate between latter in the book by claiming that all she wants is a holy jewish man who ‘talks dirty to her as he fucks her’.

I’ve used the swear word, ‘fuck’, here very deliberately to demonstrate my point: in so far as Mann does not view sexual intercourse as a beautiful act of love, but rather as a deep materialistic sense of need, which she needs to fulfil to feel better about herself. (3) Much like how a drug addict needs their next fix: Mann needs sexual intimacy to fill the deep lack of self-confidence that she feels in herself, which she as we shall see.

However Mann never finds this perfect jewish man since she realises that this is an impossibility for a jew cannot be both frum and sexually explicit at the same time without the one compromising the other. What Mann is doing here is straddling a very real deep cleft in the jewish soul not knowing, which way to turn.

This cleft between the life proscribed by Judaism, which is full of piety, obedience and self-denial, and the life desired deeply by the jewish racial nature, which is full of impiety, disobedience and self-gratification, is what Mann spends ‘The Rabbi’s Daughter’ talking about. This is immediately obvious from the first pages of ‘The Rabbi’s Daughter’ in so far that Mann talks of her bikini ‘stuffed in the back of her closet’ and of all the sexual intercourse she used to have when she was younger. This, of course, is pure nostalgia, but it reveals an interesting point in so far that Mann had a long, primarily sexual, relationship with a gentile man she calls Chris. What is interesting about this is that Mann blames Chris for getting her into various different drugs and for the loss of her jewish ‘purity’. This is Mann projecting her own self-loathing onto Chris in so far as she does not see herself as having erred, but rather that she was lead into temptation by a gentile who she claims to have loved in the sexual sense but unable to love in the romantic and platonic senses.

This is interesting to think about because what Mann is admitting here is that she simply didn’t understand how a gentile thinks and that Chris’ mind was alien to her, hence, she simply could not connect to his world and nor he to hers. Therefore, Mann admits that their relationship was bound to fail precisely because he was a gentile and she was a jewess. Mann doesn’t mention this reason explicitly, but rather implicitly and constantly refers back to Chris’ world of art galleries, liberal intellectuals and roast dinners, which to her seemed at the time and still seem so completely alien. Yet Mann spent a number of months living with Chris trying to acclimatise herself to his alien world and she realises in the end that this was futile, because, although she doesn’t explicitly say it she does implicitly infer it, they were of two different races and unable to be together precisely, because they think completely differently to each other.

We see this difference candidly when Mann is talking about her time in the Hasidic jewish school when she notes that her study partner was a gentile who was from a Welsh Catholic family and who converted to Judaism in adulthood. This convert is, as we find out later by inference, regarded as below contempt by other jews, because she is not a biological jew, and therefore is matched with a fellow male convert to Hasidic Judaism. When we see that the jewish community took great pains to match these two converts together so that their own biologically jewish stock was not ‘defiled’ by gentile ‘impurities’. It becomes very clear that the criterion being used, by both Mann and the jews in general, is not religion, but rather biological origins and no matter how repentant or observant a convert you are: you will never be regarded as a real jew by jews and will be discriminated against accordingly.

We also see this discrimination and differentiation on the basis of biology in how Mann words her description of the convert’s reason for converting in that Mann tells us it was because she, the convert, ‘claimed’ that she felt a very close affinity to the characters in the Old Testament and that she felt as if they spoke to her. When Mann is using the word ‘claim’ she is deliberately throwing scepticism onto the converts claim to have felt great affinity for the characters of the Old Testament, because the convert, is a gentile. So Mann implicitly knows, and states this knowledge by adding the word ‘claims’, that the convert couldn’t understand the characters of the Old Testament in the way that Mann, as a jewess, does, because the convert was not born a jew.

This jewish perception of a biological difference between jew and gentile, becomes the most obviously apparent when Mann describes her father’s, who as an Orthodox rabbi in charge of a London congregation, reaction to discovering she had a gentile boyfriend who she was regularly sleeping with was to simply inform her to pack her bags and leave his house. Mann even goes so far as to explicitly state the reason for her father’s extreme reaction was because Chris was a gentile. This shows us, in quite dramatic prose, how deep this split between a gentile and a jew is felt in Judaism, as well as in jewish culture in general, in so far as it shows how strongly it was felt that even merely sleeping with a gentile was a form of traitorous behaviour (because Chris by sleeping with her ‘defiling her with his impurity’).

This we can illustrate by pointing to Mann’s own comments about her previous history in her teenage years in so far as Mann, as she states with pride, was a quite rebellious teenager and wanted to live a ‘free life’ where she would not have to play the ‘good, obedient girl’ that was the rabbi’s daughter. Mann did not lose her virginity by Chris, but rather she lost that several years earlier with a ‘little jewish boy’ behind the ark curtain in her father’s synagogue. Mann was, in fact, found out by a member of her father’s staff, but maintains that the member of staff did not tell her father.

However, given Mann’s extensive testimony about her father, we can suggest that, in fact, the member of staff likely told her father what she had done but that Mann’s father wasn’t particularly offended, because the act was with a jewish boy of the type he hoped Mann to marry when she was older. If it was a gentile with whom Mann had lost her virginity behind the ark curtain then we can state that the consequences would have been extreme and well beyond simply kicking Mann out the house, but probably including a lot of hysterical shouting and the eventual removal of Mann completely from the religious jewish community on the basis that she was now officially dead to them and her family.

We see this double standard and anti-gentile attitude in action even more clearly later on in ‘The Rabbi’s Daughter’ in so far that when Mann decided it was time to go to see the jewish ‘match maker’ in the Hasidic women’s school that she is attending. One of the first question’s the match maker asks her is rather simple: whether she has had any sexual relations with a gentile or not and then states quite emphatically that if this is the case then Mann cannot marry any jew who has been frum-from-birth (or FFB) let alone a jew of priestly lineage such as a Cohen. Such explicit anti-gentile sentiment although not expressed often in ‘The Rabbi’s Daughter’ is never that far away from the surface.

We see a short snippet of Mann’s anti-gentile attitudes when she notes that Chris’ gentile penis with its foreskin ‘tasted different’ and was not ‘as good as’ a jewish circumcised penis. The underlying message Mann gives , which might seem innocuous when quoted as disparaging comments, is that jews are biologically superior to gentiles. Mann also suggests later on that intercourse with jews is a ‘more spiritual experience’ and she all but claims that jews are ‘better in bed’ than gentiles. This is, of course, an extremely anti-gentile statement to make, but unless we thought about it we might well not necessarily recognise that Mann is demonstrating to us, consciously or unconsciously, that jews look down upon gentiles and regard them as inferior human beings.

Mann generally seeks to distance herself from this attitude but completely fails to do so. In part: this is because she expresses no regret or remorse for her father and mother having treated her gentile boyfriend Chris so badly. Nor does Mann express any regret or sorrow over her attitude towards her relation with Chris, but rather feels sorry for herself in so far as she cannot now marry the type of jew she maintains she really wants to marry. Mann looks around to divert blame for this and finds a scapegoat in the ‘counter culture’ in which she grew up implicitly blaming it for her coming into sexual contact with gentiles, Chris in particular, as well as her abuse of drugs and alcohol.

Mann’s attitude to Chris is particularly telling, because she explicitly states that he was simply a man who was there for her to ‘fuck’ in order to sate her incredibly jaded sexual appetite rather than as a love relationship (as she intimates he believed it to be). Thus Mann implicitly admits to the reader that she simply used Chris and played on his feelings until she was bored with him and threw him away because she wanted a new toy to play with.

These jaded sexual appetites form a consistent theme in ‘The Rabbi’s Daughter’ in so far as Mann relates everything she writes about to sexual intercourse in some way. If we combine this fact with the fact that Mann herself, as well as jews in general, do not understand or feel connected to gentile minds and the resulting gentile culture but rather feel alien to it all. We can explicitly state Mann’s state of mind, as well as that of her fellow jews, is Freudian, i.e. the ego through the medium is sex is the basis for behaviour, in nature.

We see evidence of this in Mann’s book through her denial of responsibility and culpability for anything she has herself done and instead of owning up and honestly stating that she had made a mistake, Mann tries to exonerate herself of this and denies her responsibility for what she has done by blaming scapegoats in particular gentiles (i.e. Chris, but also her old gentile school friends and the carers at her sister’s mental care home), as well as notably blaming her mother for her behaviour.

Mann’s consistent act of blaming her mother for her behaviour is important to note, because it provides further important evidence for Mann’s Freudian mindset. In Freudian thought it is asserted that the basis of much behaviour revolves around the desire to mate with the mother or the father depending on, which gender is sexually desired by the jewish individual in question. In Mann’s case we can note a strong antipathy towards her mother who she partly blames for her wanting to sneak off to ‘be with the hippies’ and Mann’s own resulting sexual relations with gentiles and therefore her impurity when regarded by religious jews with whom she seeks solace with. Mann particularly blames her mother’s lack of care for her and her hysterical irritability, which she generously places down to her mother having a mentally handicapped child, who Mann believes her mother treated very badly and that she, Mann, was the very soul of kindness too.

Mann’s attitude to her mother is heavily reflected in her portrayals of her in so far that Mann’s mother is always portrayed as being jittery, prudish, vain, completely self-absorbed and materialistic. It is quite possible that her mother was indeed like this, but then we can note that Mann herself, who although throughout the work unsuccessfully tries to carve an image of herself as a disorientated, suffering child who then because of the bad lot she fell in with proceeded to be victimised all her life, is a fine example of this. We can see here that Mann is in denial over her similarities to her mother who she views, and portrays extremely negatively since she is trying to actively differentiate between herself and her mother.

This, logically, leads us on to question of why Mann is doing this. Why is Mann portraying her own mother, and presumably delivering a vengeful mental slap at the same time, in such negative terms? Since in European and European-derived society: it is considered a grossly impertinent and impolite act to vilify one’s own dead relatives, especially in public. Mann crosses this reasonable social taboo without even batting an eye-lid and attacks her own mother with considerable, subtle ferocity. The reason for this is quite simple: since as Mann implicitly assumes jews think differently to Europeans and European-derived society despite living in the same places, eating similar food and having similar general experiences in life. The only reconciliation, which can be, reasonably made between Mann’s attack on her own mother and a rational explanation for actual behaviour: is the conception that Mann views her mother as a rival.

When we realise that Mann views her mother as a rival not as her friend and guardian Mann’s behaviour begins to fall into place, but first we must ask who Mann is in a rivalry with her mother over? The answer to that is quite simply: Mann’s father.

We see Mann’s secret desire for her father manifest itself in ‘The Rabbi’s Daughter’ mainly as comments about how much Mann loved her father, how he always helped her out when she had got herself into various messes, how he cared for her as well as how intellectual and brilliant he was. These are perhaps what you would expect regarding a much loved father, but then when we at the various points at which Mann’s mother and father appear together that Mann, becomes more harsh with her father.

This can only be explained by Mann’s own secret feelings for her father in so far as if that was not the case then there is no explicit or subtle reason give or suggested as to why Mann should suddenly switch from a deep love of her father to a more critical tone. The switch to the critical tone represents Mann’s subtle rebuke of her own dead father’s choice in wives: in so far as Mann subtly shows that she desires to be in her mother’s place.

We see this particularly in Mann’s description of a Passover feast that she and her then husband, referred to as Simcha, invite her mother and father to their Israeli apartment to share in the feast. Simcha decides to consume all the specially prepared unleavened bread at the absolutely strictest Hasidic level in that he has to consume it all in four minutes. This decision results in a disgusting scene where Simcha’s beard is covered in half-digested matzo and Mann’s parents react badly to this . Mann describes her mother once again in wholly unfavourable terms as being prudish and feeling like she was going to be sick and regurgitate the fish that she had for lunch. However, unlike when her father is not with her mother, Mann describes her father in similarly negative terms as looking completely sickened and cursing under his breath at his fanatical, disgusting and completely uncivilised son-in-law as well as giving Mann ‘black looks’.

This indicates that Mann is indeed looking at her father as an object of love and her mother as a rival: since here Mann’s mother has been made to feel sick and thus feel very uncomfortable by Mann’s husband. Hence, Mann’s father has taken exception to this in blaming Mann and Mann has in her turn attacking her father for siding with her mother and not loving her instead.

We see that this not only platonic and/or romantic love in another note that Mann makes in passing in that when talking about sex again: this time again in the context of her husband, Simcha (who has not, as she repeatedly tells us, satisfied her sexually). This note is rather simply to the effect that Mann ‘is reliably informed by her mother that her father and her mother enjoy an extremely passionate sexual relationship’. This is an unusual notation to make, especially in European and European-derived culture regarding your parents, since it is a strong social taboo and children seldom can, or want, to imagine or know about their parent’s love-making activities.

However, Mann has simply placed this rather lewd notation in the middle of her own autobiographical account of her life so far, which infers to us that it has some importance to her. This notation also further suggests to us that Mann is trampling over normal social taboos, because she, like her fellow jews, has a different type of thought process to the European and European-derived culture that she was brought up in for the reason of biological difference between her as a jewess and the native population.

This notation, therefore, because it is a direct jealous reference to her mother and father’s sexual life combined with Mann’s hostile nature towards her mother and her hostility towards her father only when she is in her mother’s presence. We can conclude is an expression of Mann’s own platonic, romantic and sexual love for her father, which is a forbidden fruit that she wishes to taste. Since, as Mann puts it, she longs for her father’s affection, but yet this affection never comes and Mann remains disappointed in her ambitions.

In trying to please her father Mann decides that she is going to become a strict Torah observant jew after he forces her out of his house. We can see this as a reaction to her break-up with her gentile lover, Chris, which is caused by Mann defending her father to Chris when to Chris’ mind her father has behaved disgracefully and in a very bigoted fashion.

Chris’ perspective is immediately recognizable to us, as both reader and writer, because it is a standard liberal position that discrimination and bigotry are horrific acts that are completely unjustified and the fact that Mann would defend her father’s behaviour to Chris seems to have understandably rankled with him.

That Mann chose her father over her gentile lover, whom she used, abused and then threw away, is not surprising since Mann, as a jewess, thinks differently to both Chris and ourselves. This is further added to by Mann’s discovery that her father was purchasing the rights to the flat in which they lived so he could look after his jewish daughter even when she committed so gross an act as to sleep with a non-jew. What is interesting here is that even though Mann had performed an act he could not really forgive her for Mann’s father seeks to protect his daughter but tries to do so in secret.

The reason for this protection is that Mann’s father loves his daughter, whether or not that goes into the fundamentally romantic and even the sexual is debatable, because we have only Mann’s opinions and commentary on her life and not her fathers, and wishes to make sure that when she comes to her senses and wishes to date, have sex with and marry only jews then he is in a position to step in to take her back into the religious jewish fold.

Mann’s change from extreme hedonism to become in her words a ‘pious, dumpy maid’ is understandable when we consider her and her father’s relationship. In that Mann realises she has by her actions displeased the father that she is sexually attracted to, because of her actions to get his attention in the first place (i.e. her involvement with drugs and sexual relations with gentiles) as she was not the centre of her father’s attention but rather an after thought, which came after his work with the jewish community.

What has happened to Mann is fairly simple in so far as she has tried to become the most pious, Torah-observant jew she can possibly be in order to please her father by going several steps more observant than him. This move to be a more pious jew than her father is an attempt by Mann to make up for her past indiscretions that have displeased her father by showing him how much she has changed. By doing so Mann hopes to regain the love that she believes she has lost by trying to attract his attention through doing things that aggravated and appalled him.

We see the beginning of this attempt to make up with her father after Mann has broken up with Chris and tells her parents that it is her intention to move to Israel to study to become a midwife. This is important, because it shows us the beginning of Mann’s attempt to win back the fatherly love she believes she has lost. Since at this point Mann tells us she felt like she needed to be amongst her own kind in a place where there were few non-jews and that place, of course, was Israel. Mann informs of how this strategy played into her love for her father in so far as when her mother and father heard that Mann wished to make Aliyah they were willing to forgive her and help her to move to Israel so she could be amongst jews.

Mann well knew the effect that this declaration would have on her parents, because she knew the reason that she had been ejected from her father’s house, as we have discussed, was because of her sexual relationship with a gentile. Therefore: Mann is, unconsciously or consciously, using this knowledge to manipulate her father into forgiving her which also influences her mother to do so, but Mann only notes on this in passing, and therefore going some way to filling Mann’s need for love from her father.

As it turns out this is not what Mann’s father wants of Mann and Mann states that her father and mother wished for her to marry a jewish doctor or a highly paid jewish professional. However Mann felt that she had to make up with her father was to atone for her past religiously and the best way to do that, in her perception, would be to turn into an ultra-orthodox jewess. Mann herself goes about this by entering into a Hasidic girl’s school in Jerusalem and by this indicates that her thought is motivated by selfish regard for what her perception is rather than what her father’s actual perception is.

Whilst at the Hasidic Girls School we find that Mann’s thoughts are not as pious as her outward appearance and apparent obedience to the strict dictates of Hasidim suggest. We see in this particular in Mann’s comments at the beginning of ‘The Rabbi’s Daughter’ in so far as Mann continually reminisces about her previous sexual contacts as well as how she believed all men desired to ‘fuck’ her. This mainly takes the form of thoughts about her former gentile lover, Chris, in so far as he is now forbidden fruit and since she cannot have him, because he is a gentile, she now desires him to desire her.

This differentiation between the outward obedience of the strict dictates of Judaism and the genetic desire for a life of absolute hedonism is, as I have said, a fundamental aspect of both Mann’s own personal, and more generally jewish, mindset. The reason for this is simple: in so far as Mann, and jews in general, have a considerable need to temporarily satisfy their own lack of confidence in themselves, which derives, as we have seen with Mann, from an unsatisfied platonic, romantic and sexual love for the parent of the relevant gender.

This is counteracted by the defence mechanism of the need to be well regarded by their peers who maintain the external appearance of obedience and observance. This is simplifying the relationship between Judaism and the internal psychology of the jew considerably, but it is essentially correct to state that Judaism is a specifically devised social control mechanism to allow the jewish authorities to create a coherent society and to prevent harm coming to the creators/rulers by the actions of jewish individuals.

We see this in that some of the jewish men that Mann relates she ‘dated’ as part of the jewish match maker program operated by the Hasidic school. We find, for example, that the first jewish man she ‘dates’ is a formerly lapsed jew who now has taken to Hasidic Judaism. He tells Mann, to impress her with his external obedience and piety, that he has built a little contraption out of string to tie up his penis every night so as to ‘not spill any of his seed’. The encouraging of acts such as this, in Judaism, is meant to control the natural psychosexually-based instincts and needs of the jews via the process of discipline and denial, because the ‘jewish god’ dictated as such (hence it is a divine commandment, which they cannot disobey). Thus the act described by Mann of the jewish male creating a small contraption to wear at night as to make sure he doesn’t spill any seed is an act of self-denial (rather than self-control), which the individual jew perceives to make themselves, in the word’s of the matchmaker who introduced Mann and this jew, ‘more holy’.

This holiness is sanctimonious in nature rather than pious in the true sense of the term because it is used an attractive characteristic by the jew concerned and allows them to replace the normal ego gratification of hedonism with the ego gratification of self-denial.

This therefore means it is important to note that the individual jew, such as Mann, will relate to Judaism not as a control mechanism but as a means of gaining the self-image that they wish to project in order to win their desired parents or personality. Jews who practice Judaism do not do so, as Mann implicitly tells us, because they have a genuine pious desire, but rather, because it replaces one system of ego gratification with another. However, it also confers important additional benefits onto the jews who choose to practice it: such as the gain of considerable, religiously based, authority over numerous other jews with the opportunities for corruption, personal advancement and hedonism that that brings with it.

Specifically with Mann we find, as we have discussed above, that she is becoming obedient to Hasidim, precisely because she wishes to repair the damage done to her reputation in her father’s eyes and hence transform herself from sexual deviant and an embarrassment to an obedient and pious jewish woman who, Mann believes, her father would platonically, romantically and sexually desire (i.e. the woman her grandfather, or her father’s father, desired her father to marry).

Therefore what is occurring in Mann’s mind when she has these forbidden thoughts, that according to Mann come unbidden (although we can suggest these thoughts were not unwelcome: since she recalls them with a considerable degree of fondness), but is an externally obedient and pious jewish woman, is her fundamental desire to massage her deflated ego by being sexually desired by all the men in the world. This is despite her lip service to the obedient and pious jewish woman image that she has adopted to please her father.

We see this contrast, between the external presentation and the internal reality of Mann, as well as the other jews in which she comes into contact with, more generally among the jews in Mann’s school when Mann states that she seduced and had a sexual relationship with a fellow female jewish student. This is, despite homosexual acts being explicitly forbidden in the Torah and considered a high crime in the standard commentaries and rabbinic literature, Mann’s reason for seducing this student and why we can suspect that the student consented to be seduced and to have homosexual intercourse with Mann, is that, as she relates, she wants to feel pleasure and she wants to feel loved again. The only way Mann feels that she is loved is through sexual intercourse: this indicates to us that Mann, like jews more generally, leads a very hollow existence.

In this expression of her homosexual encounter with another jewish female Mann is seeking to claim that she is desirable to all men and all women: since she has already described frequently and at length how she feels that (all) men desire to ‘fuck’ her and had hinted that (all) women do so too. This is all part of the filling of Mann’s lack of confidence: by the act of having sexual intercourse with as many different people as possible (to prove to herself that she is loved and therefore desired) and the subsequent bragging/boasting about through her book fulfils a similar medium by suggesting to others that Mann is desired more than them, that they should also desire her and also the reliving of the egoistic gratification experience for Mann.

We also see a defence mechanism in Mann’s writing in so far as Mann herself states as an afterthought to the recounting of this experience that it was ‘alright’, because the Torah, according to Mann, only states that a ‘man shall not sleep with another man’. However, this is a weak argument since as Mann well knows and knew at the time: homosexual encounters of any are kind are explicitly forbidden in halakha. What Mann is doing here is trying to use the legal letter to invalidate the spirit of the law in order to give an after the fact justification of why she engaged in this homosexual act with another jewess without admitting it was hedonistic lust on her part in order to satisfy her egoistic desires via the association of sexual intercourse and pleasure with self-worth.

Therefore we see that Mann is in fact trying to justify her actions in order to reconcile her external appearance of being a woman of obedience and piety with the psychosexual tendencies that are inherent within her. This she does as we have said via the defence mechanism of denial of having done anything wrong, using her justification to allow her to do this, but also she blames the jewess with whom she committed the acting. Telling us that other jewesses were more squeamish than her and thought, Mann infers incorrectly, that homosexual conduct between jewish females was forbidden to them. Thus Mann seeks not only to justify her actions, but blame anyone, including other jewesses, other than herself since she does not believe that she is to blame for anything that has happened to her as I have stated above in reference to Mann’s blaming of Chris and her mother.

What can we conclude from all this?

When we conclude from this the easiest way to do so would be through the medium of psychoanalysis, We can see that Mann has an intense aversion to her mother, both using her as a scapegoat and also being jealous of her because of her sexual relations with her father, and an intense attachment to her father, which can be said to be sexual in nature. We can also see that Mann does not believe that gentiles are like her in the biological and spiritual senses. As well as that they, gentiles, are, as a rule, incapable of understanding and fulfilling her needs beyond that of purely physical contact: therefore assigning them an inferior and jews a superior position in her world.

We can also conclude that Mann is purely egoistic individual who operates only as to what she perceives benefits her in the materialistic sense at any given time rather than engaging in altruistic behaviours orientated towards the future. What we can draw from this is jews operate purely in the materialistic sense and look to their own inner selves. It also explains why it is often observed that jews are always looking to find a way to put anyone else down in that they will not just say: ‘Oh that looks nice of you’, but rather say ‘Oh that would like nice on your if you lost a little weight.’

The key to understanding why jews act the way they do is to understand that each jew, like Mann, views the priorities of the world as being: Me, Myself and I, rather than a mixture of selfishness and altruism. This doesn’t mean that jews do not act as a group, but rather it means that jewish culture forces their egotistical behaviour to follow artificial paths to help the jews as a group in order that the individual jew may gratify themselves with the idea that they have gained in standing, recognition and importance in the jewish community.

References

(1) Reva Mann, 2008, ‘The Rabbi’s Daughter: A true story of sex, drugs and orthodoxy’, 2nd Edition, Hodder & Stoughton: London.

(2) The jewish Sabbath.

(3) Much of ‘The Rabbi’s Daughter’ can be essentially summed up as Reva Mann feeling very sorry for herself and trying to divert blame away from her person and onto others. It is notable that throughout the entire book, Mann, does not take personal blame for anything, but always tries to shift that blame onto others.

A Critical Look at Jewish Law: Legal Inequality between Jews and Gentiles

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 22:45:00 +0000

By Hans Blackthorne

There are many critiques of Judaism and the Talmud on the internet, as well as in the published literature, that heavily rest on an inaccurate use of quotes without their context and the necessary examples of Judaic law to back up the intended meaning of the presentation. This kind of ill-conceived and counter-productive methodology only adds more leverage to those presenting anti-Semitic critique as wholly irrational and bigoted.

Therefore, it is within this article that I aim to provide a critical look at Judaism and the Talmud not only through its values of differentiation between jews and non-jews, but also to add examples of jewish law together with some commentary, on certain parts, by one of the more authoritative and widely accepted authors on Judaism: Rabbi Jacob Neusner[1].

Basic jewish law (halakah, as given by the Mishnah) divides the world in two: Israel and non-Israel, and in general the jewish law given only deals with gentiles (non-jews) when issuing controls and rules on how an israelite and Israel itself should interact with them. Let us begin by looking at a passage that defines the value of this difference:

‘All Israelites have a share in the world to come, as it is said, 'Your people also shall be all righteous, they shall inherit the land forever: the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified (Isa: 60:21).’[2]

Before we look at Neusner's commentary on the above passage, I would like to quote another comment by him:

‘For while the Israelite is defined as the portion of humanity that rises from the grave to eternal life, the gentile is defined solely in practical terms of how the israelite intersects with the gentile on specified occasions or in particular transactions... But to the comparable issue – What is justice for the portion of humanity excluded from life eternal and left to rot in the grave? - the law speaks only implicitly... Then of what does justice consist? How shall we explain the distinction within the genus, humanity, into two species, Israelites and gentiles?

...

In addition, a practical issue of justice in Israelite-pagan relationships flows from the distinction between life and death, Israel and the nations, and should not be missed. How shall we find justice in the present status of Israel, subordinated as it is to the gentiles? For if God rules as a sovereign over all humanity, and if the two species of humanity compete, where is the justice in the fact that one species, the gentiles, presently dominates the other, Israel? It follows that to make sense of and to justify world order the subordinated status of both species, the gentiles in the age to come and, Israel in the present age, has to be explained and the same explanation must govern both...

But when it comes to the law of the Mishnah, ”Israel” is defined with the reference to the end of days; Israel is comprised of all those who will emerge victorious over death.’[3]

It is apparent from these quotes that one of the fundamental differences in Judaism between Israel and the rest of mankind can be defined as life and death, with the jews inheriting the world and being divinely blessed to be God's elect to return to Eden, while the nations, or the non-jews, will become subordinated to God, through the actions of the jews.

Here is the commentary, by Neusner, on the initial quote from the Mishnah:

‘I maintain that this passage provides a juridical, practical definition of ”Israel” on which courts will act in practical ways. So one may fairly ask, exactly how does this statement that all Israel has 'a portion in the world to come' serve to define Israel? We may in response manipulate the opening declaration, reversing (1) the subject of ”all israelites” and (2) the predicate, ”have a portion in the world to come” as follows: (2) ”all who have a share in the world to come” are (1) ”Israelites”. And -simple logic requires- all who do not have a portion in the world to come logically cannot fall into the category ”Israelites” as framed in that sentence.’[4]

Now, we have not only a working and accepted definition of what it fundamentally means, in Judaism, to belong to Israel and to not belong to Israel. We also have a rather stark impression of Judaism being centred on and expressed for its genealogically defined people with little interest in an equal setting for other people but rather, as we shall see, one of inequality with jews as the governing elite.

Let us take another passage from the Mishnah, relating to the above, in its definition of gentiles:

‘do not leave cattle in gentile's inns, because they are suspect in regard to bestiality.
And a woman should not be alone with them, because they are suspect in regard to fornication.
And a man should not be alone with them, because they are suspect in regard to bloodshed.’[5]

Neusner's commentary on this passage clarifies the following:

‘The basic theory of gentiles, all of them assumed to be idolaters, is, first, gentiles always and everywhere and under any circumstance are going to perform an act of worship for one or another of their gods. Second, gentiles are represented as thoroughly depraved (not being regenerated by the Torah), so they will murder, fornicate, or steal at any chance they get; they routinely commit bestiality, incest, and various other forbidden acts of sexual congress. Here is how the Mishnah law expresses these premises: do not leave cattle in gentile's inns, because they are suspect in regard to bestiality. And a woman should not be alone with them, because they are suspect in regard to fornication. And a man should not be alone with them, because they are suspect in regard to bloodshed.’[6]

To further show that this is not a controversial view within Judaism but rather a commonly applied one , I will quote from another contemporary book on Judaism, aptly named ‘On Judaism’, by the highly regarded Rabbi Emanuel Feldman:

‘I do believe that if, theoretically, there had never been any Judaism in the world, we would today rarely encounter this phenomena [righteous gentiles] of people who call themselves unbelievers and yet lead relatively decent and moral lives. On the contrary, we would all be devouring each other.'[7]

'These are legitimate descriptions of the Jewish condition. God explicitly tells us in Leviticus 20:26, va'avdil etchem; "I have separated you from among the peoples to be Mine..." Yes, it is part of God's overall plan for mankind that the Jewish people should remain separate. The fact is that to be a holy people in a world that disdains holiness means to be a separate people.

It's interesting that the world seem to recognize this Jewish differentness intuitively. Even the assimilating Jew - who does not wear distinctively Jewish dress and does not practice anything distinctively Jewish, who is a citizen of the world and faithfully lives be the ways of society around him - even he is nevertheless pointed to as a Jew, as someone different from "the rest of us". This makes the assimilator very unhappy, but it probably makes God very happy, because jewish otherness is all part of His plan.’[8]

One of the weaker aspects of much 'anti-Semitic' critique of Judaism and jews is found in the methodology used. Those who offer such critique usually either give quotes without their context and without adding the legislative and/or historical background in order to make a well-defended case. That or or they use a segment of quotes and instances lodged in between their own lengthy theories and interpretations of what the given matters mean. So, it is with that intention in mind that I seek to add as little of my own theories to these matters at this point. The passages and the given commentary suffice to highlight the values of seemingly unabashed Judaic sentiment and law.

The lengthy passage that follows describes what moral order is working on behalf of the previously mentioned idea of Israel, the jews, equates Life whereas non-Israel, the non-jews, equates death.

I quote:

‘The Holy One, blessed be He, will then say to them: 'Wherewith have you occupied yourselves?' They will reply: 'O Lord of the Universe, we have established many market-places, we have erected many baths, we have accumulated much gold and silver, and all this we did only for the sake of Israel, that they might [have leisure] for occupying themselves with the study of the Torah.' The Holy One, blessed be He, will say in reply: 'You foolish ones among peoples, all that which you have done, you have only done to satisfy your own desires.

You have established marketplaces to place courtesans therein; baths, to revel in them; [as to the distribution of] silver and gold, that is mine, as it is written: Mine is the silver and Mine is the gold, saith the Lord of Hosts; are there any among you who have been declaring this?' And 'this' is nought else than the Torah, as it is said: And this is the Law which Moses set before the children of Israel. They will then depart crushed in spirit. On the departure of the Kingdom of Rome, Persia will step forth. (Why Persia next? — Because they are next in importance. And how do we know this? — Because it is written: And behold another beast, a second like to a bear; and R. Joseph learned that this refers to the Persians, who eat and drink greedily like the bear, are fleshly like the bear, have shaggy hair like the bear, and are restless like the bear.)

The Holy One, blessed be He, will ask of them: 'Wherewith have ye occupied yourselves?'; and they will reply 'Sovereign of the Universe, we have built many bridges, we have captured many cities, we have waged many wars, and all this for the sake of Israel, that they might engage in the study of the Torah. Then the Holy One, blessed be He, will say to them: 'You foolish ones among peoples, you have built bridges in order to extract toll, you have subdued cities, so as to impose forced labour; as to waging war, I am the Lord of battles, as it is said: The Lord is a man of war; are there any amongst you who have been declaring this?' and 'this' means nought else than the Torah, as it is said: And this is the Law which Moses set before the Children of Israel. They, too' will then depart crushed in spirit. (But why should the Persians, having seen that the Romans achieved nought, step forward at all? — They will say to themselves: 'The Romans have destroyed the Temple, whereas we have built it.') And so will every nation fare in turn.’[9]

As the above can appear a bit difficult to derive any sentiment from, let us see how Neusner clarifies it:

‘The claim of Rome -to support Israel in Torah study- is rejected on the grounds that the Romans did not exhibit the right attitude, always a dynamic force in the theology.
...
As native categories, Rome and Persia are singled out ,”all the other nations” play no role. Once more the law's theology reaches into its deepest thought on the power of intentionality, showing that what people want is what they get.
...
The basic thesis is identical: the gentiles cannot accept the Torah because to do so they would have to deny their very character... Now the gentiles are not just Rome and Persia. There are others. The claim is, it is natural for the gentiles (not just Rome and Persia) to violate some of the Ten Commandments – specifically, not to murder, not to commit adultery, not to steal- yet these are essential to the Torah. So, the reason that the gentiles rejected the Torah is that it prohibits deeds that the gentiles do by their very nature. The subtext here is that Israel ultimately is changed by the Torah, so that Israel exhibits traits nurtured by God and imparted by their encounter within the Torah.’[10]

Now, I am not trying to further the idea that gentiles in Judaism are completely unable to gain eternal life by God's grace. There are two ways for a gentile to be accepted as righteous by Judaism. One is for the gentile to convert, however, as we shall see, they are not regarded as equal with jews even then. The other option is to follow the seven laws of Noah. I've clarified these laws before in a previous article:

‘The Seven Laws of Noah acts as a simplified extension of the essential commandments that God seeks all mankind to keep, which has since then been recognized as the only necessary laws a gentile must keep in order to gain share of Olam Haba (the hereafter).’[11]

What would be examples of the Noahide gentile not being served the same benefits from judaic law as the jew?

Well, if for example, a jew murders a jew or someone else: then in jewish law there will are at least two witnesses required in order for capital punishment to be meted out. Whereas if, for example, a noahide jew (a gentile follower of the seven noahide laws) murders a jew only one witness is required. I quote the relevant passage regarding this in the Babylonian Talmud:

‘R. Jacob b. Aha found it written in the scholars'2 Book of Aggada:3 A heathen is executed on the ruling of one judge, on the testimony of one witness, without a formal warning, on the evidence of a man, but not of a woman, even if he [the witness] be a relation. On the authority of R. Ishmael it was said: [He is executed] even for the murder of an embryo. Whence do we know all this? — Rab Judah answered: The Bible saith, And surely your blood of your lives will I require;4 this shows that even one judge [may try a heathen].5 At the hand of every living thing will I require it: even without an admonition having been given;6 And at the hand of man: even on the testimony of one witness;7 at the hand of man:8 but not at the hand [i.e., on the testimony] of a woman; his brother: teaching that even a relation may testify.’[12].

The reader might observe that the above does not specifically talk, in this context, about noachian laws, however this passage is taken from the context of Sanhedrin 56-60 where it discussed transgression and rendering of noahide laws for the noahide. However, let us quote a more accessible and easier to understand source:

‘The many formalities of procedure essential when the accused is an Israelite need not be observed in the case of the Noachid. The latter may be convicted on the testimony of one witness, even on that of relatives, but not on that of a woman. He need have had no warning ("hatra'ah") from the witnesses; and a single judge may pass sentence on him (ib. 57a, b; "Yad," l.c. ix. 14). With regard to idolatry, he can be found guilty only if he worshiped an idol in the regular form in which that particular deity is usually worshiped; while in the case of blasphemy he may be found guilty, even when he has blasphemed with one of the attributes of God's name—an action which, if committed by an Israelite, would not be regarded as criminal’[13]

The jewish law for a similar case is not equal, as is derived from the law given here:

‘At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.’[14]

The above is a rather clear distinction between an example of laws: one standard on capital punishment set forth by jews for jews and another standard set forth by jews for the gentile community that it seeks to encompass under ’righteous living’.

Let us look at an example of legal differentiation between the convert and the 'full' jew. I will now aim to show that, in Judaism, a jew by birth cannot dilute his blood by marrying a mamzer, but a convert can.

‘Mamzer’ is basically equivalent to a jewish person who is the offspring of a forbidden relationship between jews, such as from adulterous or incestuous relationship, and this derogatory status was and is traditionally inherited in Judaism.

In the Old Testament: it is oft been translated from the Hebrew as ‘bastard’ though the Oral Torah comments that this not exactly what a mamzer is meant to denote. This is traditionally derived from the Written Torah's take in Deuteronomy 23:2 and Zechariah 9.

The infamous Rabbi Maimonides, or Rambam as he is commonly known, in his authoritative codification of jewish law, the ‘Mishneh Torah’, defines a mamzer as follows:

‘Who is considered a mamzer as designated in the Torah? The offspring by any of the forbidden unions, except by a menstruant, whose child is considered impaired, but not a mamzer. If a man has intercourse with a woman of any of the forbidden unions, whether by force or by consent, whether willfully or by error, the child born of that union is regarded as a mamzer, and both male and female are eternally forbidden to marry into Israel.’[15]

Therefore Maimonides rules that anyone who has inherited mamzerism is not allowed to marry a born jew, while a convert to Judaism is permitted to marry some born jews. A mamzer can marry a gentile bondsmaid, gentile slave or a convert to judaism, but not a born jew.

What evidence exists to this rather unequal treatment of supposedly recognized members of the jewish congregation?

In the Babylonian Talmud it is established that a proselyte may marry a mamzer or he may marry a shetuki (a potential mamzer or a jew whose ancestral lineage is in doubt):

‘A proselyte, a freed slave and a halal are permitted to [marry] a priest's daughter.’ This supports Rab. For Rab Judah said in Rab's name: Fit women [sc. daughters of priests] were not admonished against being married to the unfit.(see footnote 11)

R. Zera lectured in Mahuza: A proselyte may marry a mamzereth. Thereupon everyone pelted him with stones. Said Raba: Is there anyone who lectures thus in a place where proselytes abound!' [16]

Footnote 11 says:

‘11) I.E., to those who may not marry into the priesthood. Thus, whereas a priest may not marry the daughter of a halal, freedman or proselyte, the daughter of a priest may marry one of these. This does not refer to the ordinary unfit, such as mamzerim or Nethinim.’[17]

Another quote, where the legality is of the decision is cited directly from the Mishnah (one of the basic sources of jewish law of halakha):

‘MISHNAH. TEN GENEALOGICAL CLASSES WENT UP FROM BABYLON: PRIESTS, LEVITES, ISRAELITES, HALALIM, PROSELYTES, FREEDMEN, MAMZERIM, NETHINIM, SHETHUKI AND FOUNDLINGS.

Priests, Levites and Israelites may intermarry with each other.

Levites, Israelites, Halalim, Proselytes and freedmen may intermarry.

Proselytes and freedmen, mamzerism and nethinim, shetuki and foundlings, are all permitted may intermarry.'[18]

More jewish law prohibiting of marriage/union with mamzer/bastards of jews is found in another tractate in the Babylonian Talmud (on both a and b folios: I have only cited the b folio below for the sake of simplicity):

‘MISHNAH. BASTARDS AND NETHINIM ARE INELIGIBLE, AND THEIR
INELIGIBILITY IS FOR ALL TIME, WHETHER THEY BE MALES OR FEMALES.’[19]

We also see this in the online edition of the Jewish Encyclopedia under: ‘Illegitimacy’.

I quote:

‘The real mamzer ("waddai"), who may not intermarry with Israelites; "even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord" (Deut. xxiii. 2). He may, however, marry a woman who is of the same status or a proselyte.’[20]

I have now demonstrated how Judaism has traditionally established that mamzers are not to be permitted to marry a born jew. Where-as a proselyte/convert can marry some born jews and how gentiles are not, even upon entering into Israel with embrace of the Torah (i.e. converting to Judaism), considered equals to born jews in Judaism.

The inequality of mankind in Judaic thought, with the jewish people being the divinely-favoured elite, is evident in light of what I have demonstrated from the given passages aligned with the authoritative and accepted jewish interpretation of them. However in this article: I would much rather the case of these sentiments of superiority having been spoken by an accepted yet uncontroversial authority on Judaism. So let us end our discussion with a jewish defence and definition of their claim of superiority from such an authority:

‘David: I do not want to repeat what is obviously a cliché, but doesn't chosenness imply superiority? Do we actually consider ourselves superior to the rest of mankind?

Rabbi Emanuel Feldman: That is another false supposition. Superiority per se is not an evil. Certain athletes are superior to others; certain musicians are superior to others; certain doctors are superior to others...

The fact is that certain nations are superior to others in specific areas of endeavor. Yes, we believe that the Jewish people is chosen for its mission by God because it possesses certain God given talents; a clear vision and knowledge of God and how He wants mankind to live on His earth, and the ability to connect with God and with the sacred in life... The Jewish people was seen by God as having certain qualities – steadfastness, spiritual resilience, courage, faith, self-discipline – which made us the most suitable agent for bringing the concepts of God and holiness into the world. That is to say our national character.’[21]

References

[1] Jacob Neusner is the author of over a thousand books, scholarly articles and book chapters on Judaism and is regarded as something of a ‘Dean’, i.e. a ruling authority, in the academic study of Judaism.

[2] Mishnah, Tractate Sanhedrin, 10:1

[3] Jacob Neusner, 2004, ’Making God's Word Work: A Guide to the Mishnah’, 1st Edition, Continuum: New York, pp. 64-65

[4] Ibid.

[5] Mishnah, Tractate Aboda Zarah, 2:1

[6] Neusner, Op. Cit., p. 74.

[7] Emanuel Feldman, 1998, ’On Judaism: Conversations on being Jewish in Today's World’, 2nd Edition, Shaar Press: New York, p. 247

[8] Ibid, p.259

[9] Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Aboda Zarah, 2a – 2b

[10] Neusner, Op. Cit., pp. 76-77.

[11] http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2008/08/lubavitch-debacle.html

[12] Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin, 57b

[13] http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=113&letter=L

[14] Deuteronomy, 17:6

[15] Mishneh Torah, Laws of Forbidden Relations, 15.

[16] Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Kiddushin, 73.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Kiddushin, 69a.

[19] Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yebamoth, 78b.

[20] http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=98&letter=I

[21] Feldman, Op. Cit., pp. 269-270

The Jewish Chronicle kvetches about Gilad Atzmon

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 20:42:00 +0000

The Jewish Chronicle is Britain’s version of the famous New York Jewish Daily Forward; although without originally being a jewish socialist newspaper, however that may be: it in the last few months has become fairly obsessed with the Israeli musician Gilad Atzmon who is basically a leftist jew with anarchist sympathies as far as I can ascertain. Atzmon is; of course, best known for being the general darling of anti-Zionist campaigners and personally adheres to the belief that the jews are not a unique people. He recently wrote a book entitled; ‘The Wandering Who’, which is of course a clever rhetorical play-on-words for the common literary figure of the Wandering Jew. Atzmon was rather impressed by the work of the highly controversial Israeli historian Shlomo Sand: who in his ‘The Invention of the Jewish People’, argued; incorrectly in my view, that the jewish people are not a nation at all and are thus not unique at all. (1)

Suffice to say the theory behind it is all based on the leftist denial of the biological/group basis of the nation state and the false reduction to it as an abstract of somehow no abstract humanity: both of which I personally categorically reject.

Now in two recent articles we’ve had a wave of weird claims from the Jewish Chronicle: in one Jessica Elgot calls him ‘anti-Semitic’, claims he has a ‘core racist commitment’ and worse still he apparently believes in the Protocols of Zion and ‘holocaust denial’. (2) Meaning; of course, that he doesn’t fall through the proverbial soap box screaming ‘it’s all a lie’ at the top of his voice with kosher spittle flying everywhere when somebody criticises jews and Judaism.

But hang on just a cotton-picking minute: Atzmon denies the validity of race as a way to understand people. It is almost his raison d’etre in terms of his anti-Zionist campaigning and arguments. The logic Elgot and a quoted ‘Jewish anti-Zionist’ (read: Labour/Left-wing Zionist) called Tony Greenstein (stereotypical much?) use is hilarious in the extreme. They claim quite literally that because Atzmon argues that the jews do not exist as a unique, chosen people (i.e. a nation) and; with obvious irony, calls himself a ‘self-hating Jew’ (the usual Zionist charge against any jew who utters a word of criticism about the bandit state of Israel) then he is; in fact, ‘racist’ because he rejects the existence of a jewish special identity. (3)

Isn’t that the quintessential opposite of ‘racism’?

Of course it is, but yet Zionism; which asserts that the jews are a unique people and thus are entitled to a homeland so they stop wandering the earth being supposedly ‘persecuted’, somehow is not ‘racist’. As for the charge of anti-Semitism: well once again it is nonsensical as anti-Semitism; as opposed to anti-Judaism, (4) predicates itself on identifying the jews as a biological people and thus as a problem beyond merely their religion. Atzmon obviously isn’t that either as he explicitly rejects the nationhood of the jews.

Although to give Elgot and Greenstein a little bit of credit; as their pedestrian intellects surely need a little bit of an ego boost, they are blindly following the well-trodden path of Zionist logical fiddlesticks backed up with not a little chutzpah. (5) They; of course, associate Atzmon’s ironic comment as being literal and therefore they reason; with such logic that I am sure Spinoza would rather drink hemlock than listen to them, that if Atzmon hates himself as a born jew (note the bemusing ‘racism’) then he must hate jews and therefore be anti-Semitic.

Goodness: aren’t Yahweh’s holy horrors so bright and far superior to us ‘unclean and impure gentiles’?

You cannot but help finding Elgot’s attack on Lauren Booth; who is obviously a little bit of a fruitcake herself as she seriously thinks the Paedophile Prophet (PBUH) was the Messiah (6) and whose only claim to fame is that she is former Prime Minister Anthony (Tony) Blair’s sister-in-law, rather absurd. Oh and she happens to be employed by Iranian State Television, which; of course, Elgot alludes to so as to hint at an ‘anti-Semitic’ conspiracy against the jews like the good little paranoid jewess she surely is.

One finds it particularly amusing when Elgot throws out the Protocols of Zion canard; (7) as if that actually mattered, about anyone who believes that jews might actually organise themselves not only defensively but offensively as well. (8) Of course; being quite the intellectual prodigy she is, Elgot then manages to; by her own logic, tell us she believes in the Protocols of Zion.

She tells us that jews aggressively monitor those who say critical; let alone negative, things about them (oh and the bandit state of Israel as well) and actively seek to remove their influence from the ‘trade union movement, churches and NGOs’ so that the anti-Zionist movement has to ‘acknowledge its anti-Semitic demons’ (‘anti-Semitism’; of course, meaning anything they want it to mean) and therefore become a little muzzled Yorkshire terrier yapping while some ultra-Orthodox Israeli court sentences it to death for being the ‘reincarnation of a secular lawyer’. (9)

I particularly like the ‘Amen’ quote from the Board of Deputies to the effect that anyone who criticises Israel has ‘no interest in peace and reconciliation between the Israeli and Palestinian people.’ I therefore presume that both Elgot and the Board of Deputies believe that Israel’s persistent killings of Palestinians and invasions of anyone in the neighbourhood are; in fact, aiding said ‘peace and reconciliation’. Perhaps both Elgot and the Board of Deputies actually support a ‘Plan Dalet’ type scenario as outlined by controversial Israeli historian; Ilan Pappe, whereby the jews wipe out the locals like a nation of modern King David’s?

Oh, but I thought it was all just misunderstood peace and inter-faith love in the land of rape and honey?

I’ve often observed that jews frequently ask the same question; ‘why do people hate us’, when theorising or trying to irrationalise anti-Semitism, but yet they fail to look at the most basic of reasons (and the one with the least assumptions I might add): that non-jewish attitudes to the jews are generally governed by jewish actions and how; as individuals and as a group, jews interact with gentiles. When a jew swindles a gentile it is hardly rational to claim that the gentile is being irrational to dislike jews based on that experience in much the same way as it is hardly irrational to be afraid of sharks because you got attacked by one once.

It is clear that jews are the ones who tend to be irrational and then project that irrationality on everyone else. After all are we not only gentiles and don’t have Yahweh’s divine ichor pulsing through our veins?

The irony as always is delicious.

References

(1) Shlomo Sand, 2010, ‘The Invention of the Jewish People’, 1st Edition, Verso: New York
(2) http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/59320/lauren-booths-attack-points-new-split-psc
(3) Ibid.
(4) An excellent summary of the difference; and the need to make the differential, between the two maybe found in Albert Lindemann, 1997, ‘Esau’s Tears: Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews’, 1st Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York, pp. 23-32
(5) For a good discussion of the weird intellectual double-standard that exists in Zionist thought; i.e. jews supporting jewish interests is not racist, but anyone else supporting theirs is, see: Ibid, pp. 6-9
(6) On the Mohammed and Aisha issue see Robert Spencer, 2006, ‘The Truth about Mohammed: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion’, 1st Edition, Regnery: Chicago
(7) Although one well-known anti-Zionist jew; Israel Shamir, has argued in their favour as of late: see Anon., 2008, 'The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion', 1st Edition, Historical Review Press: Uckfield, pp. 5-17
(8) For an in-depth discussion of this; although they include effective ‘god-fearers’ [gentiles who serve the jews willingly] in their discussion, see Stephen Walt, John Mearsheimer, 2007, ‘The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy’, 1st Edition, Allen Lane: New York.
(9) I have covered this case of an ultra-Orthodox court sentencing a dog to death by stoning for being a ‘reincarnation’ of a secular jewish lawyer here: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2011/06/stone-bitch.html

A Killer Book

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 17:08:00 +0000

I am rarely impressed with how history is written by scholars, but for once I am pleased to report that I am truly amazed at how well it can be written when someone takes the trouble to do so. Indeed I would add that Douglas Starr in his ‘The Killer of Little Shepherds’ (1) has lit a shining stylistic beacon for historians alongside more mainstream historical figures like Helmut Walser-Smith in how to write factual work with serious scholarship behind it that is yet a joy to read.

Now strictly speaking the work in question has little to do with the jewish question per se, but it does touch on it in passing in particular the protagonist’s; Professor Alexandre Lacassagne, involvement in the Tiszaeszlár jewish ritual murder case and the Dreyfus affair. I must confess that in both cases; which I have not had the opportunity to study thoroughly yet, Lacassagne came down on the philo-Semitic side of the fence. Although in the case of the Dreyfus affair: he certainly came down on the factually correct side I believe it is problematic to assert; as Starr implies, that he chose the ‘correct’ side because of his expertise in forensics as he specialised in murder and crimes of the body: not in espionage and documents.

Indeed I would assert that Starr goes too far in imputing to Lacassagne a sort of genius for ‘knowing the truth by deductions’ indeed Starr does once assert Lacassagne to have been a real-life French Sherlock Holmes. Quite frankly from my study of what Starr has put forward it seems to me that while Lacassagne was a scientist of no mean ability: he was a man of sentimental morals and attachments to what he perceived as good causes.

A good example is the Dreyfus case in that it divided France between the Dreyfusards and the anti-Dreyfusards: it also split the forensics community as Lacassagne thought Dreyfus innocent but Alphonse Bertillon; who was the originator of the finger and ear print methods in forensics (in addition to creating the system of forensic photography still used today), thought Dreyfus guilty and published extensively on the subject. (2) While it is clear in retrospect that Lacassagne was correct: he was correct only in that he happened to pick the right side through his support of ‘good causes’ as opposed to a careful study of the facts. Indeed; as Lindemann has noted, the case against Dreyfus was actually a very strong one until the retrial which acquitted him revealed the true culprit. (3)

So why did Lacassagne take an evidenced stand as opposed to an emotional one?

It is indeed somewhat obvious that Lacassagne was very much a man of his time and far from being infallible was rather more so. In part because he allowed his supposed ‘dispassionate regard’ for his subject matter to get in the way of his judgement in cases which were strictly speaking outside of his professional area of expertise. His support of Dreyfus seems to me to have stemmed more from his emotions than his scientific judgement: after all we cannot take a man who is an expert or genius in one area and transliterate that across to other areas now can we? Einstein who was sympathetic to the USSR and an ardent socialist was a genius in physics, but yet very naïve politically.

Why should Lacassagne be any different?

Indeed Lacassagne’s unconditional support of von Hoffmann’s report in the Tiszaeszlár jewish ritual murder case suggests this much as Lacassagne himself did not consult the relevant facts, but simply republished Hoffmann’s report wholesale in his scholarly journal. Whether or not von Hoffmann was actually correct did not seem to occur to Lacassagne; who didn’t investigate the facts of the case himself, but rather he simply relied on one well-written specialist report rather than consult the evidence himself. Did Lacassagne consider for example the objections of Otto Glagau to the report that he wrote in July 1883? (4)

No: of course not. For Lacassagne is not quite the omnipotent man of science and reason that Starr portrays him as, but rather he was a fallible human being whom made honest mistakes and got too passionately involved in subjects that were outside his direct knowledge and purview. It is no stain on Lacassagne’s great contribution to forensic science that he made mistakes, but yet why must Starr and philo-Semites like him make their subjects out to be all-knowing a posteriori just for making emotional decisions they like?

It is a silly thing to do and in some senses decreases the value of otherwise excellent scholarship, but fortunately it forms only a minor part of Starr’s work and thus can be allowed to pass with qualification and clarification. That said I felt the need to stress that just because Lacassagne believed in something does not mean that it was the scientific thing to do at the time or that it was the correct position in terms of the facts either in the light of a hundred years of history or as they were understood then.

It all comes down to that historical mantra (which I paraphrase from von Ranke): never become too involved with your subject. Report your scholarship accurately, but do so interestingly.

References

(1) Douglas Starr, 2011, ‘The Killer of Little Shepherds: The Case of the French Ripper and the Birth of Forensic Science’, 1st Edition, Simon & Schuster: New York
(2) Ibid., pp. 65-68
(3) Albert Lindemann, 1997, ‘Esau’s Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews’, 1st Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York, pp. 231-233
(4) Anon., 1892, ‘Die Juden und das Christenblut’, 1st Edition, Germanicus Verlag: Leipzig, pp. 27-29. Also see Frederik Gaste, 1934, ‘Die Wahrheit uber die judischen Ritualmorde’, 1st Edition, Paul Hochmuth: Berlin, pp. 34-42, which goes into some of the background of the case in more detail. A far more recent scholarly debunk of the philo-Semitic myths and a priori assumptions concerning jewish ritual murder can be found in Ariel Toaff, Gian Marco Lucchese (Trans.), Pietro Gianetti (Trans.), 2007, ‘Blood Passover: European Jews and Ritual Murder’, 1st Edition, Societa Editrice il Mulino: Bologna and Elliot Horowitz, 2007, ‘Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence’, 1st Edition, Princeton University Press: Princeton.

After Action Report: ‘Spingola Speaks’ (18/11/2011)

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 16:48:00 +0000

After my first radio appearance with Deanna we both agreed that as it had been successful and educational we would have a second chat in the middle of November. The date agreed upon was the 18th and I duly appeared with Deanna on the show. Once again Deanna was a courteous and understanding host: she directed the discussion a lot more than she did in the first show, but I think from her response after the conclusion of the show to me and her actual questions during it that she just had a lot she wanted to talk about and ask. (1)

We covered a whole gamut of issues once again ranging from the jewish revolts against the Romans and the trans-national jewish conspiracy (read Cassius Dio if you are interested) which was attendant to these revolts right through to Henry Ford and the Protocols of Zion. I felt the discussions were sometimes too general on occasion, but this is to be expected on talk radio I am assured.

We did; however, have the opportunity to discuss neo-conservatism in a little detail and its relation and intellectual debt to Trotskyism and the Fourth Internationale. I pointed out that the core of the neo-conservative ideology is in fact a direct parallel to Trotskyite doctrines and particularly pointed out that neo-conservatives are preoccupied with ‘democracy’ and the use of state power to spread that ‘democracy’ across the world.

Of course that form of ‘democracy’ is defined strictly in terms of neo-conservative rule; supposedly for the national good, but in reality for the spread of their own power and the fall of the supposed ‘undemocratic regimes’ that they target. This is; as I pointed out, a direct parallel to Trotsky’s major addition to Marxist theory; ‘the Theory of Permanent Revolution’, which was developed in the wake of the failure of 1905 revolution (of which Trotsky was a fairly important figure) against the Tsar.

Trotsky; of course, envisioned that once the ‘revolution’ was achieved; based once again on the idea of an intellectual elite governing in the name of the ‘proletariat’, it would spread like wildfire and the newly incorporated ‘red army’ would roll over the world; Europe in his time specifically, assisted by mass risings of the ‘toilers’ the ‘class conscious workers’.

I further pointed out that neo-conservative intellectual theory stipulates that the ‘undemocratic regimes’ would be toppled as much by external force as by the ‘popular rising’ that the assault of an external force would provoke: thus creating a state supposedly governed by the people for the people (aka a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ scenario), but in fact ruled by an intellectual elite with a vested interest in neo-conservative ideology and beholden to the state that had applied the external force. However I didn’t point out that Trotskyism has always been a heavily jewish form of Marxism; aside from the fact that Trotsky himself was a jew, and many of the major theorists of this school have been in fact been jewish: good examples being Ernst Mandel, Isaac Deutscher and Tony Cliff.

When we moved to take calls: Werner once again called and pointed out in some detail that the jews are the centrality of the problem that faces the world today and that the jewish people’s claim to be the ‘eternal victims’ are simply rubbish. I agreed and responded; with some vehemence, about the issue of the supposed ‘holocaust’, the covering up of the Holodomor and the mass-killings of Germans; both in Central and Eastern Europe, carried out by the Soviet Union that barely anyone outside the families of those affected and scholars tend to know about.

The second call was also interesting and pointed out the fact that a central facet of awakening people to the problem presented by the jews is in fact in connecting with their own interests: as the caller noted that he himself had been awakened to the reality of jewish power in his own pro-gun ownership activism because so many of the prominent spokespeople for the anti-gun ownership movement are/were jewish and obviously so.

All in all once again I thought it was a very educational show for me and allowed me to develop some of the skills that I lack, which include being clearer in the spoken word as to what I am talking about and developing my rhetorical ability. I hope once again that my appearance on ‘Spingola Speaks’ was both as interesting and informative to Deanna’s listeners as it was for me as a participant. (2)

References

(1) You can listen to the show at the Republic Broadcasting Network archives, which are available at the following address: http://republicbroadcasting.org/?page_id=109.
(2) The schedule for Deanna’s show and my future appearances can be found at the following address: http://www.spingola.com/radio_schedule.html.

From the Archive: A.K. Chesterton’s ‘Learned Elders and the B.B.C.’

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 17:26:00 +0000

Arthur Keith Chesterton; a cousin of the better-known popular Catholic writer Gilbert Keith (G.K.) Chesterton, was one of the greatest intellectuals of his generation: in many respects his abilities as a thinker and a writer outshine even his celebrated cousin’s. Chesterton was a member and leader of the British Union of Fascists from its inception till after the Second World War: when he founded the League of Empire Loyalists to fight against the abandonment of the British Empire by the then government. Among other interests Chesterton kept up was the publication of a nationalist literature through the Candour Publishing Company, which also produced a periodical of the same name: ‘Candour’.

Candour often contained Chesterton and others’ commentary on the jewish question and while Chesterton publicly repudiated anti-Semitism after the Second World War he never stopped seeing the jew as a threat to European civilisation; and specifically the British Empire, that needed to recognised and dealt with. It may surprise some to know that Chesterton was not a believer in the factual nature of the Protocols of Zion. The article that I reproduce below was written and published by Chesterton in ‘Candour’ on the 9th of June 1961. The copy of it that I have obtained is from a reprint of the article in pamphlet form by the Britons Publishing Society in the same year it was published with the addition of a reply to Chesterton and his rejoinder to that criticism. I reproduce the full pamphlet below to bring an excellent piece of anti-jewish writing back from obscurity and to the forefront of anti-Semitism.

The Learned Elders and the B.B.C.

As the B.B.C. in its wisdom or lack of it has devoted an entire peak listening hour to the subject of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, an opportunity would seem be offered to Candour to add a few comments to the discussion, and perhaps furnish a corrective for some of the more flagrant excesses of Broadcasting House propaganda, which such an event naturally incubates. Its Director-General, Hugh Carleton Greene, having declared that the B.B.C. would never be neutral where Jewish interests were involved, nobody should have been surprised to discover that the aim of the programme was not merely to present the Protocols of Zion as a forgery but to have them uttered as the melodramatic ravings of a maniac. Whatever may be their origin, the thought behind the Protocols is cool and clear, so that, in attempting to discredit them as “The Great Lie”, Broadcasting House itself is seen to be by no means unversed in the dishonourable arts of suggestion falsi.

Outright Lying

Indeed, the programme contained some outright lying. For instance, this concerning the Berne trial of some young men who had been charged with distributing the Protocols as indecent literature (which in the pornographic sense they certainly are not): “The fact that the Protocols were indeed a complete forgery was pronounced fully proved by the court in Berne and later by the court of appeal in Geneva.” The court of appeal made no such pronouncement. Nor was it, to the best of my knowledge a Geneva court, but the Berne Cantonal Tribunal. The Tribunal reversed the magistrate’s finding (about the fact of indecent literature) and ruled that the question of the authenticity of the Protocols was entirely irrelevant. It added that on this subject it rejected the conclusions of both sides. That, as it happens, is my own position and the position of most other students of the Jewish problem.

When first I read the explanation of Nilus made in 1905, as to how he came by the documents, the thought occurred to me that the evidence was pretty thin and unsatisfactory, not to be accepted without confirmation which in fact has never been forthcoming, and that is still my view. Never for one moment did I suppose that the teachings which they contain were delivered to a Zionist Congress in Basle in 1897, or any other year, by Theodore Herzl. Dr. Herzl, as the Jews rightly affirm, was not that kind of man, although there is evidence that he did not have an uncanny sense of the shape of things to come. But when I later read Jewish attempts to disprove the authenticity of the Protocols my critical faculty was even less satisfied than it had been by the evidence of Nilus, and as for last week’s B.B.C. “exposure” – it stank to Heaven of mendacity.

The truth is that nobody now living knows for certain when and where the Protocols originated, and sensible people don’t care a damn. Broadcasting House, indubitably at the instance of Jewry, made a great mistake when it decided to arrange a programme on the subject, and it may have been a recognition of this fact that led it, in the event, to turn the whole thing into a boisterous melodrama overstepping the bounds of farce. This in turn was also a mistake, for if the Protocols were nothing more than the ravings of a maniac, why should the Jews make repudiation of them so desperately serious a task and why should the B.B.C. devote a whole peak listening hour to the subject?

Because the voice entrusted with speaking the text of the Protocols frequently rose from comically hissing, sibilant whispers to frantic shrieks, thoughtful people with attentive minds must surely soon have surmised that a deliberate attempt was being made to guy or obscure the meaning and therefore would have listened all the more determinedly to the actual words. The event, indeed, was yet another instance of an almost insane overplaying of the Jewish hand. Whatever the effect intended, the effect contrived was one of sustained special pleading and deadly venom.

It is, with submission, impossible for any intelligent person, aware of what is happening in the world, to read or listen to the reading of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion without being astounded by their prophetic insight, their knowledge of the weaknesses in Gentile society, their proposed techniques for exploiting those weaknesses, and their adumbration of the methods of securing policy objectives which have either been achieved or are on the eve of achievement. I write “adumbration”, because although the spirit animating the Protocols survives intact, the actual mechanisms at the disposal of the policy-makers have progressed far beyond the imagination of the “Elders of Zion”, whoever they may have been. For example, the B.B.C. itself! The B.B.C. as a weapon is better than hunger. Subtle though the authors of the Protocols were, their successors have in radio and television the means of much greater subtlety. For that reason, perhaps, we should be grateful to Broadcasting House for unconsciously offsetting some of its perpetual poisoning of the public ear by a programme which broke all the rules and of which the “Learned Elders” would scarcely have approved. This kind of action, like the Eichmann trial, is the recurring madness of the Jew.

Let me quote some passages from the Protocols, passages the meaning and significance of which cannot be altogether destroyed even by a voice imported by the B.B.C. to suggest gibbering insanity. Here is one which describes a policy end and some part of the means of securing it:

"What form of administrative rule can be given to communities in which corruption has penetrated everywhere, communities where riches are attained only by the clever surprise tactics of semi-swindling tricks; where looseness reigns: where morality is maintained by penal measures and harsh laws but not by voluntarily accepted principles: where the feeling toward faith and country are obliterated by cosmopolitan convictions?

What form of rule is to be given to these communities if not that despotism which I shall describe to you later? We shall create an intensified centralisation of government in order to grip in our hands all the forces of the community. We shall regulate mechanically all the actions of the political life of our subjects by new laws. These laws will withdraw one by one al the indulgences and liberties which have been permitted by the goyim, and our kingdom will be distinguished by a despotism of such magnificent proportions as to be at any moment and in every place in a position to wipe out any goyim who oppose by deed or word…

Moreover, the art of directing masses and individuals by means of cleverly manipulated theory and verbiage, by regulations of life-in-common and all sorts of other quirks, in all which the goyim understand nothing, belong likewise to the specialists of our administrative brain…”

What is this if not the definition long before 1917 of an objective attained by the Bolshevist regime? Mr. Sydney Salomon, of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, once attacked me with vehemence in the Journal of the Institute of Journalists because I had drawn attention to the Judaic inspiration of, and participation in, that regime.

Authoritative Voice

Yet we have the evidence of a voice more authoritative than my own. “It would seem almost as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of anti-Christ were destined to originate among the same people, and that this mystic and mysterious race had been chosen for the supreme manifestations of the divine and diabolical… From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kuhn (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstruction of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Nesta Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the nineteenth century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire. There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others.” The author of that passage was none other than Winston Spencer Churchill, writing in the Illustrated Sunday Herald of February 8, 1920. Churchill has no doubt the best of reasons for long ago banishing such truths from his mind.

“Envious malevolence and impossible equality”? The “Learned Elders” also speak of these matters.

“The weapons in our hands are limitless ambitions, burning greediness, merciless vengeance, hatred and malice”.

But they understand well enough, and state with frankness that the concept of “equality” is also among their weapons.

“In all corners of the earth the words ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity’ brought to our ranks, thanks to our blind agents, whole legions who bore our banners with enthusiasm. And all the time these words were canker-worms at work boring into the well-being of the goyim, putting an end everywhere to peace, quiet, solidarity, and destroying all the foundations of the goya states. As you will see later, this helped us to our triumph: it gave us the possibility, among other things, of getting into our hands the master-card – the destruction of the privileges, or in other words of the very existence, of the aristocracy of the goyim, that class which was the only defence peoples and countries had against us. On the ruins of the natural and genealogical aristocracy of the goyim we have set up the aristocracy of our educated classes, headed by the aristocracy of money”.

If that, to the mind of Hugh Carleton Greene, is the raving of a lunatic I can only remark that there is method in it, and little truth!

Economic Warfare

The part played by economic warfare and the manipulation of money is stressed repeatedly in the Protocols:

“We shall soon begin to establish huge monopolies, reservoirs of colossal riches, upon which even large fortunes of the goyim will dependent to such an extent that they will go to the bottom together with the credit of the States on the day after the political smash… The aristocracy of the goyim, as a political force, is dead… but as landed proprietors they can still be harmful to us from the fact that they are self-sufficing in the resources upon which they live. It is essential, therefore, for us at whatever cost to deprive them of their land. This object will be best attained by increasing the burdens upon landed property – in loading lands with debts. These measures will check land-holding and keep it in a state of humble and unconditional submissions…

What we want is that industry should drain off from the land both labour and capital and by speculation transfer into our hands all the money in the world, and thereby throw all the goyim into the ranks of the proletariat… To complete the ruin of the industry of the goyim we shall bring to the assistance of speculation and luxury which we have developed among the goyim, that greedy demand for luxury which is wallowing up everything. We shall raise the rate of wages, which, however will not bring any advantage to the workers for, at the same time, we shall produce a rise in prices of the first necessities of life… We shall further undermine artfully and deeply sources of production, by accustoming the workers to anarchy and to drunkenness, and side by side therewith taking all measures to extirpate from the face of the earth all the educated forces of the goyim. In order that the true meaning of things may not strike the goyim before the proper time, we shall mask it under an alleged ardent desire to serve the working classes and the great principles of political economy about which our economic theorists are carrying on an energetic propaganda”.

Quite a number of current trends and developing policies are taken care of in that passage – take-over bids, the rationalization schemes of P.E.P. and Harold Macmillan launched in the ‘thirties, the latter’s election-boast of more and more T.V. sets, washing-machines and refrigerators, galloping inflation, reckless wage claims, the attack on the land, the Socialist masquerade as class-warriors, the recent formation of people’s trusts, the destruction of traditional leadership.

Nor are the Protocols silent about the need to bedevil the public mind by confusionist tactics.

“In order to put public opinion in our hands we must bring it into a state of bewilderment by giving expression from all sides to so many contradictory opinions and for such length of time as will suffice to make the goyim lose their heads in the labyrinth and come to see that the best thing is to have no opinion of any kind in matters political, which it is not given to the public to understand, because they are understood only by him who guides the public. This is the first secret”.

Nobody who has endeavour to persuade people of the dangers confronting them in this disastrous age can fail to pay tribute to the thoroughness with which the job of disorientating public opinion has been performed. Then there is the second secret:

“The second secret requisite for the success of our government is comprised in the following: To multiply to such an extent national failings, habits, passions, conditions of civil life, that it will be impossible for anyone to know where he is the resulting chaos, so that the people in consequence will fail to understand one another. This measure will also service us in another way, namely, to sow discord in all parties, to dislocate all collective forces which are still unwilling to submit to us, and to discourage any kind of personal initiative which might in any degree hinder in our affair.

There is nothing more dangerous than personal initiative: if it has genius behind it, such initiative can do more than can be done by millions of people among whom we have sown discord. We must so direct the education of the goyim communities that whenever they come upon a matter requiring initiative they may drop their hands in despairing impotence”.

Yes, we can also confirm that success in applying the second secret is apparent in every department of contemporary life, even to the extent of so confounding and mentally caponizing the people that in the United Kingdom they allow tens of thousands of coloured immigrants, many of them evil, to pour into their country every year, in the Rhodesias they prepare the way for Black domination and in Kenya they get ready to flee before the onrush of enfranchised savagery. They have all been mentally bludgeoned out of the use of their wits.

Corrupting Youth

The “Learned Elders” believe in starting the corrupting process early:

“We have fooled, bemused and corrupted the youth of the goyim by rearing them in principles and theories which are known to us to be false although it is by us that they have been inculcated…

In order to effect the destruction of all collective forces except ours, we shall emasculate the first stage of collectivism – the universities, by re-educating them in a new direction. Their official and professors will be prepared for their business by detailed secret programmes of action from which they will not for a moment with immunity diverge, not by one iota. They will be appointed with especial precaution and will be so placed as to be wholly dependent upon the Government…

The ill-guided acquaintance of a large number of persons with questions of policy creates utopian dreamers and bad subjects, as you can see for yourselves from the example of the universal education in this direction of the goyim. We must introduce into their education all those principles which have so brilliantly broken up their order. But when we are in power we shall remove every kind of disturbing subject from the course of education and shall make out of the youth obedient children of authority, loving him who rules as the support and hope of peace and quiet”.

How many universities in the world escape this reconditioning? Pretoria, perhaps. And Stellenbosch. But neither, I would say, for very long.

Then the “Elders” turn their minds to the intelligentsia:

“The part played by the liberals, utopian dreamers, will be finally played out when our government is acknowledged. Till such time they will continue to do us good service. Therefore we shall continue to direct their minds to all sorts of vain conceptions of fantastic theories, new and apparently progressive: for have we not with complete success turned the brainless heads of the goyim with progress, till there is not among the goyim one mind able to perceive that under this word lies a departure from truth in all cases where it is not a question of material inventions, for truth is one, and in it there is no place for progress. Progress, like a fallacious idea, serves to obscure truth so that none may know it except us…

When we come into our kingdom our orators will expound great problems which have turned humanity upside down in order to bring it at the end under our beneficent rule. Who will ever suspect then that all these peoples were stage-managed by us according to a political plan which no one has so much as guessed at in the course of many centuries?”

Well, certainly the optimists who run the New Statesman, the Spectator and other such papers have no suspicion whatever that the haze of unreality which surrounds them and their readers had its predetermined end.

The Objective

What, to use a colloquialism, are all these plottings of the “Elders” in aid of? They themselves supply the answer:

“By all these means we shall so wear down the goyim that they will be compelled to offer us international power of a nature that will enable us without violence gradually to absorb all the State forces of the world and to form a Super-Government. In place of the rulers of today we shall set up a bogey which will be called the Super-Government Administration. Its hands will reach out in all directions like nippers and its organisation will be of such colossal dimensions that it cannot fail to subdue all the nations of the world.”

There it is – World Government. What are the Common Market, Euratom, the Coal and Steel Community, NATO, SEATO, the Soviet empires, the United Nations, if they are not either steps or alternative lines of approach to One World – a Jew-dominated world?

In truth, however, we do not need the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion to tell us of these things, which form part of what is now declared policy, further by pressures no longer altogether concealed. I have never based any part of Candour’s case on the Protocols, for the simple reason that I know nothing of their origin and care less. What interests me, and what calls forth my own fighting spirit, is what I have discerned of the organised use of evil to subvert Western civilisation and bring our traditional values crashing to the ground so that a totally different, a blood-chilling and hateful, influence may henceforward dominate the world. The Protocols may be fake, a fabrication, call them what you will. But they are not, as the B.B.C. presented them, mad, in the sense of being divorced from the realities of subversion and revolution. Lacking though thye may be in authority, they yet march in step with the unfolding modern conspiracy of which they are a prophetic utterance.

Statesmen like Churchill and Lloyd George, writers like Belloc and Wickham Steed, and editors like H. A. Gwynne; Jews themselves of the calibre of Disraeli and Oscar Levy, have all contributed their testimony to the fact of Jewish power, of which there is now a vast accumulation of evidence.

What we have to watch is that the facts f this power are not derided or rejected as a result of devices such as that the B.B.C. gives a fall hour to knocking down what is for all intents and purposes a skittle, but accords never a split second to those of us who would be competent to trace in actual policy the essential teachings, and many of the mechanisms embodied in the Protocols. If the desire to achieve objectivity animated Broadcasting House, would it not have taken care to ensure that the programme made provision for a dispassionate assessment of this curious relationship? But then, of course, Hugh Carleton Greene on behalf of the B.B.C. has disavowed the intention of an objective appraisal of Jewish matters. Another test is that not one national newspaper in the land dares to comment on the Carleton Greene dictum or to publish a single line critical of Jewry. Here, surely, is an established fact of power.

Zionism’s Supreme End

Two other points are worth answering. The promoters of the B.B.C. programme were no doubt sincere, if ignorant, in putting forward the view that “the Protocols contradict all that Zionism stands for, above all a national home of modest geographical pretensions for the Jewish people. Zionism was and still is hostile to international Jewry, which was vital to the non-existent Elders.” This, I submit, is nonsense. There is proof that the entire international machinery of Jewry was used to defeat the British Government’s attempt to hold some kind of a ring for the Palestinian Arabs, and the United States Government, with virtually every European Government, including that of the Soviet Union, was suborned to this end. General Sir Frederick Morgan disclosed the misuse of UNRRA in the Zionist cause, and later – which may be considered significant – he revealed the Communist espionage network which muscled-in on UNRRA’s organisational facilities. No doubt there are some Zionists for whom the State of Israel is the supreme end, but they are not among the more instructed. The informed bear in mind the messianic predictions of their race, and the unique international dispositions of World Jewry enable them the more effectively to press for the establishment of international agencies which they dominate, leading to World Government, which they also intend to dominate. It would be quite unbelievable for a people as astute as the Jews to possess and then leave it to rust for want of exercise. Here again we do not require the Protocols of instruct us.

The second point is this. Those who compiled the B.B.C. programme made the following unwarranted assertion:

“Accusations in ordinary politics are aimed at groups and peoples able to reply because they are real people. When a McCarthy refers to lists of highly-placed traitors who don’t exist; when a Fascist demagogue refers to octopus-like conspiracies of un-named because imagined enemies; when weekly journalists try to make their readers’ flesh creep with awful stories of conspiring bogey-men called The Establishment, and when forgers report fictitious meetings at which bloodthirsty and annihilating decisions are taken by mysterious and powerful beings, and when the evil of mass suspicion of one race by another is introduced by such means then we are going far beyond the tussle of politics. Since the accused are non-existent, the defence is silent, and suspicion multiplies. We are opening dark places in the mind. We are exciting superstitions and instincts that lie deep in the human nature and which it is the purpose of civilisation to render harmless.”

Did McCarthy in fact refer to lists of highly-placed traitors who did not exist? What Congressional records should we consult for the evidence? I do not know in what category Candour is placed, but is can scarcely be said that we fail to name those whose policies we attack. The motive behind the passage is clear enough. It is to suggest cowardice and delinquency in Gentile patriots who feel obliged to take a stand against Jewish power. The innuendo of cowardice we can laugh at, but the notion that it is the purpose of civilisation to “render harmless” our criticism should be considered in a more serious light. Jews have long cherished the ambition of making comments hostile to their influence illegal and in some countries they have already succeeded. As might be expect, the Protocols, which provided for so much, provide also for this situation:

“In order to destroy the prestige of heroism for political crime, we shall send it for trial in the category of thieving, murder, and every kind of abominable and filthy crime. Public opinion will then confuse in its conception this category of crime with the disgrace attaching to every other and will brand it with the same contempt.”

The Soviet Union has gone much further, making “political crime” (opposition to tyranny?) the worst of all the offences and placing political prisoners at the mercy of the most brutal criminals. Again we see that in more senses than one do events tend to catch up with, and overtake, the pronouncements of the “Learned Elders”. On those ground alone, to attempt to argue a case for the authenticity of the Protocols is a foolish endeavour. What cannot be dismissed as faked are the international policies which relentlessly push mankind into One World, and it is these policies, not the Protocols, upon which we should rely in our fight against the World Government to be.

All to be Controlled

Will Hugh Carleton Greene not allow us just twenty minutes on the air to explain the basis of that fight? Good heavens no! The truth would serve to make us free – and freedom forms no part of the design for the future governance of mankind. All is to be controlled, and the control will perhaps not be so very different from that foreseen by the mysterious “Learned Elders of Zion”, quite irrespective of whether they were the Sanhedrin or some gang of Gentile forgers inspired by prophecy.

Broadcasting House Replies

Our leading article in the issue of June 9 was a commentary on the recent B.B.C. programme which set out to prove that the document known as the “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” was a forgery. I expressed our lack of interest in the origins of this strange work, and sought to focus attention instead on the extent to which its precepts have been, and are being, incorporated in internationalist policies, such as the drive towards World Government. And intermediate steps to destroy national sovereignty through merging national will in various functional bodies, which make possible the exercise of military control. I also pointed to the remarkable similarity between the teaching of the Protocols and the ordering of affairs in the Soviet Union, which came into being some years after their publication.

Both Sides

Last week the B.B.C. sent me a letter replying to some of the points made in my article, and for the sake of fairness, not wishing our readers to be made aware of only our own side of the argument, this reply is published in full, together with my further comments. Signed by Mr. Christopher Sykes, it reads:

“The British Broadcasting Corporation,

Broadcasting House, London W.1.

June 13, 1961,

Dear Mr. Chesterton,

I have read “Learned Elders and the B.B.C.” in Candour of June 9. I am the author of the broadcast script to which you take exception. Allow me to make a few observations on your article:

1. First I should point out that the programme was part of a series on fakes and forgeries. The choice of subject indicated an interest in forgeries in general, not any special preoccupation with “The Protocols”. There was no Jewish pressure behind the choice of subject. I am not a Jew, nor is the producer or general editor of the series, nor is the head of the B.B.C. department in which I work.

2. As regards the assertion of forgery by two Swiss courts, I own that I have not looked up official records but have been guided by reports by independent authorities (not Jewish ones by the bye). I have understood that as regarding forgery the finding of the first court was upheld by the Court of Appeal while not allowing that “The Protocols” may be classed as obscene literature. If they did reject the conclusions of both sides, I take it that they did so as a matter of legal form, but not in consideration of the weight of evidence.

3. You say that most students of the Jewish question reject the conclusions of both sides. I do not think they would so if they studied the matter for any length of time.

4. It is distressing to find that Sir Winston Churchill was once deceived by the notion that the Bolshevik Revolution was primarily a Jewish affair, but not wholly surprising. Other eminent statesmen, besides that great man, were under this impression at the time. Appearances were deceptive. Later events have shown the absurdity of confounding Communism and Jewry. The Jews seem to have had little influence under Stalin who died, if the accounts of his last illness are authentic, in a somewhat anti-Semitic mood.

5. Those who find “The Protocols of the Elders” credible are, I believe, suffering from a state pf mind describable as “muddle through simplicity”. There are many shrewd political comments in “The Protocols”, and yet more in the original Joly, from which they were copied. Many Government, many parties, many groups of men have been guilty of many of the abominations in which the “Elders” exulted, and I suppose that, to date, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party have been more guilty of more of these crimes in one regime than any other of the thousands of agents of evil of whom we have record. The childish thing about “The Protocols”, as about Joly’s satire on Napoleon III, is to ascribe all these crimes to one agency. One sees the same “muddle through simplicity” in some Marxist propaganda: all history as a banker’s plot. I believe that the first person to play this game was the Abbe Barruel who furnished “proof” that the French Revolution was exclusively the result of a Free Mason plot!

6. When I said in the “closing speech for the prosecution” that it was the duty of civilisation to tame certain dark impulses of the mind, I was not implying that all criticism should be silenced, but that it was iniquitous to obtain a following by arousing irrational hatreds, to which most men can be prone.

If you choose to publish this letter you may, but if so I would ask you to publish it in full.

Yours Sincerely,

(Signed) Christopher Sykes,”

Mr, Sykes’s letter is courteous and sincere but not at all well informed. I will reply to his points as he numbers them.

(1) Noted and accepted without comment, except as to enquire whether Mr. Sykes’s services were utilized as those of an expert on “forgeries in general” or as those of an expert on Jewish problems.

(2) Why does Mr. Sykes not name his “independent authorities”? As they have fed him with wrong information, how much trust does he still repose in them? I cannot compete in thought-reading about what was in the mind of the Appeal Court, but prefer to believe that it meant what it said.

(3) The desideratum, as Point 2 would suggest, would seem to be not length of study but exactness of scholarship!

(4) How does it come about that Winston Churchill was deceived about the Bolshevik Revolution, that M. Oudendyk, Netherlands Ambassador at Petrograd (now Leningrad) during the Bolshevik Revolution, was deceived, that the late Wickham Steed, former editor of The Times, was deceived, that Sisson, the American diplomat in Moscow during the Revolution, was deceived, and that the world had had to await the unsupported statement of Mr. Christopher Sykes to learn about this deception?

It would be illuminating to discover whether Mr. Sykes has ever read the report of M. Oudendyk, dated Sept. 6, 1918, and published as a White Paper by the British Government. I quote from it: “I consider that the immediate suppression of Bolshevism is the greatest issue now before the world, not even excluding the War, which is still raging, and unless, as above stated, Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over the whole world, as it is organised and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things.” In what way does Mr. Sykes claim to be a better informed person about the Bolshevik Revolution than was M. Oudendyk?

Continued Support

I agree with Mr. Sykes that most of the Jews originally associated with Lenin and Trotsky later lost out to Stalin and went down in his successive purges. Curiously, however, this fact did not lead to the disenchantment of many Jews elsewhere, who continued to support Communist causes from almost impregnable positions in the United States, notably during the Second World War, and who were active in the leadership of the Communist countries behind the Iron Curtain after the war. I also agree with Mr. Sykes about the absurdity of confounding Communism and Jewry. They should never be confounded, which is not to deny the prodigious role played by Jews in the inspiration and promotion of Communism. If Mr. Sykes is still sceptical, he should ask himself what the Jewish Chronicle meant when it wrote on April 4, 1919: “There is much in the fact of Bolshevism itself, in the fact that so many Jews are Bolshevists, in that fact the ideals of Bolshevism at many points are consonant with the finest ideals of Judaism”.

(5) I understand, and sympathise with, Mr. Sykes’s statement of his belief that those who find the Protocols credible suffer from a state of mind describable as “muddle through simplicity”. To suppose that any single document furnishes the key to immensely complicated political patterns is, to say the least, naïve. But that does not necessarily invalidate whatever there is in the document which is germane to the present world situation. We have to admit that the tendency of the human mind is to oversimplify the problems that confront it, although I confess that few people irritate me more than the person who says: “Once you have read the Protocols you understand everything”. The man capable of making that remark is incapable, I venture to think, of understanding much about anything. Nevertheless, although a candle cannot illuminate the entire empire of the night, it is sometimes a useful thing to have in the house.

The reference to Joly’s “satire on Napoleon III” is misleading, because there is nothing satirical in the Protocols. Napoleon the Third’s scope and powers were circumscribed, whereas the potency of World Jewry lies in its position of power in many lands and the fearful dimensions of this power when it is internationally organized. It is childish, as Mr. Sykes says, to ascribe all the world’s evil to “one agency”: the affairs of mankind are far too involved and complicated to permit of so facile a diagnosis. But if one kind of policy is pursued through the year it is logical to look for the existence of an activating agency dedicated to that purpose. I set no store by the fact that the shadowy “Learned Elders” are regarded by some as constituting just such a cabal, but I do set store by statements such as those of Churchill, Oudendyk, Wickham Steed, and the Jewish Chronicle concerning the fact of Bolshveism, as I set store by the passage about Jewish power in general: “The influence of the Jews may be traced in the last outbreak of the destructive principle in Europe [1848 – A.K.C.]. An insurrection takes place against tradition and aristocracy, against religion and property. Destruction of the Semitic principle, extirpation of the Jewish religion, whether in the Mosaic or the Christian form, the natural equality of men and the abrogation of property are proclaimed by the Secret Societies which form Provisional Governments, and men of Jewish Race are found at the head of every one of them. The people of God co-operate with atheists, the most skilful accumulators of property ally themselves with Communists; the peculiar and chosen Race touch the hand of all the scum and low castes of Europe; and all this because they wish to destroy that ungrateful Christianity which owes to them even its name, and whose tyranny they can no longer endure.” The author of that passage was Benjamin Disraeli and it occurs in The Life of Lord George Bentinck. Mr. Sykes would scarcely argue that Disraeli was also “deceived”. I believe that Mr. Sykes as an honest man will admit the Protocol savour of the quotation, as of many more that could be taken from the works of Disraeli. My chief complaint about his B.B.C. programme is that it never even hinted at the undoubted spiritual relationship of such facts with the pretensions attributed to the “Learned Elders”.

Ancient Propaganda!

Mr. Sykes tells us that he sees the same “muddle through simplicity” in Marxist propaganda which interprets all history as a banker’s plot. The propaganda must be incredibly ancient, as I have never encountered it during the thirty years I have been giving my attention to these questions. As international bankers of New York, with their Hamburg and Paris affiliates, financed the Bolshevik Revolution, I would have been astonished had I ever read a Marxist attack on finance-capitalism, as distinct from industrial-capitalism. Sisson is only one of several witnesses about the finding by bankers of the money for the Bolsheviks. I quote from his official report to the U.S. government, a letter written in September, 1917, by J. Furstenberg (later under another name a member of the Soviet government) to one Raphael Scholan:

“Dear Comrade,

The office of the Banking House M. Warburg has opened in accordance with telegram from president of Rheinish-Westphalian Syndicate an account for the undertaking of Comrade Trotsky. The attorney purchased arms and has organised their transportation and delivery up to Luleo and Vardi. Name to the office in Essen and Son in Luleo, receivers, and a person authorised to receive the money demanded by Comrade Trotsky.

J. Furstenberg.”

Max Warburg was a Hamburg banker, the brother of Paul and Felix Warburg, of the Wall Street firm of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., in which they were partners of Jacob Schiff, who later admitted having financed the overthrow of the Czar. Does nothing of all this suggest to the B.B.C. at least something of the claims of the “Learned Elders”?

(6) I agree with all my heart that it is “iniquitous to obtain a following by arousing irrational hatreds”, although I would dispute Mr. Syke’s contention that most men can be prone to them. There are people who deplore the proved machinations of Financial Jewry, just as there are people who deplore the invasion of our land by coloured migrants. But to deplore is not the same thing as to hate. I am convinced that for the most part hatred, whether irrational or otherwise, is a matter of propinquity. Hatred of and by Jews (or of and by coloured people) is greatest in those areas where they are most closely packed together: in areas where they seldom if ever come into contact very few take any interest in the others’ existence. As for those of us who actively oppose the international influence of Jews, as we oppose the coloured influx, I perhaps speak with some authority when I say that the hate-merchant when encountered is the biggest of our liabilities and (if we know our job) the one whose going from our midst we lose time in expediting. Mr. Sykes will perhaps accept my assurance that a reading of the “Learned Elders” does not normally incite hatred and that in any event we are the first to dub as lunatics those who attempt to argue our case on the basis of the authenticity of the Protocols, strange, disturbing and well worth reading though they be.

Candour has here given the B.B.C. the hospitality of its space to set forth its views in full. How long will it be before Mr. Hugh Carleton Greene, Director-General of the B.B.C., returns the compliment by giving me the opportunity of presenting my own views, as here outlined, at a peak (or any other) listening period?

Postscript

That, so far as the British Broadcasting Corporation was concerned, was the end of the matter. No invitation to the writer of this pamphlet to broadcast was seriously expected and none has been received, while Mr. Sykes was unable to reply further or has been restrained by Broadcasting House.

The refusal of this vast Corporation to allow the other side to be heard was also shown in the letter sent by its Solicitor to Mr. A. W. Gittens, of the Britons Publishing Company (which had been mentioned as the original publishers of the Protocols in the United Kingdom) wherein the B.B.C. declined to make the script available on the grounds – not established by experience – that it is not the Corporation’s practice to provide scripts. Fortunately a private recording had been made and served the same purpose.

Some Tips on Debating Jews

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:22:00 +0000

Every so often I get asked about why I tend to debate so aggressively with jews and seem to be overly intellectually brutal; to the point of cruelty, with them. I think it is a matter I need to clear up with a short post on the matter.

Firstly let us get one thing absolutely clear: jews are not some abstract opponent; like say the ‘Illuminati’, who you can pretend to argue with and ‘expose’ but are rather a very real entity with quite real influence and apologists counted not by the dozen, but by the thousand. As such the kook who argues the reality of satanic ritual abuse by mythical secret cults has at worst to deal with a highly-educated debunker who argues with them for fun or ideological/intellectual reasons. However with jews one is facing this ‘worst case’ scenario as standard and also the strong possibility of repercussions on one’s self from explicitly jewish pressure groups who eagerly decry all things critical of jewry and pressure the unaware into placing critics in personal and social hot water.

As the jew is a real opponent who does in fact have their own state which will protect them and also plenty of fellow members of the tribe with deep pockets and deeper influence; which they can use if they perceive it to be to their benefit to do so. Then it is hardly surprising that serious critics of the jews rarely use their real names in this day and age of jewry rampant.

Secondly my aggressive style is a highly-calculated tactic and based on a lot of experience talking with and debating jews on numerous different subjects: often unrelated to jewry. From this experience and my own research I have gleaned the knowledge that jews specialise in wriggling around in undefined terms, nit-picking and aggressive accusation when in an argument. The purpose of this; of course, is to force their opponent on the defensive and to justify their arguments to the jew as opposed to vice versa.

Thus in order to counter act this I use a very aggressive and polemical style that maintains; I hope, its intellectual value, entertains the reader and also forces the jew or philo-Semite concerned into an intellectual corner from which there is little chance of escape. Thus when the proverbial jew slaps me I tend to give him an intellectual broken nose in return.

Thirdly the jewish habit of nit-picking and aggressive accusation is so effective as a debating strategy; as a rule of thumb, because it allows the jew to attack the ‘lack of knowledge’ and ‘ignorance’ of their opponents by finding gaps in their knowledge and understanding then using that as a rhetorical and propagandistic device to discredit them.

Aggressively attacking straight back by highlighting gaps in their knowledge and understanding renders this jewish debating strategy at least null and void if not counter-productive for the jew concerned. This counter-attacking is particularly potent when you can easily demonstrate that the jew’s attack on you is actually made from a position of ignorance on their part. This is the way to attack them if you can, but even if you know little about the jewish question: picking up the average jew and philo-Semite’s mistakes is fairly easily done by simply taking their claims to their logical conclusions.

Fourthly following this I should highlight that reading a few standard books on jewry either from the academic or popular literature will help you immensely in debating jews as you will have a better grasp of the assumptions and ideas that underlies the jew’s argument and as such are in a far superior position to eviscerate his claims six-ways-to-Sunday.

Fifthly don’t get side-tracked onto irrelevant issues from the original points/theses under consideration as this is a common debate tactic; used by both jews and non-jews, to turn their inferior debating position into an improved and/or superior one. Keep bringing the jew back to the original contention under debate and refuse to get dragged into say the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from a debate originally on the so-called ‘holocaust’. No matter how interesting the diversion might be: don’t be fooled. It is a tactic to put you at a disadvantage and their attempting to do so this indicates that their position on your original topic was weakly defended and they are trying to force you to attack them where they are intellectually much stronger.

Finally never go on the defensive when a jew attacks you. When he screams you are a ‘Nazi’ don’t simply ‘deny’ it: chastise him for resorting to name-calling when he knows he is in the wrong and point out that such tactics are the typical resort of jews in general and point to prominent examples of jews using this kind of name-calling to get out of point-on-point debate like Alan Dershowitz and Deborah Lipstadt.

In short when debating jews: give no quarter and expect none in return.

Anti-Gentilism in the Sefer Yezirah

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 17:41:00 +0000

The Sefer Yezirah; or ‘Book of Creation’, is one of the oldest existent texts of jewish mysticism although the debate on its age has yet to be authoritatively resolved: however to the present author the case for it being mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud is the most convincing. This would date the work to the years after the nominal fall of Rome and the rise of the Byzantine incarnation of the Empire. The traditional claim is that the work was composed by Abraham itself, but this is obviously faulty in line with the time-line briefly outlined above. Another claim; although more plausible if not less fantastic, is that the work was authored by Rabbi Akiva around the same time that he supposedly composed the Sefer ha-Zohar (the ‘Book of Splendour’) while up to his neck in nothing but sand in a cave hiding from the vengeful Romans (Akiva had been a prominent supporter of the revolt of Bar Kochba against the Romans). (1)

The work was; in fact, more likely authored by some obscure and now totally unknown jewish mystic who wished to engage in some irrational speculation based on the then understood text of the Torah with elucidation by quotation provided by selections from what now understand to be the Ketuvim (Major Prophets). This is probably why it has been ignored by some jewish scholars of the same era such as Yuval. (2)

The Sefer Yezirah itself is very short text compared to other jewish philosophical and metaphysical work; for example Moses Hayyim Luzzatto’s ‘Mesillat Yesharim’, and is more comparable in being somewhat ‘coded’ thought with the tales of Rabbah bar-bar Hannah or the poems of Solomon ibn Gabriol. It is never-the-less usually divided into chapter and section; like other jewish religious work, for the purposes of referencing and on this score I have elected to utilise the most common English translation available which is that of Isidor Kalisch originally published in 1877. (3) Readers will find the easiest edition of Kalisch’s work to find is that published; ironically enough, by the American Rosicrucian Order as part of their ‘Rosicrucian Library’ series. (4) I have elected to replace the spelling used by Kalisch of the Hebrew word for book; ‘Sepher’, with the more correct ‘Sefer’ as the academic linguistic custom in regard to Hebrew has changed since Kalisch published the work nearly a century and a half ago.

The part of the work I wish to concentrate on is the implicit anti-gentilism found in the Sefer Yezirah; as in most other jewish religious work, as it has; like much else, been missed by critics of jewry and Judaism.

The Sefer Yezirah begins with the tried and true forms; although blasphemous to later jews, of explicitly naming Yahweh (rather than simply ‘G-d’ or ‘Hashem’) to be the ‘King of the Universe’, ‘Omnipotent’, ‘All Kind’, ‘Eternal’ and so forth. Yahweh is also explicitly stated to have ‘created the universe’. (5) We are also told slightly later that Yahweh is both responsible for creating the universe and also bringing about its ultimate end. (6) Although one can tell that the author of the Sefer Yezirah is writing to convince other jews of the truth of the almighty jew in the sky from the reference made to the fact that the reader should; in the author of the Sefer Yezirah’s opinion, ‘comprehend this great wisdom’ so that Yahweh can be lead to ‘his throne once again’. (7)

This tells us that while Yahweh is supposedly omnipotent over all things: he requires the assistance of the faithful to retain his power over the world. Somewhat similarly to how the devil was developed in Christian thought to somehow have considerable power in a world ruled by an omnipotent and omniscient creator god. (8)

Contradictions have historically been no bar to belief systems if they can be rationalised sufficiently, but it does tend to leave them open to later rationalist/skeptical attack. The identification of the faithful alluded to by the author of the Sefer Yezirah is made crystal clear; after much mystical mumbo-jumbo, when he talks of the first person to comprehend the alleged mystical truisms of which he writes being the jewish patriarch: Abraham. This pleased Yahweh so much that he called Abraham ‘friend’ and made a covenant with him. (9)

The covenant referred to is; of course, the central claim of Judaism that Yahweh; omnipotent, omnipresent and generally homicidal, has made a direct contract with the jewish people; note not simply those of ‘the jewish religion’, who are those descended from Abraham and later Moses.

When we say the jewish people it would perhaps be best to refer to the entity as it is understood in Judaism: Israel. Israel in Judaism is not a state per se, but rather a direct reference to ‘the children of Israel’ aka Abraham’s progeny. One can thus begin to see the implication of both what Judaism and the Sefer Yezirah are saying: one biological nation has been chosen above all others, because of whom they are descended from not what they believe.

In essence then it becomes a question of lineage not one of confession: this has been unfortunately confused by the advent of Christianity and Islam both of which use the confession of faith as the prime genus for their identity, while Judaism uses biological heritage. This informs a sense of superiority in Judaism; reinforced by the biological class system outlined explicitly in the Mishnah, that a born jew is far superior to a mere convert who at the very best is a ‘jewish soul born into a non-jewish body’ and therefore impure.

This superiority is also implied by the suggestion in the Sefer Yezirah that Yahweh knew Abraham and thus the jews before ‘he formed them in his belly’. (10) This implies the special relationship further described by the Sefer Yezirah to the effect that Yahweh made the covenant of the ‘ten fingers’ with Abraham; which is a separate one from the orthodox covenant represented by circumcision (the ‘covenant of the toes’), which is also called the covenant of the tongue.

To understand what the ‘covenant of the tongue’ means we have to recall that the author of the Sefer Yezirah is trying to bring jews back to either his specific form of Judaism or Judaism in general; per his earlier statement that Yahweh should be returned to his throne, (11) and looking at the world as one dominated by the unclean gentiles. The Sefer Yezirah is quite clear; although somewhat roundabout, on its requirement for the world. As Yahweh created all things and is the lord of the world (12), but in did so symbolically using the apparently intrinsic power of the Hebrew alphabet as the ‘language of creation’. (13)

Yahweh also created ‘the decade out of nothing’; (14) by which it is meant that before Yahweh there was nothing: no protons, neutrons or electrons, and the Sefer Yezirah assigns this act of complete creation (not accounting for how Yahweh himself existed) to be analogous with two body parts: the ten toes and ten fingers. The author of the Sefer Yezirah also manages to anticipate the ‘holy hand grenade’ sketch of Monty Python fame by a millennia and some loose change when they assert: ‘Ten are the numbers out of nothing, and not the number nine, ten and not eleven.’ (15)

The centre of this; i.e. between the ‘fingers’ and ‘toes’, is held to be the covenant of Abraham; i.e. between Yahweh and Israel, and is thus to rule the decade. The decade itself is outlined as a series of opposites assigned a number in sequence. (16) The sequence is defined by what is ‘infinite’ and supposed to indicate the continuous attributes of this world (i.e. good and evil plus the odd additions of ‘the beginning’, ‘the end’, ‘height’ and ‘depth’ (17)). The author then goes on to claim that Yahweh rules over each of these absolutely and that the world is Yahweh’s ‘holy habitation’ with presumably Israel; i.e. the jews, as its guardians and stewards. (18)

The Sefer Yezirah also gives Yahweh the credit for all natural phenomena as all forces of the world ‘humble themselves’ before him, and therefore the ‘natural forces of the world’ (the gentiles) should ‘humble themselves’ before his chosen people (the jews). (19) This interpretation confirmed by a quotation from Ezekiel to the effect that all living creatures should return to Yahweh and therefore gentiles should also pay homage to the jewish god, (20) but presumably through his earthly priesthood unless Yahweh presents himself as a ‘whirlwind’ or some such. (21)

This is again confirmed by the Sefer Yezirah’s statement of the ‘articulate word’ (hence the ‘covenant of tongues’) of holy power being the holy spirit meaning both the jewish tradition that Yahweh; in essence, spoke the world into existence and also that the speech of Yahweh (of which are the jews are guardians and stewards) is the ‘holy spirit’ that governs the world. (22)

The Sefer Yezirah also offers an origin for the tetragrammaton (the ‘four lettered name’ of G-d [YHWH: remember that Hebrew historically hasn’t used vowel sounds]) when it claims that Yahweh bound the power of creation and thus magical power in that name by using the power of the Hebrew language. (23) This is; of course, why so much jewish magical and spell lore focuses on the power of names, letters and numbers as opposed to the more sympathetic forms of magical and spell lore used by non-jews. (24) That Yahweh bound up the power of ‘air, water, ether and fire’ in the tetragrammaton (‘his great name’) (25) is indicative of the power the author of the Sefer Yezirah feels the jews to have as a people: for they are the custodians; as the covenanted people of Yahweh, of this great power which only they can rightfully unleash as only they have the key to doing so (the mastery of the Hebrew language and the Torah).

This great power; of course, can be used to place Yahweh once more on this throne that sits astride both the people of Israel (the jews) and the peoples of non-Israel (the gentiles). In a sense then the power the jews have been invested with by Yahweh is something they can; and should according to them, use to bring the gentiles back to worshipping Yahweh and by extension his chosen people (the jews).

The tetragrammaton is even given the power of new creation by the author of the Sefer Yezirah when he states that ‘every creature and every word emanated from (the) one name’. (26) Indeed this ability to create anew is found in jewish literature in the legend of the golem of Prague which supposedly had the ability to sort truth and fiction and also punished the gentiles who asserted; supposedly untruthfully, that the jews could murder children as part of their rites. The golem itself was created using a profound knowledge of jewish mystical lore; the creator usually being ascribed as the legendary Rabbi Jehudah Leow, and the secret of the tetragrammaton (i.e. Yahweh’s name). (27)

This is obviously legend, but the belief in the singular jewish ability to create new life from nothing; i.e. a literal act of deistic creation, points to the idea of the covenant and the special chosen nature of the jews in Judaism. As after all; as Hole pointed out long ago in relationship to European witchcraft, (28) it is not so much whether such a thing could really work, but rather that it was believed to do so. So in this sense intent is actually more important than the lack of substance to the attempt.

The author of the Sefer Yezirah; and many learned and unlearned jews after him, seriously believed that the use of the Tetragrammaton could (and should) be used to produce magical and supernatural effects that should be used for either the benefit of Judaism, jews in general or an individual jew in particular. That they sought to use these magical powers against gentiles is shown by the legend of the golem of Prague as well as the Hebrew Chronicle of Prague which asserts that whatever happened in the world to the jews was their fault and that Yahweh punished them and the gentiles solely for what the jews had or had not done. (29) This attitude is directly akin to the idea of the jews as being the centre of all things in this world and the next which is announced by the Sefer Yezirah. (30)

The Sefer Yezirah does manage to somewhat anticipate Calvin’s well-known ideas of predestination (31) when it states that Yahweh ‘predetermined’ every creature (32), but Calvin and the author of the Sefer Yezirah differ slightly in the end envisioned with the Sefer Yezirah asserting that while Yahweh knows the fate of all (he is after all asserted numerous times to be omnipresent) he allows jews as his covenanted nation to change their individual fate. Calvin; of course, allowed nothing of the kind and logically reasoned in his ‘Institutes of the Christian Religion’ that as God is omnipresent and omnipotent he must know the fate of all men before they are all born.

The author of the Sefer Yezirah doesn’t have intellectual courage of Calvin; who in spite of rumours past and present was not jewish as far as any scholar can ascertain, as he avoids the necessary consequences of the idea of the omnipresent, omnipotent god he posits; which Calvin endorsed, and merely uses the covenant with Yahweh to assert the jews have a special status with Yahweh. While the gentiles; being lower beings in the eyes of Judaism, are in a predestined mould much like the sheep of the field and the fish in the sea. It is incorrect to assert that the jews look upon the gentiles as actual beasts of the field, but it is not incorrect to assert that jews in practice believe them to be.

All-in-all the Sefer Yezirah is a fairly despicable document, but it has been missed by critics of jews and Judaism in part because it is somewhat obscure. However at the same time obscurer quotations and facts have been brought to light and used by anti-Semites in the past so I see no reason to exclude the Sefer Yezirah from the growing corpus of the anti-Semitic critique of the jews and Judaism.

References

(1) Martin Goodman, 2009, ‘Rome & Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations’, 1st Edition, Penguin: London, pp. 501-503
(2) Israel Jacob Yuval, Barbara Harshav (Trans.), Jonathan Chipman (Trans.), 2008, ‘Two Nations in your Womb: Perceptions of Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages’, 2nd Edition, University of California Press: Berkeley
(3) Isidor Kalisch, 1877, ‘Sepher Yezirah: A Book on Creation’, 1st Edition, L. H. Frank: Bowery
(4) Isidor Kalisch, 1948, [1877], ‘Sepher Yezirah: A Book on Creation’, 1st Edition, Rosicrucian Supply Bureau: San Jose
(5) Sefer Yezirah 1:1
(6) Ibid. 1:6
(7) Ibid. 1:3
(8) Discussed by; for example, Brian Levack, 1994, ‘The Witch-Hunt in Early Modern Europe’, 2nd Edition, Longman: New York, pp. 29-35 and Robert Thurston, 2001, ‘Witch, Wicce, Mother Goose: The Rise and Fall of Witch Hunts in Europe and North America’, 1st Edition, Longman: New York, pp. 27-39.
(9) Sefer Yezirah 6: 10
(10) Ibid.
(11) Ibid. 1:3
(12) Ibid. 6:9
(13) Ibid. 1:1
(14) Ibid. 1:2
(15) Ibid. 1:3
(16) Ibid. 1:4; a similar list of ‘opposites’ is given later in Ibid 4:2-3
(17) The obvious reasons for these being regarded as ‘infinite’ are firstly that the time of the end is to be chosen by Yahweh and only he knows when that will be so it is therefore effectively infinite. Where-as ‘height’ and ‘depth’ is more of a bad translation of the Hebrew text which would be better loosely translated as ‘sky’ to give a sense of the meaning. What the author of the Sefer Yezirah means is that the height to the sky is infinite as the sky is, because one cannot see the end of it.
(18) Sefer Yezirah 1:4
(19) Ibid. 1:5
(20) Ibid. 1:7
(21) Ibid. 1:5
(22) Ibid. 1:8
(23) Ibid.
(24) In the relatively small scholarly field of the history and practice of jewish magic one of the classics still remains Alexander Trachtenberg’s, 1938, ‘Jewish Magic and Superstition: A Study in Folk Religion’, 1st Edition, Behrman’s Jewish Book House: New York. Other more modern commentaries still do not rival the clarity and wealth of detail presented by Trachtenberg who ironically enough was a jew with a sense of humour when writing about the absurd and often hilarious theories of his fellow members of the tribe.
(25) Sefer Yezirah 1:8; 2:1
(26) Ibid. 2:5
(27) Moshe Idel, 1990, ‘Golem: Jewish Magical and Mystical Traditions of the Artificial Anthropoid’, 1st Edition, State University of New York Press: New York, pp. 295-297
(28) Christina Hole, 1945, ‘Witchcraft in England’, 1st Edition, B. T. Batsford: London, p. 16
(29) Abraham David (Ed.), Leon Weinberger (Trans.), Dena Orden (Trans.), 1993, ‘A Hebrew Chronicle from Prague, c. 1615’, 1st Edition, University of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, for example folio 4a:3 (p.22), which declares that Yahweh forced the King of Prague to punish the jews ‘for their iniquities’.
(30) Sefer Yezirah 1:2
(31) For an excellent summary of Calvin’s ideas in and around the concept of predestination see Bruce Gordon, 2009, ‘John Calvin’, 1st Edition, Yale University Press: New Haven.
(32) Sefer Yezirah 2:6

An Attack on the Japanese highlights Jewish power in China

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 17:06:00 +0000

Strictly speaking the Far East has never been my area of expertise and nor has it ever been of particular interest to me outside a passing interest in Japan and knowing some basic Japanese. Perhaps it is for the best as having travelled extensively in that part of the world in recent years I found that the image the West has of our Mongoloid cousins is overly utopian and rooted in the assumption that they are just like us. That simply doesn’t hold up to any serious examination, which may be confirmed by a reading of Mark Felton’s ‘Japan’s Gestapo’. (1)

It pretends to be an ‘account’; I refuse to vouch for its reliability for reasons I shall make clear in a moment, of Japanese ‘war crimes’ in Asia during the war. Now while I don’t doubt that much of what Felton claims occurred; and he himself admits in a roundabout way that the evidence has a tendency to be slim and circumstantial, his sourcing leaves much to be desired especially as although he has used some archival material it is largely in the form of official trial materials and testimonials from survivors plus a sprinkling of pop literature. There is no attempt to cite detailed analyses of the claims or answer the critiques of Japanese scholars who have long disputed the charges; with some justification, of having systematically committed war crimes during and prior to the Second World War.

Now considering that Felton has a PhD; but in American History, and lives in China while lecturing at Fudan University (his wife at a guess is probably Chinese given the observable proclivities of academics for Chinese wives for reasons I am yet to comprehend) with its extremely strict censorship laws regarding history, philosophy and political thought (for example you can’t take any non-Chinese approved books or literature to China if you intend to immigrate there). It is therefore hardly surprising that he takes the intellectual low-road of ‘it was claimed, therefore it happened’ in his work and thus comes up with what can only described as an attack on the Japanese people (especially if one looks at his obsessive publishing record about Japanese ‘war crimes’).

Aside from this vile form of intellectual prostitution, which appears to involve ‘taking one for the team’ from Chairman Mao: Felton has said one or two things of interest about jewish power in China at the time of the Second World War. I have checked his source for his claims (given my previous comments) and it is both reliable and accurate. What he says very specifically is:

‘Ellis Hayim, one of Shanghai’s fabulously wealthy Iraqi-British Jews who had stayed on in the city after occupation was also arrested. Formerly president of the Shanghai Stock Exchange, Hayim was arrested because he had hosted several pre-war garden parties at his large garden villa dedicated to the Allied nations, and these events had been broadcast on the radio in Shanghai.’ (2)

And:

‘Another high-profile victim was Sir Elly Kadoorie, Shanghai multi-millionaire and philanthropist, and a prominent member of the rich Iraqi-British Jewish community since the late nineteenth century. The powerful Kadoorie family owned banks, rubber plantations, electric power utilities and real estate, including the famous Peninsula Hotel in Hong Kong. When the Japanese occupied Shanghai they appropriated Kadoorie’s vast house, Marble Hall, which sports the largest ballroom in Asia, and then forced Sir Elly and his grown-up sons into an internment camp where he died in 1944 aged seventy-seven. His son survived the war and rebuilt the Kadoorie business empire in Hong Kong.’ (3)

Now in spite of Felton’s overwhelming and utterly blatant pro-Chinese bias: I would have thought that even so pedestrian an intellect as his might be able to comprehend that if Ellis Hayim had given pro-Allies garden parties and worse still had these parties publicly broadcast then Ellis Hayim was an openly pro-Allies propagandist and therefore an opponent to Japan who were by then part of the Axis powers. I fail to see how this is in the least bit controversial as the Allied powers did precisely the same thing and certainly the British treated their political internees every bit as badly as the Japanese treated theirs: (4) excluding the supposed live vivisections and so forth for a moment.

Or is Felton seriously going to suggest that any sane government would allow those who were manifestly pro-enemy to say what they liked during war time? Does he seriously believe that; irrespective of the torture and awful treatment that was meted out to them for simply having an opinion once in prison, that the British governments interning of Arnold Leese, Oswald Mosley, Archibald Ramsay (then a sitting M.P. no less) and attempted interning of William Joyce was not a sane policy? (5)

Or is he just building a metaphorical house of straw and hoping that a gust of wind called common sense doesn’t come along and blow it all over?

As for Sir Elly Kadoorie: I rather think once again it is a case of Felton; quite probably deliberately, misunderstanding the context and point of interning enemy citizens during wartime. The point is very simply and; ironically, best expressed by the arch-genocidal drunken lunatic; Winston Churchill, when he famously stated ‘intern the lot of them’: when queried about the non-political Axis citizens and ‘refugees’ (read: jews, communists and an assortment of other subversives) living in the British Empire at the outbreak of war. The logic being simply that the risk of not interning everybody who was recently or still was an enemy citizen was high as espionage agents and spies would almost invariably slip through the net. Thus it was better to be safe rather than sorry.

Felton doesn’t bother with such context, but rather just whirls around like a frenzied dervish attacking his chosen target with every bit of information his; rather lacking, research can dig up. Felton might therefore be surprised to read the words of one recent jewish academic; who like Felton seems to have an almost totemic fetish for all things Chinese, M. Avrum Ehrlich who in his ‘Jews and Judaism in Modern China’ gives a beautiful definition how jews themselves are while describing Chinese attitudes:

‘I questioned the students about this point and asked whether I or any other foreigner could ever become a Chinese citizen. They responded that this would be impossible. I pushed the point: what if my Chinese was fluent, if I married a Chinese person, if I lived in China for forty years, if I contributed greatly to China economically and/or socially, and if I knew the customs and habits of Chinese? The entire class responded that it was impossible. Chinese expect to be welcomed to countries throughout the world, expect to get visas and scholarships, and understand that they will be encouraged to integrate. They expect the right to become citizens of other countries eventually, or to adopt Christian, Muslim or Jewish faith, if they wish, but then, seemingly arrogantly, or at least contradictorily, believe that foreigners could not and should not become a Chinese citizen.’ (6)

Now if that doesn’t express the crux of the whole issue with jews by simply replacing ‘Chinese citizen’ with ‘jew’ then I don’t know what does. It just goes to show that you often find the most insightful of comments about jews in the oddest places!

References

(1) Mark Felton, 2009, ‘Japan’s Gestapo: Murder, Mayhem and Torture in Wartime Asia’, 1st Edition, Pen & Sword: Barnsley
(2) Ibid, p. 61
(3)Ibid, pp. 64-65
(4) See the anti-fascist book that was published during the war with invaluable prisoner and guard testimony included: Guy Aldred, John Wynn, 2007, [1943], ‘It Might Have Happened to You’, 1st Edition, Historical Review Press: Uckfield. For a modern scholarly analysis of torture and imprisonment of these men and women see A. W. Brian Simpson, 1994, ‘In the Highest Degree Odious: Detention without Trial in Wartime Britain’, 2nd Edition, Clarendon Press: Oxford.
(5) For a readable introduction to these men and the groups they headed/associated with see Gisela Lebzelter, 1978, ‘Political Anti-Semitism in England 1918-1939’, 1st Editon, MacMillan: London.
(6) M. Avrum Ehrlich, 2010, 'Jews and Judaism in Modern China', 1st Edition, Routledge: New York, p. 12

Byron Roth on Jews, IQ and the Media

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 09:43:00 +0000

In the most recent edition of American Renaissance magazine; that of November 2011, we find there is an article by one Byron M. Roth entitled ‘The Chosen People’. I note with amusement that this purports to be a book review of Richard Lynn’s most recent work ‘The Chosen People: A Study of Jewish Intelligence and Achievement’. Lynn’s work; Roth rightly points out, is a largely dispassionate survey of the issue of jewish IQ levels and why they are often very high. Lynn’s thesis itself isn’t exactly revolutionary in the field of jewish studies, but it does back up what those of us who work in the field have observed and argued for quite some time. Namely that jews have a strong set of skills in terms of ‘getting on’ in a society in that they are more likely to challenge the status quo, be utterly ruthless and also very self-centred.

In some respects what both Lynn and Roth argue; i.e. that jews have an inherent genetic ability to ‘get on’, would be best boiled down to the phrase; ‘the naked capitalist’, in the sense of capitalism as theorised by one of Lynn and Roth’s high IQ jews: Karl Marx.

To explain: Marx’s theory of surplus value (his ‘great scientific discovery’ according to Engels’ funerary oration) and his ideas on the ‘contradictions of capitalism’ posit that a capitalist elite (which he could be reasonably argued on the basis of his oft-cited but little understood article; ‘On the Jewish Question’, to have understood as a jewish capitalist elite); which he calls the bourgeoisie, would grind down all those below them (the petit-bourgeoisie, proletariat and the peasants) to the point where they would be starving.

Of course Marx’s theory of surplus value is somewhat incorrect in that it posits labour adds the value to a product or service as opposed to the product or service having a value in of itself due to its scarce nature and scale of utility. However it does indicate in a general way the basic nature of the jewish high IQ groups in the 19th century as again both Lynn and Roth assert that the immigrants did so well because they were able to outcompete gentiles; and I note Roth’s use of the jewish term rather than Europeans or Caucasoids, in a broad range of occupations. However Lynn makes it clear as Roth notes; but tries to downplay it, that jewish IQ does not and cannot explain jewish success alone: to this end Roth cites Kevin MacDonald’s work on ethnocentrism among others.

However Roth draws; in his summation of the article, the opposite conclusion of what is discussion to that point inevitably suggests: that jews are a hostile competing group to Europeans/Caucasoids. How could they not be using Roth’s own logic? Roth does not inform us, but instead gives us a bit of plebeian rhetoric about the (genetic) ‘differences’ between gentiles and jews being miniscule and not worth noting. I am reminded of a not dissimilar claim made by Roth’s fellow member of the tribe; Richard Lewontin, who claimed that genetic distance could be expressed appositely in a percentage and therefore there were more differences within racial groups than between them. This was later exposed as completely wrong and referred to; great to his chagrin as his recent article in ‘New Left Review’ indicates, as ‘Lewontin’s fallacy’.

Surely Roth realises that; in fact, these claims are inevitably reducible to the same basic premise: that it is not what differs, but rather how much.

That is a self-serving claim if ever I saw one as Roth is trying to suggest that jews are not a competing group in spite of being forced to admit that jews are overrepresented five times over in law and medicine (not dissimilar statistics to Weimar Germany I might add) and do in fact exercise disproportionate influence in the media and academe. I find Roth’s assertion; that the teaching positions is where one finds a lack of jews, but then in the research positions in academe there is a veritable traffic jam of the circumcised ones, to be of great poignancy and indeed would state that it conforms to my own experience as well as what the literature suggests is the case. It also happens to imply that jews are primarily interested in prestige and egoistic fulfilment precisely because this is what research positions are in academe: the places of prestige and influence without the need to have to interrupt one’s research to teach often half-drunk not particularly interested undergraduates.

Roth even goes so far as to assert that because jews are significantly overrepresented in the quasi-Marxist or kosher Conservative media: it does not mean they control it. Roth’s point is quite valid as there is no direct reason to presume that a higher preponderance of one or more groups in strategically vital industries; such as academe, the media, law and medicine, would affect it negatively.

However there is if one takes for granted; as Roth seems to and I myself do, that evolutionary theory must be applied to a social situation to understand the implications of that same situation then Roth’s point becomes hypocritical as he is in effect asserting that we must not do this when it comes to jews and yet do this in all other cases (by necessary implication).

The reason that this is hypocritical is simply that if one is seeking to apply the correct assumption; which necessarily flows from Lynn’s book, that jews are an evolutionary group or sub-group and have been utilizing positive eugenics to increase their IQ (which is what Lynn argues and others have recently as well) then they are necessarily going to compete with other biological groups or sub-groups as Lynn and Roth both note they do.

So if jews are significantly overrepresented in media control: why would there not be a causal relationship between them and the obsessions that have come to dominate America such as Israel, the ‘holocaust’, self-analysis and psychological insecurity not to mention an unhealthy habit of claiming America to be the chosen nation of the Bible?

That is what people actually suggest when they assert that jews ‘control’ the media: they don’t mean it literally as a rule of thumb, but rather that the media in all of its varieties tends to reflect jewish preoccupations, assumptions, socio-economic ideas and historical myths. That reflection must; if one assumes the reality of race and the impact of biology on forming and informing our perceptions and preoccupations, reflect a direct causal relationship between the jewish thought found in nearly all media outlets and the significant overrepresentation of jews in the running and production of media products and services.

We would be doing Roth injustice not to point out that he is himself jewish and if he is so keen on jewish interests then why does he refer to all non-jews in the simple way of ‘gentiles’ as opposed to ‘non-jewish Europeans’ or something? I think Roth made a slight Freudian slip there and said what he actually thinks: that jews are decidedly different to Europeans and is currently trying to recruit those who fight for European biological interests to fight for jewish biological interests.

It isn’t like that hasn’t happened before is it?

The year 1917 rings a bell.

The Bolshevik revolution that declared that the jews as a ‘nationality’ would be granted their own SSR and also the Balfour declaration whereby jews were unilaterally awarded territory not yet conquered or owned for a ‘homeland’. In both cases we find that jews presented themselves as a potential wellspring of support to those in power and required in return that they be rewarded with something they saw as beneficial to their interests as a biological group.

Why is it; thus, so outrageous to assert that they would do exactly the same in the current era where they perceive the high-tide of liberalism and cultural Marxism in Europe is leading to a radical nationalist riposte?

Strange how history repeats itself with the jews: isn’t it?

After Action Report: Appearance on ‘Spingola Speaks’ (21/10/2011)

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 09:19:00 +0000

After ending my updating of this blog I received a lot of requests from different people; most of whom I had previously been unaware followed my work, to continue with my updates and work even if it was at a reduced pace. One of those who has followed my work for some time suggested that he put me forward to appear on several radio shows that he regularly listened to so that I could talk about some of my thoughts. I accepted his generous offer and Deanna Spingola contacted me shortly thereafter: last night was the scheduled date for our talk and it went extremely well for the first time I have ever spoken on a radio show rather than a lecture hall. Deanna was a kind and attentive host who coped well with some my personal eccentricities and lack of diplomacy around other people’s beliefs sometimes. (1)

Our discussion was wide-ranging and in some respects looking back on it after Werner’s call into the show: I think that was a mistake on my part, because I thought to cover as much ground as possible in the two hours we had as opposed to covering a much narrower topic in detail. In particular I think that the written email question about the Triangle Waistshirt Factory fire was apposite and I was disappointed that I didn’t know enough about it to be able to address it. I did however point out that it wouldn’t surprise me as Communism of this time did readily engage in such ‘false flag’ activities, which have been shown by the evidence of Comintern documents later where they would ‘expose’ the FBI’s ‘malevolence’ after providing them with false information and documents. (2)

Before my next appearance with Deanna in mid-November: I am going to be doing such research about that particular question and present it on of the segments in the show. I also thought that Werner’s slightly veiled criticism was justified when he talked about the need for statistics and numbers, which I only provided a few of. I will remedy that in future, by talking more narrowly about specific issues as opposed to the generalities. I think that all in all I learned a lot from both the experience and the questions that were asked of me.

I can only hope that those who listened found the experience also to their liking.

References

(1) You can listen to my appearance on the show via the Republic Broadcasting Network’s archives, which are available at the following address: http://republicbroadcasting.org/?page_id=109
(2) Harvey Klehr, John Earl Haynes, Fridrikh Igorevich Firsov, 1995, ‘The Secret World of American Communism’, 1st Edition, Yale University Press: New Haven, p. 126

American Renaissance defends Kevin MacDonald?

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:15:00 +0000

I learn from the latest edition of American Renaissance magazine that Jared Taylor has somewhat changed his tune on the jewish question since the days when he declared that jews are ‘white’ because they ‘look white’. In the leading article; ‘Who are the Haters?’, Taylor out of all the many victims of the Southern Poverty Law Center of Morris Dees (better known as ‘Sleaze Dees’) choses to cite Kevin MacDonald; a well-known critic of jewry and quasi-racialist, as an example of the attacks on racialists and nationalists in academe.

To quote Taylor:

‘Kevin MacDonald is a professor of psychology at California State University at Long Beach, who has written about Jewish influence and behaviour in ways that displease the SPLC.’ (1)

Now Taylor could have said this same basic thing numerous different ways without implicitly recognising; as he has by his wording, that jews are an evolutionary group of their own and that there is such a thing as significant jewish influence which Taylor does not contradict. If he wanted to suggest that jewish influence was not significant he merely needed to add a ‘supposed’ or ‘theoretical’ before ‘jewish influence’ to achieve the desired effect.

This is quite the departure from his previous position that ‘jews are white’ (2) (he presumably still holds to this as Zionist jews regularly contribute to Amren and hilariously claim to be ‘white’) (3) although he claims that he still greatly admires jews. (4) In spite of this to my knowledge Taylor has never claimed that Israel is a ‘white nation’ or even particularly mentioned it in his written work in spite of his correct opposition to Islam as a manifestation of Arab nationalism (and therefore a racial competitor to European racial nationalism). Indeed jews don’t even get a mention that I can find (it does lack an index so I have to resort to memory and my reading notes) in his latest work (or any other book of his that I have read): ‘White Identity’. (5)

Taylor is probably resorting to the ‘big tent’ philosophy to gain as much widespread support as he can and he would be a fool if he did not realise that a big section of his support and readership are those who are also critical of jews. However Taylor himself does not appear to see anything wrong with jewry per se as he regards them as ‘white’ for reasons that escape me: this is in spite of the book that ‘converted’ him to racialism having a chapter demolishing the commonly-believed and fashionable claim; from Ashley Montagu (nee Israel Ehrenberg), that ‘race didn’t exist’ because jews ‘weren’t a race’. Baker demolishes both Montagu’s general argument (as Taylor recognised) as well as his specific argument that jews weren’t a racial/biological group (which Taylor doesn’t mention). (6)

I am therefore rather sceptical of Taylor apparent change of heart in his defence of MacDonald and cannot help but see it is as a deliberately conceived stratagem to use the persecution of an academic foe of jewry to carry favour with those who support him conditionally in spite of his close association with Zionist jews like Michael Hart and Michael Levin (both of whom were among Taylor’s first academic recruits and have both been heavily praised by him for their respective works).

After all: it is good business sense isn’t it?

References

(1) Jared Taylor, 2011, ‘Who are the Haters?’, American Renaissance, Vol. 22, No. 9, p. 4
(2) Ian Jobling, 2006, ‘Among the Living Again’, American Renaissance, Vol. 17, No. 4, p. 1; Jared Taylor (‘Thomas Jackson’), 2006, ‘The Black-Jewish Alliance’, Vol. 16, No. 8, pp. 10-11
(3) For example in the August issue Robert Greenberg, 2011, ‘When Whites Lie to Blacks’, American Renaissance, Vol. 22, No. 8, pp. 1-7 and Carl Horowitz, 2006, ‘Nigerian Fool’s Gold: Behind the ‘419’ Scams’, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 1-6
(4) Jared Taylor, 2011, ‘Reply to Dr. Greenberg’, American Renaissance, Vol. 22, No. 8, p. 7
(5) Jared Taylor, 2011, ‘White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century’, 1st Edition, New Century Foundation: Arlington
(6) John Baker, 1974, ‘Race’, 1st Edition, Oxford University Press: New York, pp. 232-247

Of Jewish Capital

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 19:37:00 +0000

Capitalism and Communism are often held to be two very different sides of the same coin and to be fair both are traditionally associated with jews by those; like myself, who are critical of jewry. I find it of particular notice that in a recent series of essays; collected in book form, we find an attempt to explain the jewishness of both these phenomena within the intellectual framework of philo-Semitism. Jerry Muller’s ‘Capitalism and the Jews’; (1) the work to which I allude, is rare precisely because it correctly maintains that there is a need to explain the phenomenal jewish involvement in both capitalism and anti-capitalism as separate but interlinked intellectual movements.

Muller to his great credit does not fall into the trap that many other scholars have either blundered into or deliberately jumped in of associating jews with only one of these intellectual movements and attempting to minimise or disregard jewish involvement in the other as has been noted; somewhat too kindly I think, by Erich Haberer. (2)

Haberer argued; and Muller has followed, that one must concede that the jewishness of the jews was a factor in their involvement in radical anti-capitalist (and by extension capitalist) movements rather than something incidental to it (3) as has been argued since time immemorial by philo-Semites and jews. (4) To argue that the jewishness was something essential rather than incidental one merely needs to note that jewish involvement in both capitalism and anti-capitalism has crossed intellectual divides in jewry with religious jews endorsing both in varying degrees at different times as have poor and rich jews a-like. (5)

This would and could not have been the case had jewishness been incidental to the cause of those jews joining either the capitalist or anti-capitalist political movements precisely because had it been incidental then the boundaries between the jewish groups should have been reasonably clean cut as those who were ‘underprivileged’ would have joined anti-capitalism, while those who were ‘privileged’ would have joined capitalism.

Muller understands and notes this arguing that the split is not so much in the nature of capitalism but in the nature of jewry. Muller argues that capitalism is a ‘de-racialising’/egalitarian force that through the dynamics of the market forces businesses to employ anyone and everyone who is capable to do a specific task at the appropriate standard at the lowest possible cost. Indeed Muller seems to be a believer that man is a product of his environment not his nature, which we can see as a weakness as Muller does not recognise; implicitly or explicitly, that the jew has been able to sell his historic high level of literacy and legalistic intellect in order to assist businesses where-as a Mexican or a negro has much less to offer as a general rule of thumb so accordingly have had a more difficult time to achieve ‘emancipation’ as the capitalist incentive would; in Muller’s logic, be less.

The time that such ‘emancipation’ would become an incentive for businesses to support it is when the market is too cut-throat and laissez-faire; such as in the current globalised economy, and requires the labour power that it is to exploit to work at an absolute minimum wage. The economic calculation is fairly simple in that if you can reduce the (always expensive) cost of labour then you make more profit and if that means the quality of the product or service is decreased then you will be able to take that economic risk if the combined probability and cost of it occurring is less than the profit that you can make (following the idea of the ‘Rational Economic Man’).

Firms; of course, are not perfect and make mistakes as well as take increasing risks with their capital often leading to things to economic depressions where the economy contracts in a form of cautious opposite to the previous bullish attitude. In essence one could type-cast it as a classic scenario of Janisian caution and risky shift if one were feeling bold with the determining factors being the confidence of the investors in their investments and willingness to invest their funds which in turn would be largely determined by the biological origin of the investors.

So if the investor was a jew: they would be inclined towards a high level of long-term risk as they tend to look; as a rule, for the best possible return as opposed to the best possible safest return. A Negro investor on the other hand would tend towards a high level of short-term risk as they tend to think in terms of the maximum possible return tomorrow as opposed to the maximum possible return in the future as the jews do.

My criticism of Muller’s implicit denial of biology here is actually referenced by proxy by Muller when he refers to jewish economist Werner Sombart and Theodor Fritsch’s synthesizing of his argument, which Muller (who I dare say probably hasn’t read the work of Fritsch’s to which he refers) has the unfortunate presumption to refer to in negative terms. (6)

I should also note in passing that Muller gets the title of Fritsch’s 1913 work wrong and claims it was ‘Die Juden im Handel und Das Geheimnis ihrer Erfolgen’ (‘The Jews in Commerce and the Secret of their Success’) when he should be aware that it was in fact ‘Das Rätsel des jüdischen Erfolges’ (‘The Riddle of Jewish Success’) to which he is referring. I will note as a further aside that Wikipedia has also got this horribly wrong and asserts that the book in question was published under the pseudonym F. Roderich-Stoltheim only in the 1927 English translation, (7) which it was not but rather appeared in the original German with this pseudonym of Fritsch’s as the listed author. I am somewhat puzzled at Muller here as it is a silly error for him to make in an otherwise excellent book although the reason seems to be that he is note familiar with Fritsch’s actual work and is relying on a biographer of Sombart’s for accurate information. (8)

However for all of Muller’s intellectual rigour as a historian of ideas he does not convince anyone with his ‘criticism’ of Sombart’s racial interpretation of economics, Weber’s ‘protestant work ethic’, Simmel’s (who was also jewish economist and socialist) economic determinism or his implicit argument that there is a peculiar jewish ‘genius’ at work. This leads him to some fairly far out there (and ignorant) assertions that for example Marx was ‘not a jew’. (9) As according to Muller to accept such ‘racist characterisations’ is to agree with critics of the jews and therefore make jews open to criticism and we can’t have that can we?

One has to laugh at Muller’s rather absurd reasoning here. However to show its absolute folly we can point out that every biographer of Marx’s has noted Marx’s jewish origin and have nearly always argued that it; in essence, made Marx the thinker he was by making him both highly intellectual and outsider (as Muller’s own logic would suggest). (10) This later attitude of Muller’s; perhaps explicable by the fact that these are separate essays collected after the fact in a book, is direct contradiction to his earlier attitude that we must identify and understand jewishness as part and/or the whole of the cause of jewish involvement in both capitalism and anti-capitalism. (11)

Muller cannot take jewishness into account as a factor, but then change jewry’s own definition of jewishness to being the Christian definition (i.e. religious confession rather than family lineage) as that is putting words in Judaism’s mouth. Muller would do well to pick up a decent work on Judaism and look up the issue of ‘who is a jew’ in halakhah where he would find; I suspect to both his surprise and alarm, that Judaism defines ‘who is a jew’ in fairly strict biological; not simply confessional, terms.

Muller does however correctly point out that Marx; if contextually understood, was not being anti-Semitic (as is frequently and incorrectly alleged) in his ‘Zur Judenfrage’ (12), but rather was using a familiar and commonly understood stereotype that he himself knew to be generally true to make himself understood. As Muller points out the jew as usurer has been a common and not wholly untrue characterisation of the jewish ‘contribution’; as Cecil Roth would have it, ‘to civilisation’ and when ‘Die Ewige Jude’ called the jews an economic parasite it was not without factual foundation. (13)

Muller; of course, would reject such parallels but what conclusion may we reasonably draw from the data (14) he has echoed from other sources about the domination of the jew in numerous walks of life as well as their preponderance in the higher echelons of intellectual movements (two of which he is studying)?

Muller would have it that it merely reflects a cultural paradigm and various ‘pressures’, but that is just a mealy-mouthed and fairly standard academic excuse for telling us that the ‘truth is anti-Semitic’ so therefore a load of academic verbiage is required to cover over the inconvenient reality of what the historical record suggests.

All in all; in spite of its errors of fact and sometimes absurd reasoning, ‘Capitalism and the Jews’ is an excellent intellectual crib for anti-Semites looking for respected academic work to buttress existing arguments against the jews. Muller has pulled together quite a lot of data from different areas to create his theory, but unfortunately the theory is not on enduring interest however the compiled data and examples certainly are.

References

(1) Jerry Z. Muller, 2010, ‘Capitalism and the Jews’, 1st Edition, Princeton University Press: Princeton.
(2) Erich Haberer, 2004, ‘Jews and Revolution in Nineteenth Century Russia’, 2nd Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York, pp. xii-xiii
(3) Ibid, p. xiii
(4) A good example of this is Benjamin Pinkus, 2008, ‘The Soviet Government and the Jews 1948-1967: A Documented Study’, 2nd Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York, pp. 11-22; Benjamin Pinkus, 1988, ‘The Jews of the Soviet Union: The History of a National Minority’, 1st Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York, pp. 76-81
(5) Andrew R. Heinze, 1990, ‘Adapting to Abundance: Jewish Immigration, Mass Consumption and the Search for American Identity’, 1st Edition, Columbia University Press: New York, p. 17
(6) Muller, Op. Cit., p. 60
(7) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Fritsch [Last Accessed: 23/08/2011]
(8) Muller, Op. Cit., p. 234, n. 62
(9) Ibid, p. 137
(10) For example Isaiah Berlin, 1978, ‘Karl Marx: His Life and Environment’, 4th Edition, Oxford University Press: New York, pp. 18-25; David McLellan, 1980, ‘The Young Hegelians and Karl Marx’, 3rd Edition, Papermac: London, pp. 142-143
(11) Muller, Op. Cit. pp. 84-95
(12) Ibid., pp. 35-45
(13) Ibid., pp. 18-20; 25-26
(14) I will post a selection of this as a separate entry on Semitic Controversies.

Beware Jews Bearing Gifts

noreply@blogger.com (Gordon Andrews) — Sun, 21 Aug 2011 17:28:00 +0000

The Iowa Straw Poll last weekend afforded the jewish national media yet another opportunity to demonstrate what it thinks of implicitly White political positions—namely, those propounded by Texas Congressman Ron Paul. Paul, who came in fifth in the '07 Straw Poll, this year came in a razor's close second to Iowa native and Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann at a mere 152 votes behind. This was more than double the tally of the third place finisher, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, who considered his support good enough to quit.

Paul essentially tied for the victory, but unless you are a confirmed Paul supporter (or actively followed the contest outside of the MSM) you'd never have known it.

Enter jew faux-comedian, faux-newsman Jonathan Leibowitz, stage name 'Jon Stewart.'

So, what gives? What does Leibowitz get for playing fair? More importantly, how is this good for jews?

It's good for jews because their primary media (CNN, FOX, NBC, et al.) had acted too blatantly in concert. Leibowitz' show acts as a pressure relief valve. In this case, he takes one for the team.

Everyone knows that the media is biased-'left.' Fox News exists as false opposition in the fake 'liberal'-'conservative' dynamic. When even Fox News is caught participating in a media-wide shut-down operation on Ron Paul, a lot of libertarian-leaning 'conservatives' (and even Kucinich-type white 'liberals') start to think, and a thinking white electorate is never good for jews.

How to salvage the meta-screw-up while keeping the waters sufficiently muddy?

Enter Liebowitz. He's inculcated an image as a sardonic outsider, so he can publicly ride the rest of the jewish herd back in line and stay within character.

Further, if this incident causes a white to take his first hesitant step toward putting 2 and 2 together regarding jewish media control, there's always Liebowitz' swarthy, grinning mug to dissuade him.

After all, was it not a jew, Liebowitz, who stood up for Paul?

Erick Stakelbeck’s Faux Pas

noreply@blogger.com (Karl Radl) — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 19:51:00 +0000

According to Europe News one of Glen Beck’s sub-toadies is ‘off to Israel’ to be with his master so that they can both have a good old wail at the wailing-wall: although of course they’ll have to get in line with all the orthodox and ultra-orthodox regulars. That in itself isn’t surprising, but Stakelbeck in the process of blogging about his latest bit of irrational love regarding the bandit state makes a very indiscreet admission when he states as follows:

‘Please pray for the success of Restoring Courage and that it can galvanize those who currently support Israel while also winning over many new supporters who will stand with the Jewish people in these perilous times.’ (1)

Now you might ask what the faux pas I have alluded to here is and perhaps rightly so: however if I have learned one thing over the years I have been studying jews it is that nuance in meaning is everything with jews and their supporters.

When Stakelbeck talks of ‘supporting Israel’ he then goes on to directly state that the ‘jewish people’ is Israel. Now this is perfectly correct in terms of Judaism (although ironically in Christianity this is wholly incorrect and has long been recognised as the sign of a Judaiser [as it effectively asserts that Saint Paul was wrong]), but in making this assertion Stakelbeck falls head first into the charge of anti-Semitism precisely because he is equating the actions of Israel with the actions of the jewish people. This is necessarily so because if one ‘stands with Israel’ then one ‘stands with the jewish people’ in Stakelbeck’s view, which therefore means that anything that Israel does is identical to what the jewish people have done, are doing or will do.

The problem for Stakelbeck there may be further simplified by pointing that if one equates Israel with the jewish people en toto as he does then it makes Israel culpable for the acts of jewish paedophiles, murders, rapists and so forth in the Diaspora and also makes the Diaspora culpable for the genocide, violence, terrorism and exploitation that is undertaken by the Israelis on a fairly regular basis.

Ironic: isn’t it?

Stakelbeck is so clueless as to try to support the state of Israel by effectively calling himself anti-Semitic!

References

(1) http://europenews.dk/en/node/46348 [Last Accessed: 18/08/2011]