“A half-truth is a whole lie”: the fallacies of Jewish Bolshevism, Jewish Supremacism and the

International Jewish Conspiracy

by

Steven Parris Ward (Ph.D)

"The difference between a Jewish soul and souls of non-Jews ~ all of them in all different levels ~ is

greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle." ~ Rabbi Kook,

the Elder, father of the messianic tendency of Jewish fundamentalism.

"Wars are the Jews harvest, for with them we wipe out the Christians and get control of their gold. We

have already killed 100 million of them, and the end is not yet." ~ Chief Rabbi in France,1859, Rabbi

Reichorn

Some call it communism, I call it Judaism. Rabbi Stephen Weiss.

“Anti-Communism is Anti-Semitism.” Jewish Voice, July - August 1941.

"We Jews, we are the destroyers and will remain the destroyers. Nothing you can do will meet our

demands and needs. We will forever destroy because we want a world of our own." Maurice Samuels

p.155.

"You have not begun to appreciate the depth of our guilt. We are intruders. We are subverters. We

have taken your natural world, your ideals, your destiny, and played havoc with them. We have been

at the bottom of not merely the latest great war, but of every other major revolution in your history.

We have brought discord and confusion and frustration into your personal and public life. We are still

doing it. No one can tell how long we shall go on doing it. Who knows what great and glorious destiny

might have been yours if we had left you alone." Marcus Eli Ravage, in Century Magazine, February,

1928.

“The Jewish people as a whole will be its own Messiah. It will attain world domination by the

dissolution of other races...and by the establishment of a world republic in which everywhere the Jews

will exercise the privilege of citizenship. In this New World Order the Children of Israel...will furnish

all the leaders without encountering opposition..." Baruch Levy in letter to Karl Marx, quoted in

Review de Paris, June 1, 1928, p. 574

Introduction

There is an enduring fascination with conspiracy theories today. Their

popularity being given credence by ardent groups of followers on the

internet, in various fringe political movements and independent media

broadcasts around the globe. One of the most dangerous theories is the

idea (dealt with also in “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion”)

that an elite cabal of Jews has since time immemorial sought to exert its

will in order to control institutions, achieve supremacy and ultimately

gain global control.

This essay will assess the validity of such a theory by recourse to a

historical and philosophical analysis of statistics and evidence in past

and current publications. It will show that whilst many events, both now

and in the past, point to a Jewish presence and influence, the validity of

what might be called generally the “Jewish conspiracy theory” is one

essentially based on a series of fallacies, misrepresentations and half-

truths.

There is an old Yiddish proverb “A half- truth is a whole lie”, which

seems particularly apt in this context, and serves as a useful reminder of

the dangers of conflation and unflinchingly trusting in the credibility of

one particular interpretation of the facts of history. Lest it be forgotten,

and at the risk of citing a truism, historical events are capable of multiple

interpretations, and it is the duty of the wise, therefore, to consider all

facts before finally resting on their own personal opinion.

A personal opinion however is not necessarily the truth, and it is a bigot,

a fool or a madman, who accepts that a book is a forgery, or a fact is

false, but still ignores the evidence and belief of their own minds in order

to justify it nevertheless as a truth. In this, their bigotry rules supreme,

and they care nought of the value of their own reason in continuing to

cling to preconceived prejudices. Yet such was the attitude with many of

the leading National Socialists during their rise to power in Germany and

during the Second World War. They still appealed to “The Protocols of

the Learned Elders of Zion” for justifying their racism, even after it had

been exposed as a hoax in the 1920s. They continued to circulate the

book to schoolchildren as part of their anti-Semitic propaganda

campaign against the Jews, in spite of its dubious credibility being

acknowledged commonly amongst themselves.1

1 In 1921 the Times of London published convincing proof that The Protocols were largely plagiarised from books published decades earlier—primarily The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu, by Maurice Joly (1864) and Biarritz by Hermann Goedsche (1868).

In later years similar exposés appeared in Germany and the United States. A U.S. Senate committee declared that The Protocols were bogus. In 1993 they were officially declared fraudulent by a court in the country of their origin—Russia. Yet chillingly the same mind-set still exists and propagates this dangerous book’s circulation (David Duke’s Illustrated Protocols being a case in point). It appears an anti-Semitic belief in the intrinsic truth of The Protocols still enables its popularity to flourish, but also the content itself has an enduring ability to spark the flames of prejudice fear and hatred, even among those who know and admit that the writings themselves are a forgery. As Duke himself writes whilst promoting his Illustrated edition of this book:

“The Protocols have been derided as a forgery, slander, and lies—yet remain one of the most widely read books in the world on the Jewish Question. In my new book, I show that it is actually irrelevant if the original Protocols were written by Czarist

Even the propagandist Joseph Goebbels admitted the Protocols were a

fraud, although this did not stop him and the regime from employing the

writings to further their own ends. As Goebbels wrote in his diary in

1924:

“I believe that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are a forgery … [However,] I believe in the intrinsic, but not in the factual, truth of The Protocols.”

Perhaps if Hitler and his followers had been truly mindful, and had not

permitted prejudice to triumph over reason by promoting a forgery as a

truth, anti-Semitic prejudice might not have taken root, or been inflamed

in quite the way that it was in pre-war Germany. The course of global

history too might then have unfolded very differently. The words in a

single book can sometimes change the course of history.2

In relation to this, another less wise, but no less popular saying springs

to mind: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never

hurt me”. In this rhyme, there is a call for children to an ethic of non-

violence and pacifism. Whilst this is indeed a noble ethic, it is essentially

founded on a nursery rhyme, and nursery rhymes as we all know are

more often than not founded in fiction rather than facts. The facts being

that words are indeed dangerous, and non-more so than when they

agents or not. In fact, as I point out, they are in reality a highly predictive work of “fiction”—much like George Orwell’s 1984, or Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Although the characters and storyline in both those works are “fiction”, the idea which underlay both those books was most certainly fact.” 2 Hitler himself most likely thought the Protocols to be predictive based on

comments in Mein Kampf:

“To what extent the whole existence of this people is based on a continuous lie is shown incomparably by the Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion...”

influence the minds of individuals through literature, and influence the

lives of millions to act in particular ways for both good or evil.

In an endeavour to muster the good then, I shall begin by assessing the

views of that esteemed and patriotic maker of fine speeches Mr Winston

Churchill. A good place to start in pruning the leaves of anti-Semitism

from the tree of Prejudice and helping more sensible notions concerning

the Jews to take root in the earth of common sense and common

sensibilities.

Not all Jews are the same

In February 1920 Winston Churchill wrote an important article for the

London Illustrated Sunday Herald entitled “Zionism Versus

Bolshevism: a struggle for the soul of the Jewish people”. The concern

was on the circumstances of the Jewish people, their national identity,

the diaspora, and the importance of the creation of a “Jewish state” at

that time.

After first noting the importance of judging people on their individual

merits and conduct, Churchill draws a distinction between “National

Jews” and what he terms “International Jews”: the national Jew being

assimilated and one who describes himself foremost in terms of his

nationality, and only secondly in terms of his faith or race. He thus gives

the distinction as:

“…an English man practising the Jewish faith… a worthy conception, and useful in the highest degree.”3 3 Whilst critics might claim it is a mark of how being English was often conflated with the notion of British nationality, it is a sense implied, but not entirely an error

In respect to the national Jews of Russia, after noting the many who

fought bravely in World War One, Churchill goes on to give further

recognition that:

“…in spite of the disabilities under which they have suffered, [they] have managed to play an honourable and useful part in the national life even of Russia. As bankers and industrialists they have strenuously promoted the development of Russia’s economic resources, and they were foremost in the creation of those remarkable organisations, the Russian Co-operative Societies. In politics their support has been given, for the most part, to liberal and progressive movements, and they have been among the staunchest upholder of friendship with France and Great Britain.”4 In contrast to these “honourable” and “useful” individuals, Churchill

then mentions the “International Jews”, whom he contends certainly had

a “very great” role in the creation of Bolshevism and in implementing the

Russian Revolution. He describes these Jews as terrorists, existing in

violent opposition to the values and efforts of the national; a league or

“sinister confederacy” arising from those countries where Jews had

settled, and had then been persecuted “on account of their race”. Whilst

he also draws a religious distinction, claiming that:

“Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world.”

made by Churchill, as he speaks of the Jew being foremost one who is able to “identify themselves with that country” and because of this “enter into national life”. Any conflation with the English has in any case been distinguished more markedly by continuing devolution of the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland parliaments. 4 Churchill does not consider in his praise of the national Jew that their “honourable” contribution to “liberal and progressive” movements (particularly in respect to the “Russian Cooperative Societies”) is one that may have greatly served to propagate (in this view) the negative philosophy of Marxist and Socialist ideas. He does not consider the National in the popularising of Bolshevism or Communism in Russia, nor to other countries around the world. He sees the National as being positive only in terms of developing Russian economics and the virtues of international cooperation, rather than as a useful means to propagate Communism to the West.

In this, Churchill is fully aware that being Jewish denotes both a race and

a religion, but does not necessarily require both. His concern is to

distinguish the role of the National as “useful” and “honourable” in

contrast to the subversive role of the International.

Churchill does not really consider in his brief, but well written article, the

resentment both classes of Jews might have caused generally, due to

their positions of influence on the country of Russia, whilst they

persisted in clinging to their own racial distinctions and cultural and

religious traditions. He asserts only that the National Jews have been

persecuted because of their racial distinctions. The assumption being

that it was not the Jews who emphasised such distinctions, but that

others, perhaps those of indigenous descent, the Russian Christians

perhaps, who were responsible. In this he does not really consider the

complexities of assimilation or separatism in his brief distinction of

Jews, nor the problems that any insistence of racial distinctions by the

Jews themselves might have caused in exacerbating any resentment of

success or power. He assumes only that a National Jew is assimilated, or

seeks to be assimilated, but nevertheless they have suffered prejudice.

He does not for example consider the objections Torah aligned Jews

might have had to those who supported National Socialism for Jews such

as that founded by the Zionists.

Churchill traces the conspiratorial movement by “International Jews”

back to Spartacus-Weishaupt and asserts:

“This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of

arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing.”

The question therefore needs to be asked: Was the Bolshevik revolution

indeed inspired as a result of a particularly Jewish mind-set? Was it

really a conspiracy more specifically led by Jewish Bolsheviks in league

with world bankers: an international conspiracy, therefore, where global

domination was seen as the ultimate objective; the Bolshevik Revolution

being but one phase of a process that supposedly reflects an age old

struggle for supremacy between the forces of good and evil?

The arguments need not be rejected out of hand, as many historians and

government agents of the period apparently would have answered yes to

this question.

In response to Churchill’s claim, however, critics might deem it unlikely

that a historic continuity of individuals with the same agenda existed,

nor that they could have coordinated such an influence abroad without

detection. In retort to Churchill’s assertion of the role and agenda of the

International Jew, it might be asked: What precisely is the supposed link

between Adam “Spartacus” Weishaupt, a Jesuit educated Grand Master

of the Illuminati, whose Jewish ancestry is by no means established, and

those Marxist-Leninists, including Karl Marx and Moses Hess, who just

so happened to be of Jewish lineage? The connecting link is apparently

that Jesuits are in fact Jews. “We Jesuits take pleasure in admitting

those of Jewish ancestry.” 5

5 As J. Nadal Morey cites. “Another resource documenting all the so called Jesuits who are really Jews turned Catholic, hence “crypto-Jews”, can be found at JewishJesuits.com. The Jesuit Order in its founding was very much Jewish. All five of its founding members were Marrano Jews (i.e. Jews masquerading as

The unifying ideological features for an Illuminati-Bolshevik connection

apparently are the principles of no borders, the idea of no private

property ownership, the abolition of organised religion and monarchy, as

well as a general notion of a world government that seeks to wield total

control.6 The connection between the Illuminati and the Jews also

Christians).Ignatius Loyola being the founder of the order”. Simao Rodriguez in his article “Synagogue of Satan” cites John Torell: “In 1491 San Ignacio De Loyola was born in the Basque province of Guipuzcoa, Spain. His parents were Marranos and at the time of his birth the family was very wealthy. As a young man he became a member of the Jewish Illuminati Order in Spain. As a cover for his crypto Jewish activities, he became very active as a Roman Catholic.” Marranos are Spanish Jews who outwardly converted to a different religion, often times Roman Catholic, in order to evade persecution, or alternately expulsion for their treacherous actions, while secretly maintaining the religion of Judaism as well as practicing the Cabbala (Jewish Mysticism).

6 The Order of the Illuminati or “Perfectabilitists”, an evolution of Freemasonry, was

an Enlightenment-age secret society. It was as Churchill states founded by university professor Adam Weishaupt on 1 May 1776, in Upper Bavaria, Germany. The movement consisted of advocates of free thought, secularism, liberalism, republicanism and gender equality that are thought to share common features both with Marxism, Bolshevism and Jewish ideals. It sought to recruit in the German Masonic Lodges, who sought to teach rationalism through mystery schools. In 1785, the order was infiltrated, broken up and suppressed by the government agents of Charles Theodore, Elector of Bavaria, in his preemptive campaign to neutralise the threat of secret societies ever becoming hotbeds of conspiracies to overthrow the Bavarian monarchy and its state religion, Roman Catholicism.

In the late 18th century, reactionary conspiracy theorists, such as Scottish physicist John Robison and French Jesuit priest Augustin Barruel, began speculating that the Illuminati survived their suppression and became the masterminds behind the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror. The Illuminati were accused of being subversives who were attempting to secretly orchestrate revolt in order to spread the most radical ideas and movements of the Enlightenment—anti-clericalism, anti-monarchism, and anti-patriarchalism—and create a world noocracy and cult of reason. During the 19th century, fear of an Illuminati conspiracy was a real concern of the European ruling classes, and their oppressive reactions to this unfounded fear provoked in 1848 the very revolutions they sought to prevent.

During the interwar period of the 20th century, propagandists, such as British revisionist historian Nesta Helen Webster and American socialite Edith Starr Miller, not only popularised the myth of an Illuminati conspiracy, but claimed that it was a

apparently resides in the Freemason movement, the historic enemies of

the Catholic Church, and where in some Lodges at least in the 20th

century, according to Nesta Webster, Judaism and Cabbalistic Occultism

were considered to be prime elements in the practise of the initiation

rituals.

In respect to the Jewish conspiracy thesis Churchill believed “This

movement is not new”. Yet in what sense is there historic continuity?

Churchill’s sense appears, like Webster and the modern Truthers, to be

the claim that a single covert Jewish group with a consistent agenda of

aims and objectives exists and has existed for centuries and have sought

to implement a specific long term agenda. More specifically, that a

Jewish group, the Illuminati, have deliberately subverted events

throughout history. But even if the existence of a group of individuals

once existed, this need not suppose an enduring organisation in

Churchill’s time, or indeed to this day. There is no reason to suppose a

coordinated agenda either, only a developing influence and an evolution

of ideas. This need not necessarily entail a deliberate subversive and

coordinated strategy from one source, but merely a natural evolution of

subversive secret society which serves the Jewish elite that supposedly propped up both finance capitalism and Soviet Communism. It did this in order to divide and rule the world.

American evangelist Gerald Burton Winrod and other conspiracy theorists within the fundamentalist Christian movement in the United States — which emerged in the 1910s as a backlash against the principles of Enlightenment secular humanism, modernism, and liberalism — became the main channel of dissemination of Illuminati conspiracy theories amongst the U.S. Right-wing populists, such as the members of the John Birch Society, whilst others subsequently began speculating that some collegiate fraternities (Skull and Bones), gentlemen's clubs (Bohemian Club) and think tanks (Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission) of the American upper class serve as front organisations of the Illuminati to this day, which they accuse of plotting to create a New World Order and a one-world government.

culture, traditions or ideas. At best this may have evolved as a self-

fulfilling prophesy, a causa sui, long after the Illuminati dissipated: just

as a germ planted in a body might propagate a fever and a variety of

chain reactions arose, quite different from the germ; or a spark that as a

self- generating consequence propagates any given number of different

fires long after the original spark is no more.

But for the middle aged Churchill at any rate:

“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.”

In this, for Churchill, there is an ongoing battle raging, where both

Zionism (a benevolent nationalism of “commanding character”) and

Bolshevism (a wicked globalism/ supra-nationalism or internationalism)

are competing for the hearts and minds of the Jewish people. 7

7 Zionism today is opposed by a wide variety of organisations and individuals. Among those opposing Zionism are some Torah aligned Jews, represented most notably by Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss who believes "Zionism is a fundamentally heretical movement which denies the Divine imperative that Jews remain in exile until the day when all mankind will be miraculously redeemed." Some branches of Judaism (Satmar Hasidim and Neturei Karta), the former Soviet Union, some African-Americans, many in the Muslim world, and Palestinians oppose Zionism. Reasons are varied, and include the perceptions of unfair land confiscation, expulsions of Palestinians, violence against Palestinians, and alleged racism. Arab states in particular strongly oppose Zionism, which they believe is responsible for the 1948 Palestinian exodus.

During the last quarter of the 20th century, classic nationalism in Israel declined. This led to the rise of two antagonistic movements: neo-Zionism and post-Zionism. Both movements mark the Israeli version of a worldwide phenomenon:

Emergence of globalisation, a market society and liberal culture. Local backlash.

Author Gisela C. Lebzelter “Political anti-Semitism in England: 1918-

1939”, Oxford: Macmillan (p.181) claims that Churchill's analysis failed

to acknowledge the role that the Russian oppression of Jews had played

in some joining various revolutionary movements. He instead identifies:

“inherent inclinations rooted in Jewish character and religion”.8

It is clear Churchill’s essay accepts the role of the International Jew in

the Bolshevik Revolution, and this he thinks is due to a worldwide

Jewish conspiracy amongst a certain kind of Jew. It is also clear that

whilst identifying International Jews as distinct, he considers the role of

the National Jew to have loyalties fully capable of combatting them.

He concluded that it was:

Neo-Zionism and post-Zionism share traits with "classical" Zionism, but differ by accentuating antagonist and diametrically opposed poles already present in Zionism. "Neo Zionism accentuates the messianic and particularistic dimensions of Zionist nationalism, while post-Zionism accentuates its normalising and universalistic dimensions". Steve Chan, Anita Shapira, Derek Jonathan, “Israeli Historical Revisionism: from left to right”, Routledge, 2002 (p.58). Post-Zionism asserts that Israel should abandon the concept of a "state of the Jewish people" and strive to be a state of all its citizens, or a binational state where Arabs and Jews live together while enjoying some type of autonomy.

Another brand termed Zio–globalism (an apparent oxymoron) popular with anti-Semites tends to the view that a Jewish inspired ethnocentric elite acting covertly seeks dominion over the Earth for their own corrupt and dangerous ends. It propagates a view of some Jews, but often tends to apply it generally to the majority or even all Jews along bigoted, racist lines. It generally places undue emphasis on the importance of Jews in the general scheme of things.

8 A position supportive of Churchill’s, et al, substantiated by two independent quotes:

“. . . there is much in the fact of Bolshevism itself. In the fact that so many Jews are Bolsheviks. In the fact that the ideals of Bolshevism are consonant with the finest ideals of Judaism”. (The Jewish Chronicle, April 4, 1918).

“some call it Marxism I call it Judaism” (The American Bulletin, Rabbi S. Wise, May 5, 1935).

“particularly important... that the National Jews in every country who are loyal to the land of their adoption should come forward on every occasion . . .and take a prominent part in every measure for combatting the Bolshevik conspiracy. In this way they will be able to vindicate the honour of the Jewish name and make it clear to all the world that the Bolshevik movement is not a Jewish movement, but is repudiated vehemently by the great mass of the Jewish race.”

In this, the “International Jews” are asserted very much as a minority,

but more so it seems to be Churchill’s own voice (rather than Nesta

Webster’s) speaking here when he says that “National Jews” should

come forward and combat the “Bolshevik conspiracy”. In doing so,

theories that the Jews were largely responsible for the Bolshevik

movement, would be better quashed. These sensible words of advice

however, irrespective of the majority who sought to oppose or dissociate

themselves from Bolshevism, clearly had little effect on prejudiced

minds. Indeed, as history was too soon to show, this Jewish Bolshevik

association was one myth that would not easily die, and the

consequences of such prejudices and associations contributed greatly to

lighting the fuse of anti-Semitic prejudices in National Socialist

Germany.

In respect to Churchill his words of advice free him of any charge of anti-

Semitism, which some might claim requires an attitude of race hatred

more generally, and not simply specific distinctions in respect to a

political allegiance to Bolshevism or Internationalism. In this respect

also, it is important to note Churchill’s concern seeks to repudiate

Bolshevism as a “predominantly Jewish movement”, with an emphasis

that it is not indicative of national loyalties, and is counterproductive to

them as well as the majority of Jewish people. 9

Conflicting views concerning the influence of the Jews

The conflation more generally of Jews with the Bolshevik and Zionist

movements emerged in the atmosphere of distrust after WW1. Many

Russian Jews had actually volunteered to serve the Tsar in the war, and

there were at least 400,000 Jews serving in the Russian army in 1914. By

the end of 1915, 5 million of the 6.5 million Russian Jews had become

subjects of Imperial Germany, as a consequence of the defeat of the

Tsarist armies.10 When the revolutions of 1917 crippled Russia’s war

effort, conspiracy theories spread. Many in Britain, for example, ascribed

the Russian Revolution to an “apparent conjunction of Bolsheviks,

Germans and Jews”.11 It even led to the Wilhelmstrasse considering the

possibilities of a public embrace of Zionism.12

What are the facts of the matter? It is difficult to be certain, but what is

clear is that although many Bolsheviks (along with Parvus-Helphand,

and other conspirators behind the Leninist movement, Karl Radek and

Olof Aschberg, etc) were Jewish, the chief mover Lenin was only partly

so by virtue of his mother’s lineage. Stalin was not, but Trotsky was.

More can be said in respect to this later, but generally the accepted

9 Churchill opposed the restriction on immigration imposed by the Aliens Act of 1903, which tends further to the view that he was not anti-Semitic. In his remarks it is clear he is attacking a particular section, although primarily due to his citation of Webster he might be thought of as exaggerating their numbers, aims and overall strength. 10 Isaiah Friedman, “Germany, Turkey and Zionism 1898-1918”, p.253,239,n33 11 David Fromkin, “A Peace to end all peace”, pp.247-248. 12 Sean McMeekin, The Berlin-Baghdad Express, p.348.

contemporary interpretation of the facts and figures of history has led to

the conclusion by McMeekin (op.cit) that:

“neither Max Bodenheimer’s committee of German Zionists, nor the Zionist Executive, nor any kind of organized international Jewish network had much of anything to do with either the February or October Revolution.” 13

This view however runs counter to the popular view of the time, where

the worldwide spread of the International Jewish conspiracy theory in

the 1920s was (as can be seen by Churchill’s article) one that held a fairly

widespread and fashionable acceptance.

For those supportive of an International Jewish conspiracy thesis, the

authenticity of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” is here of paramount

importance. But the authenticity of this volume was generally debunked

by the Times in the 1920s, where it was shown source material for the

forgery consisted jointly of the “Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli

and Montesquieu”, an 1864 political satire by Maurice Joly, and a

chapter from “Biarritz” a novel by the anti-Semitic German novelist

Hermann Goedsche, which had been translated into Russian in 1872.

The infamous writings first appeared in 1903 in the Russian

newspaper Znamia (Banner) and are generally believed to have been the

work of Tsar Nicholas II's secret police, though other theories exist (see

Appendix I). Yet it was as Daniel Pipes says:

“primarily through the Protocols of the Elders of Zion that the Whites spread these charges to an international audience.”14

13 Sean McMeekin, The Berlin-Baghdad Express, p.347. 14 Cases for often are made in support by anti-Semitic, neo Nazi and pro-Nazi sympathisers, as well as advocates of New Right political fringe movements. Not all movements with that title necessarily advocate Jewish Bolshevik conspiracy theories,

In this respect also, as James Webb wrote, it is rare to find an anti-

Semitic source after 1917 that:

“...does not stand in debt to the White Russian analysis of the Revolution.” 15

But whilst the history and authenticity of this book is officially and more

generally thought to be a forgery by the Whites, cases and evidence for

and against can, and still are being made. Additional arguments,

therefore, debunking the so called reasoning of the advocates of the

Jewish theory need to be called upon. These arguments can focus on the

issue of the supposed Jewishness of some leading Bolsheviks in the

Executive Committee (most notably Leon Trotsky) during and after the

October Revolution, which in the case of Lenin and Stalin at any rate, I

shall show to be false. The Jewish conspiracy thesis also largely rests on

the claim of a large percentage of Jews in the Cheka and elite

government positions immediately after the Revolution which can be

cited and evaluated.

Any analysis from this point inevitably requires an acknowledgement of

a variety of interpretations of history. Some attempt will be made to

discuss essentially conflicting views in order to give a clearer picture. It is

hoped an unprejudiced view point will be offered in respect to some

contentious arguments sown. It has to be accepted however, in respect to

supposed hard empirical data, that disputes can be made to favour a case

one way or another. My own view will be presented nevertheless in

but many do advocate a Zio-globalist view that some Jews are somehow seeking to control key institutions, in the media, political spheres, the legislative and banking centres for their own devious purposes. See also Pipes, Daniel (1997). “Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where it Comes From”. New York: Simon & Schuster. 15 Webb, James (1976).” Occult Establishment: The Dawn of the New Age and the Occult Establishment”. Open Court Publishing, (p.295)

respect to contrary statistics, philosophical arguments and an analysis of

linguistic terms.

Conflicting views concerning the settlement of the Jews

The pro-Semitic view of history invariable interprets the history of Jews

in Europe as having been one of persecution and segregation, and it is

this view of the Jews as a persecuted minority in the Russian Empire that

largely holds sway today. Thus, during the period from 1881 to 1920, the

view that Jews had endured an enforced form of racial segregation in

the Pale of Settlement16, as well as sporadic pogroms, was what might be

termed the “modern popular view”, and it was this segregation and

“persecution” that ultimately led to two million Jews eventually leaving

Russia.17

According to Berel Wein in his “Triumph of Survival: The Jews in the

Modern Era 1600-1990”:

“Expulsions, deportations, arrests, and beatings became the daily lot of the Jews, not only of their lower class, but even of the middle class and the Jewish intelligentsia. The government of Alexander III waged a campaign of war against its Jewish [citizens]... The Jews were driven and hounded, and emigration appeared to be the only escape from the terrible tyranny of the Romanovs.”

16 A region made up of Poland, Belarus, Lithuania and Ukraine. This composed of part of the Russian Empire.

17 “Political Activity and Emigration. Beyond the Pale. The History of Jews in Russia.” (Exhibition by Friends and Partners Project).

Quite a different interpretation of history is offered by Frank. L. Britton

in his “Behind Communism” however. He asserts the Jews were seen

from the Tsarist perspective as an enemy capable of overturning or

undermining Russian society (and even the culture itself) by their

increasing presence. From this perspective the impositions by the Tsarist

government are viewed as necessary restrictions:

“…designed to protect Russia’s economy and culture from the inroads of the Jew.”

Britton notes that whilst the dangers were felt, it was decreed (in 1772)

that Jews could settle in Greater Russia, but only within certain areas.

This region, or “Pale of Settlement”, extended from the Crimea to the

Baltic Sea, encompassing an area half as great as Western Europe. By

1917, seven million Jews resided there; an estimated 50% of the world's

total Jewish population. It was here, within the Pale of Settlement, at

least according to Briton’s view, that :

“…the twin philosophies of Communism and Zionism flourished.”

Both movements arose, according to Britton, as an evolution of a Jewish

hatred for Christian civilisation and its believers, who were throughout

Jewish history viewed as the persecutors of the “chosen race”. Britton

goes further in asserting that:

“…both movements have spread wherever Jews have emigrated. The Pale of Settlement has been the reservoir from which the world-wide forces of Communism have flowed. It is worth noting that half of the world's Jewish population now resides in the U.S., and that all but a handful of these are from the Pale, or are descendants of emigrants from the Pale.”

Whilst travel or residence beyond the Pale was restricted, Jews were

more or less free to conduct their own affairs as they wished. As a

consequence, by the date of Russia’s first census in 1897, 93.9% of

Russia’s Jewish population lived within its boundaries, and only 6% of

the total resided in other parts of the Empire.

Interpreting the Pale as more of a managed accommodation by the

Tsarist government, in order to contain an increasingly difficult

immigrant problem, rather than an enforced segregation, provides a

more accurate picture for Britton. He emphasises the high percentage

figures of Jews within the Pale as being indicative of the natural

tendency of Jews to congregate together in a tribal community of their

own volition, rather than merely an enforced settlement. In respect to

the Pale Britton also concludes that:

“From the standpoint of Jewish history, the Pale of Settlement ranks as one of the most significant factors of modern times. Here within a single and contiguous area the greater part of Jewry had gathered, and was to remain, for something like 125 years. For the first time Jewry was subjected to a common environment and a common ground of experience. Out of this common experience and environment there evolved the Yiddish speaking Jew of the 20th century.”

In respect to the Pale he again adds:

“Here too were born the great movements of Zionism and Communism.”

Britton notes the importance of the tribal community or “Kahal” as a

“vital” and important “habit” of Jewry from ancient times. He considers

the Kahal important also for establishing and maintaining Jewishness

(traditions, culture, religion, etc) within the greater framework of a

predominantly Christian society. Emphasising the Kahal as an ancient

custom, Britton claims it was the natural proclivity of Jews to establish

such communities, even when they were not legally compelled to do so.

“We have noted also that as the Jew was driven from Western Europe, he brought with him to Poland this ancient custom. The Kahal was an established institution in Poland, and as the Jews settled within the Pale they set up these autonomous communities here too.”

However, Jews alone are not unnatural in their tendency to form

communities and culture amongst their own people (let alone with those

who are displaced). Indeed it is a natural tendency amongst many tribes

and races, and one of the prime imperatives of human beings generally

as “social animals”. It is not particularly indicative of Jewishness per se.

This general fact noted, a more pro-Semitic publication “The Jewish

People, Past and Present” by the Central Yiddish Culture Organization

(CYCO), emphasises the natural tendency of forming the Kahal when it is

asserted (p.201):

“Wherever Jews have settled, since the beginning of the Diaspora, they have proceeded to create their own communal organizations. Various factors of an internal character—religious, cultural, social, and economic—as well as external factors, have contributed to this factor.”

Armed with this Britton can then more specifically claim:

“It is virtually impossible to comprehend the character of Judaism without some knowledge of the nature of the Medieval Jewish community. (Kahal; Ghetto). Probably one of the commonest fallacies extant today concerns the true origin of the ghetto. Most history books defer to Jewish sensibilities by giving the Jewish version, namely that the Jewish people were for centuries forced to reside in a special quarter of the city as a result of the bigotry and intolerance of the Christian majority. This is not true, and no scholar of Judaism believes it to be.”

Whilst Valentine’s Jewish Encyclopaedia describes the origin of the

Ghetto as being originally a community that arose by choice, it also

acknowledges the compulsory segregation of Jews within it later, without

denying its mutual benefits for both Jews and Gentiles:

“Already in antiquity the Jews voluntarily occupied special quarters; In the Middle Ages, Jew's streets or Jewries were to be found from the end

of the 11th century, but the motive of their concentration was no longer religious or social: trade caused them to settle near the market, or danger made them seek the protection of the reigning prince, the protector also wishing to have them together for the easier collection of taxes. It was not until the 13th century that the Jew's quarter was turned into a compulsory Ghetto. ... The concentration of Jews in Ghettos, although unintended, had its good result. It preserved the communal feeling and the traditional Jewish culture.”

On this point, Britton goes further claiming these Ghetto-communities

would have only existed because the Jews wanted them to exist. He

points out the statistic that 50% of world Jewry lived in the Pale, but this

view fails to take into account the fact that not all “birds of a feather

flock together”, as 50% did not. Clearly however a displaced race with

traditions and a preserved history and culture would naturally seek each

other out for support, irrespective of the limitations. This is particularly

so if one considers the difficulties of establishing a successful life purely

as an individual in an alien environment, where persecution of Jews and

indeed those perceived as “foreigners” was generally accepted as inviting

prejudice and curtailing opportunities in any case.

The fact of such a high percentage within the Kahal does point to a desire

on the part of at least 50% of world Jewry to mix predominantly with

their own kind. Although an equal number clearly did not. In respect to

this settlement, they were able to preserve their quintessentially Jewish

identity and culture without needing to deny it to get on, whilst it might

also have curtailed the unwanted influence of Russian society and its

Christianised culture. The disadvantage was that it invited suspicion and

a readily identifiable target for prejudice and ridicule.

Valentine’s Jewish Encyclopaedia notes that segregation arose as a

compulsion in the Kahal by virtue of its need to sustain and implement

the practise of Talmudic law (p 589):

“There were as a rule officially recognised authorities in the Jewish communities in Europe during the Middle Ages to regulate their own affairs and to treat as a body with the civil government. Even with no other incentive but that of living up to the requirements of Judaism the Jews of a locality were compelled to organize themselves into a community (Kahal; Kehilla), in order to regulate ritual, educational and charitable institutions. Courts of law were also a necessity, since Jewish litigants were expected to obey the civil code of the Talmud.”

It can be claimed that the Ghetto was not merely a place of enforced

segregation, it appears to have been a necessary community within a

community, and a place where the Jews maintained their culture, their

religion and sense of identity. Whilst, for Britton particularly, the Kahal

provided not only the community where Talmudic traditions in law and

practise could be preserved, it also enabled the Jews to nurture their

“age-long hatred” for Christian civilisation.

“For ten centuries preceding the great evictions, in virtually every Christian nation of Europe (and in Mohammedan Spain, Africa, and Asia Minor) these Jews settled into these parasitic ghetto-communities and here they nurtured and maintained a culture which was quite a thing apart from the culture of the European. When finally they were driven from Western Europe in the centuries preceding the Renaissance, we find them settling and establishing ghetto-communities in Poland and Russia which have lasted down to the present day. The Medieval ghetto did not disappear with the ending of the Dark Ages—it was transferred, unimpaired, to Eastern Europe, where the majority of the world's Jews settled.”

Concerning this, Britton offers no explanation of how the ideology of

Communism could flourish in the Kahal, when it was simultaneously a

community that sustained the values of Talmudic practise and belief.

The natural assumption would tend to be that Talmudic practise and

belief and atheist Marxism were essentially incompatible, but yet it is

claimed the Kahal fermented such views, and that both existed

simultaneously and independently within the Kahal. Furthermore, in

making this claim, he makes no allowance for assimilation of the Jews

into the countries or cultures they inhabited as a determining factor. He

fails to identify the assimilation and the improved education of Jews and

their exposure to the wider European culture as propagating and

popularising Marxist ideology. He prefers rather to see the Kahal as a

community of choice for the Jews, and essentially a “parasitic”

community, that nurtured an alien culture dangerous to the host

civilisation of Russia, irrespective more generally of the European nation

in which it co-existed. Britton continues:

“The institution of the ghetto has enabled two basically different cultures and peoples to remain side by side—one Asiatic and Judaic, the other European and Christian—without becoming integrated. It is primarily for this reason that the Jew has remained an alien in spite of centuries of exposure to Christian civilization. And that is why the Spanish Jew remained a Jew first and a Spaniard second, and why the Polish Jew, the Russian Jew, and the German Jew, have given their first allegiance to Judah and rendered a sort of second-hand loyalty to the country of their abode.”

For Britton, the existence of the Kahal is identified as the prime cause for

the development of social revolution and unrest. But the weakness of the

reasoning lies exposed by the question: Why did not Marxist revolutions

occur in any given number of nations where Jewish ghettos naturally

arose? Or conversely why did revolution similarly occur in China,

Vietnam, Cuba, etc. where they did not?

If segregation in this particular instance was a catalyst for social unrest,

it would not be unreasonable to think other factors also contributed to

the event, and which themselves were sufficient to have caused similar

historic upheavals in other nations around the world lacking in a Jewish

presence or influence. In respect to Russia specifically, there were other

contributing factors of an economic nature, the popularising of Marxist

ideology, and the dissatisfactions of an agrarian underclass. These

factors too created the battleground where two different cultures and

indeed different classes met and fought. A social and cultural clash, and

a manifestation of the thesis and antithesis paradigmatic progression, in

Hegelian terms, that resulted in a large scale conflict. The history that

led up to this historical conflict can be briefly outlined as follows.

At first the Imperial government recognised the autonomous Kahal

organisations, permitting them to raise taxes and set up courts of law

where only Jewish litigants were involved. In addition to the individual

communities, there were district Kahal organisations, which at first were

permitted to assess local Jewish communities with taxes. In 1786, these

privileges were drastically curtailed, and Jews were thereafter obliged to

appear before ordinary courts of law. Thence the Kahal organisation

became restricted to matters of a primarily religious and social nature.

Although the pro Jewish interpretation often emphasises the oppression,

persecution and enforced segregation by the Imperial government, it is a

fact that in spite of it (up until 1881) the Jews prospered greatly. Thence

with increasing assimilation, Britton in a rather anti-Semitic tirade

remarks:

“Jewry settled in the Russian economy like a swarm of locusts in a field of new corn. Very quickly they achieved a monopoly over Russia's liquor, tobacco, and retail industries. Later they dominated the professions as well. Under the reign of Alexander I many of the restrictions against residence beyond the Pale of Settlement were relaxed, especially for the artisan and professional classes. A determined effort was made to establish Jews in agriculture and the government encouraged at every opportunity the assimilation of Jews into Russian national life.”

Both Marx and Lenin saw the solution of the Jewish question in terms of

the full assimilation of the Jews in their countries of residence. A view

that might well have contributed to resentment arising amongst the

Marxists. First they resented being segregated as Jews from the wider

world. Second they resented being denied their rights in the Kahal

amongst the wider Jewish community that clung to Talmudic practise.

Alternatively, it might be suggested, the increasingly enforced

assimilation itself corrupted Talmudic Jews to Marxist atheism, due to

their exposure to wider, more Europeanised culture and Westernised

ideas, whilst other Jews (those of religious affiliation and Zionists) were

resentful of the loss of their cultural identity that had previously been

maintained in the Kahal.

In contrast to these different interpretations, the ideas of M.O.

Gershenzon in his article: “The Destinies of the Jewish Nation”, unlike

the contemporary Jewish Encyclopaedia, display a belief that two

conflicting urges have always characterised the Jewish diaspora from

time immemorial.

“One voice constantly “tempted him to blend with the environment - hence comes this ineradicable and ancient Jewish aspiration to assimilate.”

Whilst the other voice:

“demanded above all things to preserve his national uniqueness.”

In these conflicting urges:

“The whole story of scattering is the never-ending struggle of two wills within Jewry: the human will against the superhuman one, the individual against the collective…. The requirements of the national will towards the individual were so ruthless and almost beyond human

power, that without having a great hope common to all Jewry, the Jew would succumb to despair every now and then, and would be tempted to fall away from his brethren and desert that strange and painful common cause.”

Contrary to the view that it is difficult to explain why assimilation began

precisely at the end of the 18th century, Gershenzon is rather surprised:

“Is it not strange that assimilation so unexpectedly accelerated exactly during the last one hundred years and it continues to intensify with each passing hour? Shouldn’t the temptation to fall apart be diminished greatly nowadays, when the Jews obtained equal rights everywhere?”

No, he replies:

“It is not the external force that splits the Jews; Jewry disintegrates from the inside. The main pillar of Jewry, the religious unity of the Jewish nation, is decayed and rotten.”

Unlike the view of Britton, who maintains that the Kahal nurtured and

strengthened Talmudic ideas and their practice as well as political

subversion, in contrast to the Christian culture that surrounded it,

Gershenzon notes that it was the dissolution of faith based practise,

principally due to an internal lack of unity amongst the Jewish people

themselves, that contributed a factor to revolution. A fact that appears to

have been born out of history: as the assimilation process itself

increased under the reign of Nicolas I, and propagated amongst many of

the more assimilated Jews, who were later to become Bolsheviks, a

politically derived Marxist atheism. 18

18 Marxism-Leninism holds religion to be the opiate of the people, in the sense of promoting passive acceptance of suffering on Earth in the hope of eternal reward. Therefore, Marxism-Leninism advocates the abolition of religion and the acceptance of atheism. Vladimir Lenin, in Novaya Zhizn No. 28, December 3, 1905, as quoted in Marxists Internet Archive:.

“Religion is one of the forms of spiritual oppression which everywhere weighs down heavily upon the masses of the people, over burdened by their perpetual work for others, by want and isolation... Those who toil and live in want all their lives are

The consequences of enforced assimilation

For those who specify the Jews as the influential factor causing

subversion and revolution in pre Soviet Russia, the argument seeks two

explanatory causes:

National assimilation caused a dispersion of the tribal identity

that was previously sustained in the Kahal.

Along with a loss of cultural and religious identity, due to enforced

assimilation, a residue of disdain for Christianity survived; a

remnant left from the Talmudic teachings.

The two arms are a paradox; for whilst the assimilated Jews, it would

naturally be thought, would gravitate through assimilation to the

Russian Orthodox beliefs, prevalent in Russia at the time, it appears

Jewish values and culture lay too deep within their characters to be

easily changed. This exacerbated a schism, which ensured complete

assimilation did not occur, at least in the sense of a widespread

conversion to the values of Christianity, a religion viewed by some as a

blasphemy.

taught by religion to be submissive and patient while here on earth, and to take comfort in the hope of a heavenly reward... Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze, in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man.”

As Brad Olsen, “Sacred Places Europe”. CCC Publishing (p117): "Soviet policy toward religion was based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, which promoted atheism as the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. Marxism-Leninism consistently advocated the control, suppression, and, ultimately, the elimination of all religious doctrines.”

Whilst enforced assimilation was certainly a catalyst for revolution and

social chaos, this cannot be simply viewed as the responsibility of the

Jews. Faith based sensibilities and political atheism, as well as economic

inequality amongst the classes, were also conflicting contributory

factors. These were by no means simply confined to Jewish sensibilities,

but spread unrest widely amongst the Russian Orthodox, agrarian and

intellectual communities. Certainly schisms in many quarters arose, and

resentment grew quickly. But for those seeking to find a focus in a

specifically Jewish cause, the Russian conflict is usually contextualised

as a war or clash between the Jewish and Russian identity. This was

essentially a social and a psychological conflict. The two conflicting

elements of assimilation and Kahal, as well as a conflict between faith

and atheism, characterised as a specifically Jewish struggle.

The process of enforced assimilation which contributed to the conflict,

arose under Alexander's successor, Nicholas I: a man less inclined to

favour Jewry, and one who viewed their inroads into the Russian

economy with increasing concern. But it is one that in itself therefore

suggests a Russian influence in the move towards revolution, and not

purely a Jewish impulse or ethos.

One notable difference under Alexander I had been the exemption by

Jews of compulsory military duty by paying a special draft-exemption

tax. In 1827 Nicholas abolished this, with the result that Jews were

drafted into the Imperial armies. In 1844, Nicholas I further antagonised

Jewry by abolishing the institution of the Kahal, and in that same year he

prohibited the traditional Jewish mode of dress, specifying that all Jews

should, except on ceremonial occasions, dress in conformity with

Russian standards.

These measures, and many others like them, were aimed at facilitating

the assimilation of Jewry into Russian life. The Tsarist government

becoming concerned by the Jew’s failure to become Russianised. They

felt fear at the possibility of their increased radicalisation. Indeed the

ancient Jewish custom of maintaining a separate culture, language,

mode of dress, etc. was generally viewed with extreme suspicion—all of

which contributed to the idea of the Jew as an alien in the land.

In this determination to “Russianise” and supposedly “civilise” the Jew,

unusual efforts were made by the Imperial government to provide free

education to the Jewish population. In 1804, all schools gave access to

Jews. Indeed attendance for Jewish children was made compulsory. This

could be viewed either as an unusual privilege in Russia in the early 19th

century, as education was generally reserved only for the affluent few.

Alternatively it could be viewed as an attempt to undermine and dissolve

the traditions and values of Jewish culture through an enforced Russian

education. For the Russians it would have been viewed as a privilege, as

even as late as 1914 only 55% of the Gentile population had even been

inside a school. It furthermore appears to have been happily accepted by

the Jewish populace themselves. In any case, the consequence, as a

result of the Imperial government’s assimilation programme, was that

Russian Jewry became the best educated segment of the populace in

Russia. One factor that eventually worked towards exacerbating the

destruction of the Tsarist government.

The reign of Alexander II marked the zenith of Jewish fortunes in Tsarist

Russia. By 1880 they were becoming dominant in the professions, in

many trades and industries, and were beginning to filter into

government in increasing numbers. As early as 1861 Alexander II had

permitted Jewish university graduates to settle and hold government

positions in greater Russia, and by 1879 those in professional

occupations were permitted to work and reside throughout the empire.

Another interpretation of these events suggests the increasing

assimilation may have contributed to Russia’s Jews feeling increasingly

rebellious over the remaining restraints which still bound the greater

part of Russian Jewry to the Pale of Settlement, and which, to some

extent at least, restricted their expanding commercial activities. As

Britton asserts:

“Herein lay the dilemma; the Imperial government could retain certain of the restrictions against the Jews, and by doing so incur their undying hostility, or it could remove all restraints and thus pave the way for Jewish domination over every phase of Russian life. Certainly Alexander viewed this problem with increasing concern as time went on. Actually it was a problem capable of being solved.”

The assimilation process however froze in its tracks in 1866, when

Alexander II lost enthusiasm for liberal causes after an attempt was

made to assassinate him. As a consequence of this life changing event, he

dismissed his “liberal” advisors, and from that time on displayed an

inclination toward conservatism. This is not to say he became anti-

Jewish, but he did show more firmness in dealing with their increasing

presence in Russian society. In 1879 there was another attempt on his

life, and yet another in the following year when his Winter Palace was

blown up. In 1881 a plot hatched in the home of the Jewess, Hesia

Helfman, was successful and confirmed a militant presence had arisen.

Alexander II was blown up, and so ended an era.

The consequences of this event were monumental and contributed to a

fear of Jews more generally as Britton emphasises:

“The reaction to the assassination of Alexander II was instantaneous and far reaching. There was a widespread belief in and out of the government, that if the Jews were dissatisfied with the rule of Alexander II—whom the crypto-Jew, D'Israeli, had described as "the most benevolent prince that ever ruled Russia"—then they would be satisfied with nothing less than outright domination of Russia.”

Up until 1881, Russian policy had consistently focused on assimilation in

an attempt to “Russianise” the Jew; a necessary step it was thought

towards full citizenship. In line with this policy, free and compulsory

education for Jews had been introduced; repeated attempts had been

made to encourage them to settle on farms; and special efforts had been

made to encourage them to engage in crafts. Now Russian policy was

dramatically reversed. Hereafter, it became the policy of the Imperial

government to prevent what was considered in some quarters as the

further exploitation of the Russian people by the Jews, and thus began

the conflict that some have characterised as a war or a conflict between

the Tsarists and the Jews.

All through 1881 there was widespread anti-Jewish rioting all over the

empire, and large numbers of Jews who had been permitted to settle

beyond the Pale were evicted. In May of 1882 the May Laws (Provisional

Rules of May 3, 1882) were imposed, thus implementing a new

government policy that was to shake the empire to its foundations. The

following passage is taken from Encyclopaedia Britannica (volume 2,

1947, p.76) to give an idea of their effect:

“The Russian May Laws were the most conspicuous legislative monument achieved by modern anti-Semitism ... Their immediate results was a ruinous commercial depression which was felt all over the empire and which profoundly affected the national credit. The Russian minister was at his wit's end for money. Negotiations for a large loan

were entered upon with the house of Rothschild and a preliminary contract was signed, when ... the finance minister was informed that unless the persecutions of the Jews were stopped the great banking house would be compelled to withdraw from the operation ... In this way anti-Semitism, which had already so profoundly influenced the domestic policies of Europe, set its mark on the international relations of the powers, for it was the urgent need of the Russian treasury quite as much as the termination of Prince Bismarck's secret treaty of mutual neutrality which brought about the Franco-Russian alliance.”

Britton (op. cit.. p.29-31) tends to view the introduction of the May Laws

as largely having been brought upon Jews themselves as a consequence

of them having entrenched themselves in Russian society. Thus within a

period of 92 years (from the 3rd partition to 1882) the Jews, although

constituting only 4.2% of the population, had “infiltrated” to such an

extent that the Russian economy was almost bankrupted in the attempt

to dislodge them with the equalising May Laws. Clearly, in this respect,

the nation’s international credit was also affected.

Concerning this Britton (op. cit.) fails to emphasise the anti-Semitic

nature of the Laws which caused the economic depression and the

withdrawal of international financiers from the Jewish Bank of

Rothschild. He does not make a case for the Jews being successful,

having contributed to the Russian economy, or for the Jews earning their

right to be successful particularly based on the superior education that

the people had themselves been afforded by the former Tsar. He only

views their presence as being disproportionate and the anti-Semitic

measures as being merely indicative of how far they had “infiltrated”

Russian occupations and exerted undue economic influence. So too, in

respect to his comments (op. cit.) a further case could be made that the

withdrawal of Rothschild financing was not due particularly to a

specifically Jewish bias, but a more general disdain by an international

banking house not to be seen to publically endorse absolute and

discriminatory laws against some of its by now highly successful and

influential Russian clientele.

Enmity of Jewry toward Tsarism increased considerable after 1881. The

May Laws had not only restricted Jewish economic activity, but had

attempted unsuccessfully to preserve Russia’s cultural integrity.

Hereafter Jews were only permitted to attend state-supported schools

and universities in a ratio proportionate to their population. This was not

unreasonable claims Britton (op. cit... p.31):

“since Russia’s schools were flooded with Jewish students.”

In respect to this, whilst it was true that large numbers of Russia’s

population were illiterate, it could also, at least from the Jewish

perspective, be seen as another “persecution”. Certainly, more generally,

even during this time of relatively limited media exposure, many

became informed of this as a persecution via the press and in synagogues

world- wide.

Baron Gunzberg along with a delegation of Jews called on the new Tsar

Alexander III on May 23rd in order to protest the May Laws and the

perceived discrimination against Jewry. An investigation followed. This

led to Tsar Alexander issuing a pronouncement on September 3rd :

“For some time the government has given its attention to the Jews and to their relations to the rest of the inhabitants of the empire, with a view of ascertaining the sad condition of the Christian inhabitants brought about by the conduct of the Jews in business matters ...

During the last twenty years the Jews have gradually possessed themselves of not only every trade and business in all its branches, but

also of a great part of the land by buying or farming it. With few exceptions, they have as a body devoted their attention, not to enriching or benefiting the country, but to defrauding by their wiles its inhabitants, and particularly its poor inhabitants. This conduct of theirs has called forth protests on the part of the people, as manifested in acts of violence and robbery. The government, while on the one hand doing its best to put down the disturbances, and to deliver the Jews from oppression and slaughter, have also, on the other hand, thought it a matter of urgency and justice to adopt stringent measures in order to put an end to the oppression practised by the Jews on the inhabitants, and to free the country from their malpractices, which were, as is known, the cause of the agitations.”19

In this edict, part of which is cited here, it can be clearly seen that any

economic benefit or contribution to the Russian nation is clearly

downplayed. Indeed the Tsar specifically says that the Jews have by their

dishonest practises and business dealings largely cheated the country for

their own selfish aims. These nefarious activities are identified as having

largely contributed to the civil uprisings which the government had

sought to suppress and control. A clear emphasis on the protection of the

Jews so that they might be free from “oppression” is made, whilst the

edict stresses that stringent measures and laws would need to be

introduced in order to protect the Russian people from the oppression

foisted upon them by the Jews. In this the charge of the malpractice of

the Jews can be clearly seen, but it is one that seeks to free itself of any

charge of racial bias.

19 E. W. Latimer “Russia and Turkey in the 19th Century”, A. C. McClury & Co., 1895,

(p. 332).

The emergence of Zionism and Marxism

In the atmosphere of growing civil unrest that accompanied the

enforced assimilation, two movements: Marxism and Zionism began to

exert and influence contrary opinions upon the mind-set of Russian

Jews. However, both movements ironically arose from the more

westernised mind-set of German Jews. Zionism (a Jewish nationalism)

whose chief advocate was Theodore Herzl, took root in Russia in the

1880s and represented the antithesis of the more globally orientated

Marxism with its precepts of internationalism. Whereas Marxism for

Britton (op.cit. p.33) arose from that “high priest” Karl Marx, the

grandson of a rabbi and is identified as being for him quintessentially

Jewish; a view which fails to take into consideration the influence of the

German Friedrich Engels who was himself raised as a Christian Pietist

before finally deferring to atheism. Nor does it consider the conversion

of Marx’ father to Christianity.

In reference to atheism, some remarks may be briefly made in respect to

the conflict which arose between faith and atheism, as well as between

Jewish assimilation and Jewish alienation. Assimilation did not (as has

been noted) result in the Christianisation of Jews, but led rather to a

shift in some towards atheism and a political and class consciousness,

culminating in militant action and social chaos. It is difficult to be clear

of exact percentages. However, by the time of the October revolution, it

is highly probable only a minority of the Bolsheviks were Jews; whereas

in the early 1900s they had constituted 19% of the party. In contrast,

however, at the elections to the Constituent Assembly more than 80% of

the Jewish population of Russia voted for Zionist parties, suggesting the

enthusiasm for Bolshevism was not a predominantly Jewish favouritism.

It is also revealing of a stronger desire to seek a predominantly Jewish

homeland at this time that held little allegiance to the new political

developments in Russia, of which Jewish support had ebbed away. It

suggests Jews simply put wanted out and more generally desired to be

independent. Absolutism in this sense, whether it was in terms of a

Tsarist or Communist rule, was something they shunned more

generally.20 In this context, Lenin also wrote that 550,000 were for

Jewish nationalism.

“The majority of the Jewish parties formed a single national list, in accordance with which seven deputies were elected – six Zionists’ and Gruzenberg. ‘The success of the Zionists’ was also aided by the Declaration of the English Foreign Minister Balfour [on the creation of a ‘national centre’ of the Jews in Palestine], ‘which was met by the majority of the Russian Jewish population with enthusiasm [in Moscow, Petrograd, Odessa, Kiev and many other cities there were festive manifestations, meetings and religious services]’.”21

Other sources viewed the events in both Russia and Palestine as an

extraordinary triumph for Jews wholesale. A “coincidence” according to

the London Times on November 9, 1917, where two articles- one

announcing the outbreak of revolution in Petrograd, and the other the

promise of a homeland for the Jews in Palestine (otherwise known as the

Balfour declaration) were simultaneously published.

The coincidence of this as a “triumph for Jews” more generally was

reinforced by the fact that the theist Jews who triumphed in Israel in

1917, and especially in 1948 after the foundation of the State of Israel,

originated from the same region and social background as the atheist 20 This shifting tendency in itself negates the theory of a desire for political control or a Jewish supremacism in respect to Russia and indeed the world. Why if the Russian revolution had been an agenda for Jewish control would they then relinquish such control once it had been successfully achieved? 21 Vladimir Moss “Bolshevism and the Jews”, http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com.

Jews who triumphed in Moscow in 1917: this being the Pale of

Settlement. Sometimes they even came from the same families. Thus, as

Chaim Weitzmann the first president of Israel points out in his

“Autobiography”, all his brothers and sisters were either Zionists or

Bolsheviks. M. Heifetz also points to the further coincidence in the

arising of the October revolution and the Balfour declaration that:

“A part of the Jewish generation goes along the path of Herzl and Zhabotinsky. The other part, unable to withstand the temptation, fills up the band of Lenin and Trotsky and Stalin. The path of Herzl and Bagritsky allowed the Jews to stand tall and immediately become not simply an equal nation with Russia, but a privileged one.”

For some, the Russian revolution may be regarded as one branch of that

general global triumph of Jewish influence, via the opposing ideologies

of Zionist and Communist influence, which became evident in the

twentieth century in both the East and West, in both Russia and in

America, and which met in the battleground of the Middle East.

Certainly in respect specifically to the Jewish nature of the Bolshevik

leadership, and the ideology of a world revolution in general, the Jewish

influence has often been emphasised. But neither was such a view simply

confined to “anti-Semites”. As Douglas Reed writes:

“The Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party, which wielded the supreme power, contained 3 Russians (including Lenin) and 9 Jews. The next body in importance, the Central Committee of the Executive Commission (or secret police) comprised 42 Jews and 19 Russians, Letts, Georgians and others. The Council of People’s Commissars consisted of 17 Jews and five others. The Moscow Che-ka (secret police) was formed of 23 Jews and 13 others. Among the names of 556 high officials of the Bolshevik state officially published in 1918-1919 were 458 Jews and 108 others. Among the central committees of small, supposedly ‘Socialist’ or other non-Communist parties… were 55 Jews and 6 others.”

Richard Pipes admits:

“Jews undeniably played in the Bolshevik Party and the early Soviet apparatus a role disproportionate to their share of the population. The number of Jews active in Communism in Russia and abroad was striking: in Hungary, for example, they furnished 95 percent of the leading figures in Bela Kun’s dictatorship. They also were disproportionately represented among Communists in Germany and Austria during the revolutionary upheavals there in 1918-23, and in the apparatus of the Communist International.”

This influence declined however and according to Donald Rayfield, in

1922, the Jews:

“reached their maximum representation in the party (not that they formed a coherent group) when, at 15 per cent, they were second only to ethnic Russians with 65 per cent.”

The London Times correspondent in Russia, Robert Wilton, however, notes their influence as organisers amongst the elite when he reported:

”Taken according to numbers of population, the Jews represented one in ten; among the commissars that rule Bolshevik Russia they are nine in ten; if anything the proportion of Jews is still greater.”

Concerning their disproportionate numbers in organising roles Captain

Montgomery Shuyler of the American Expeditionary Forces

telegrammed from Vladivostok on the makeup of the presiding Soviet

government on June the 9th, 1919:

“… There were 384 ‘commissars’ including 2 negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen, 22 Armenians, and more than 300 Jews. Of the latter number, 264 had come to Russia from the United States since the downfall of the Imperial Government.”

The Jews were especially dominant in the most feared and blood-thirsty

part of the Bolshevik State apparatus, the Cheka, which Brendon asserts:

“consisted of 250,000 officers (including 100,000 border guards), a remarkable adjunct to a State which was supposed to be withering away.

In the first 6 years of Bolshevik rule it had executed at least 200,000. Moreover, the Cheka was empowered to act as ‘policeman, gaoler, investigator, prosecutor, judge and executioner’. It also employed barbaric forms of torture.”

For authors such as Britton (op. cit..), et al., therefore, the Jewish

domination of Russia as a result of the revolution was so great that it is a

misnomer to even speak about the “Russian” revolution as such, as it

should more accurately be called the “Russian-Jewish” revolution. The

credibility of this theory can now be analysed.

The credibility or otherwise of a Jewish led Revolution

That the Russian revolution was actually a Jewish revolution, but at the

same time part of an international revolution of Jewry against the

Christian and Muslim worlds more generally, is indicated by an article by

Jacob de Haas entitled “The Jewish Revolution” and published in the

London Zionist journal Maccabee in November, 1905:

“The Revolution in Russia is a Jewish revolution, for it is a turning point in Jewish history. This situation flows from the fact that Russia is the fatherland of approximately half of the general number of Jews inhabiting the world… The overthrow of the despotic government must exert a huge influence on the destinies of millions of Jews (both in Russia and abroad). Besides, the revolution in Russia is a Jewish revolution also because the Jews are the most active revolutionaries in the tsarist Empire.”

But why should the Jews be considered the most active revolutionaries?

What was it in their upbringing and history that led them to adopt the

atheist revolutionary teachings and actions of Bolshevism any more

ardently than the ethnic Russians themselves? A hatred of Christ and the

Christians is sometimes identified as a prime cause for believers in this

theory, and one that is supported by anti-Christian passages in the

Talmud. Yet the revolutionaries that began killing thousands of the

Tsar’s servants, even before the revolution of 1905, had rejected both the

Talmud as well as the Gospel, the Torah and Biblical texts and even all

organised religions in general, at least publically, and it is therefore a

theory that does not stand up to close inspection.

Donald Rayfield however seeks to incorporate the anomaly when he writes:

“The motivation of those Jews who worked for the Cheka was not Zionist or ethnic. The war between the Cheka and the Russian bourgeoisie was not even purely a war of classes or political factions. It can be seen as being between Jewish internationalism and the remnants of a Russian national culture…What was Jewish except lineage about Bolsheviks like Zinoviev, Trotsky, Kamenev or Sverdlov? Some were second- or even third-generation renegades; few even spoke Yiddish, let alone knew Hebrew. They were by upbringing Russians accustomed to a European way of life and values, Jewish only in the superficial sense that, say, Karl Marx was. Jews in anti-Semitic Tsarist Russia had few ways out of the ghetto except emigration, education or revolution, and the latter two courses meant denying their Judaism by joining often anti-Jewish institutions and groups.”

This can be illustrated from the deathbed confession of Yurovsky, the

murderer of the Tsar:

“Our family suffered less from the constant hunger than from my father’s religious fanaticism… On holidays and regular days the children were forced to pray, and it is not surprising that my first active protest was against religious and nationalistic traditions. I came to hate God and prayer as I hated poverty and the bosses.”

In spite of this, some Bolshevik Jews (at least in some quarters) still

appeared to sympathise with the Talmud more than with any other

religion. Thus in 1905 the Jewish revolutionaries in Kiev boasted that

they would turn St. Sophia cathedral into a synagogue. Again, in 1918

they erected a monument to Judas Iscariot in Sviazhsk, and in 1919 in

Tambov. Perhaps the strongest evidence of the continued religiosity of

the Bolshevik Jews, was the fact that when the Whites re-conquered

Perm in 1918 they found many Jewish religious inscriptions in the

former Bolshevik headquarters; as well as on the walls of the basement

of the Ipatiev House in Yekaterinburg- the place where the Tsar and his

family were shot.

One rather Christian-centric interpretation might have been that while

officially rejecting the Talmud, and all religion generally, the

revolutionaries of Jewish lineage may not have entirely rejected the

unconscious emotional energy that had once tribalised them through

Talmudic Judaism. This manifested itself in a fiercely proud tribalism, a

tribalism older and more passionately felt by virtue of the fact that the

Bolshevik Jews had once truly considered themselves to have been the

“chosen” people of God. Having fallen away from that chosen status, and

having been scattered all over the world by the wrath of God, they

despised their replacement by the Christian peoples with a special

intensity. Christian Rome had to be destroyed, and Russia as “The Third

Rome”, the Rome that now reigned, also had to be destroyed. The atheist

revolutionaries of the younger generation took over this resentment and

hatred with a passion, whilst rejecting its quasi- religious nationalist

historical basis.

At the heart of this L.A. Tikhomirov wrote:

“It is now already for nineteen centuries that we have been hearing from Jewish thinkers that the religious essence of Israel consists not in a concept about God, but in the fulfilment of the Law. Above were cited such witnesses from Judas Galevy. The very authoritative Ilya del Medigo (15th century) in his notable Test of Faith says that ‘Judaism is founded not on religious dogma, but on religious acts. But religious acts are, in essence, those that are prescribed by the Law. That means: if you want to be moral, carry out the Law.”

M. Mendelsohn formulates the idea in the same way:

“Judaism is not a revealed religion, but a revealed Law. It does not say ‘you must believe’, but ‘you must act’. In this constitution given by God the State and religion are one. The relationships of man to God and society are merged. It is not lack of faith or heresy that attracts punishment, but the violation of the civil order. Judaism gives no obligatory dogmas and recognizes the freedom of inner conviction.”

The emphasis on law contrasts with Christianity which says: you must

believe in a moral truth (such as the New Commandment given by Jesus

to “love thy neighbour as thyself”) and on the basis of that you must act

accordingly. This differs in emphasis from Judaism which says: you can

believe as you like, but you have a duty to act according to the law. But

this is a point of view that critics might claim can so often eclipse moral

decision making if law and order breaks down and personal ideology

drives actions.

If one accepts this distinction it can be argued that Talmudism creates a

personality that subjects faith and truth to the imperative of action. That

is, it is the action that is first proclaimed as the imperative, and the

reasons for doing it can be debated later. In this it corresponds exactly

both to the philosophy of Marx, for whom “the truth, i.e. the reality and

power, of thought must be demonstrated in action”, and to the

psychological type of the Marxist revolutionary, who first proclaims that

Rome (in this case Russia) must be destroyed through revolutionary

action, and then looks for the reason that will justify the act later.

Talmudic Law is useful, indeed necessary, not simply because it

proclaims God’s truth, but in order to secure the solidarity of the Jewish

people and their subjection to their rabbinic leaders. In the same way,

Marxist theory is necessary in order to unite adherents, expel dissidents

and in general justify the violent overthrow of the old system by

following the orders of their political party (or tribal) leaders.

Lies, damned lies and statistics

Dr. David Duke in “Jewish Supremacism” notes, that of the 384 top

commissars and officials in the first Soviet government, over 300 were

Jewish. This reinforced the call to action at least amongst the Jewish

population more generally and motivated the Jewish populace with

tribal figureheads. But are Duke’s numbers correct?

His claim of a majority Jewish leadership during the first Soviet

government has been validated by Vladimir Putin himself, who during a

commemoration speech, referenced the decision:

“The decision to nationalise this library was made by the first Soviet government, whose composition was 80-85 percent Jewish.”

Putin added that the politicians on the predominantly Jewish Soviet

government were guided by false ideological considerations and

supported the arrest and repression of not only Russian Orthodox

Christians, Muslims and members of other faiths, but Jews of faith also.

In this they tended to group everyone into the same category.

Certainly Jews in relatively large numbers appear to have joined various

ideological currents that favoured gradual or revolutionary change

within the Russian Empire. Those movements ranged from the far left

(anarchists,22 Bundists, Bolsheviks, Mensheviks)23 to moderate left

22 Goncharok, Moshe. “Century of Will: Russian Anarchism and Jews (XIX-XX Centuries)”. Jerusalem: Mishmeret Shalom, 1996.

(Trudoviks)24 and constitutionalist (Constitutional Democrats)25 parties.

Whereas the Monarchist parties, such as Union of the Russian People,

expressed anti-Semitic attitudes, and included anti-Semitic paragraphs

in their political programmes.

On the eve of the February Revolution, in 1917, the Bolshevik party had

about 10,000 members, of whom 364 were ethnic Jews.26 Between 1917

and 1919, Jewish Bolshevik party leaders included Grigory Zinoviev,

Moisei Uritsky, Lev Kamenev, Yakov Sverdlov, Grigory Sokolnikov, and

Leon Trotsky. Lev Kamenev was of mixed ethnic Russian or Jewish

parentage.27 Trotsky was also a member of the ruling Council of People's

Commissars.28 However among the 23 “Narkoms” or “members”

between 1923 and 1930, only five were Jewish.29

Generally it appears most of the leading Communists who took control of

Russia in 1917-20 were Jews. Leon Trotsky (Lev Bronstein) headed the

23 Levin, Nora (1988). “The Jews in the Soviet Union Since 1917”. New York University Press: New York (p.13). 24 Ascher, Abraham (1992). “The Revolution of 1905”. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.(p.148). 25 Witte, Sophie (24 March 1907). "Just Before the Duma Opened", New York Times. 26 Political Activity and Emigration. Beyond the Pale. The History of Jews in Russia. (Exhibition by Friends and Partners Project). See also Kara-Murza, Sergey. "Revolutionary (Socialist) Political Forces between February and October." Soviet Civilization. Vol. 1. (The chapter about the growth of Russian political parties during February-October 1917 online) (Russian, translt. available). 27 Herf, Jeffrey (2008). “The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda During World War II and the Holocaust”. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.(p.96). Also Hoffman, Stefani; Mendelsohn, Ezra (2008). The Revolution of 1905 and Russia's Jews. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press (p.178). 28 Deutsch, Mark, "Alexander Solzhenitsyn as a Mirror of Russian Xenophobia". Moskovskiy Komsomolets. 10 January 2003. http://www.sem40.ru/anti/7820 (Russian). 29 Herf, Jeffrey (op. cit... p.96).

Red Army and, for a time, was chief of Soviet foreign affairs. Yakov

Sverdlov (Solomon) was both the Bolshevik party’s executive secretary

and served as chairman of the Central Executive Committee and head of

the Soviet government. Grigori Zinoviev (Radomyslsky) headed the

Communist International (Comintern), the central agency for spreading

revolution in foreign countries. Other prominent Jews included press

commissar Karl Radek (Sobelsohn), foreign affairs commissar Maxim

Litvinov (Wallach), Lev Kamenev (Rosenfeld) and Moisei Uritsky.

In contrast to the high percentage of Jews in important positions,

according to the 1922 party census at least, there were relatively few

Jews in the Party as a whole: for there were 19,564 Jewish Bolsheviks,

but this comprised of only 5.21% of the total.30 A drop from the number

of Jews (some 7.1%) in membership who had joined before October

1917.31 By 1929 the Jewish members of the Central Executive Committee

of the Congress of Soviets had dropped considerably and consisted of

402 ethnic Russians, 95 Ukrainians, 55 Jews, 26 Latvians, 13 Poles, and

12 Germans – Jewish representation had declined from 60 members in

1927.32

With regards to Jewish representation in the ruling Politburo, it waned

very rapidly from 1918, but began as a much higher percentage. It began

with the assassination of Moisei Uritsky, the most radical member of the

Politburo in August. Then Yakov Sverdlov died of disease in March 1919

and Sokolnikov was shunted aside. Three years later (in 1922) Jewish

30 Herf (op. cit... p.96). 31 Deutsch, Mark, "Alexander Solzhenitsyn as a Mirror of Russian Xenophobia". Moskovskiy Komsomolets. 10 January 2003. http://www.sem40.ru/anti/7820 (Russian). 32 Pinkus, Benjamin (1990) “The Jews of the Soviet Union: The History of a National Minority”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (p.81).

members in the Central Committee, the Politburo’s new name, had

shrunk to a minority of three: Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev.

Eventually they were all murdered on the orders of Joseph Stalin:

Zinoviev and Kamenev in 1936 and Trotsky in 1940.33

In the 1920s, of the 417 members of the Central Executive Committee,

the party Central Committee, the Presidium of the Executive of the

Soviets of the USSR and the Russian Republic and the People’s

Commissars, just 6% were ethnic Jews.34 Between 1936 and 1940, during

the Great Purge, Yezhovshchina (and after the rapprochement with Nazi

Germany, Stalin) largely eliminated Jews from senior party positions, as

well as government, diplomatic, security and military positions more

generally.35 A prominent victim of the Purge was the Head of the State

Security or NKVD (the enforcement arm of government previously

known as the Cheka and GPU) who also happened to have come from

Jewish lineage: Genrikh Yagoda.

In 1939, Stalin directed incoming Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov

to “purge the ministry of Jews”.36 Although some scholars believe that

33 It is not sufficient when faced with these facts and statistics to simply assert as Frank Britton “Behind Communism” does that:

“The founders of Russian Communism were Jewish. Neither can we ignore the fact that all but a few of the top leadership of the American Communism party—including the recently convicted spies— are of the same race. These are facts of history over which we have no control.”

34 As attested by Jeffrey Herf “The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda During World War II and the Holocaust”, Cambridge: Harvard University Press (p. 96).

35 Levin (op. cit... p. 318-325). 36

Resis, Albert (2000). “The Fall of Litvinov: Harbinger of the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact”. Europe-Asia Studies 52.

this decision was taken for primarily domestic reasons,37 others argue it

may have been a signal to Hitler that the USSR was indeed ready to sign

the non-aggression pact.38

According to historian Iakov Etinger, many Soviet state purges of the

1930s were anti-Semitic in nature, and a more intense anti-Semitic

policy developed toward the end of World War II.39 By 1952 Stalin’s

suspicions were such that he allegedly viewed “every Jew” as “a potential

spy for the United States”. 40

An example of the exaggeration of Jewish influence in the Soviet

Communist Party is the estimate by Alfred Jensen that in the 1920s “75

per cent of the leading Bolsheviks” were “of Jewish origin” (as quoted by

journalist David Aaronovitch). Aaronovitch (a son of a Communist

intellectual) notes however that “a cursory examination of membership

of the top committees shows this figure to be an absurd exaggeration.”41

37 Resis, Albert (2000). "The Fall of Litvinov: Harbinger of the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact". Europe-Asia Studies 52 (1) p. 35. 38 Herf 2008 (op.cit. p. 56). See also Moss, Walter (2005). “A History of Russia: Since 1855”. Anthem Press (p.283). 39 Ro'i, Yaacov (1995) “Jews and Jewish Life in Russia and the Soviet Union”. Routledge.(p.103-106). 40 Figes, Orlando (2008) “The Whisperers: Private Life in Stalin's Russia”. London: Picador, (p.251). 41 Aaronovitch, David. "Our Jewish Communist past". September 23, 2011. RSS Twitter Facebook Archives Subscribe S & P About THE JEWISH CHRONICLE ONLINE. Retrieved 18 September 2013.

The Jewish-Bolshevism conflation

Exaggeration generally has been a characteristic of an increasing

misunderstanding of Jewish influence. This was aided in no small part

by the publication in 1922-1923 in London by the Britons Publishing

Society of “The Jewish Bolshevism”, a 32-page anti-Semitic pamphlet. A

pamphlet which included a foreword by the German National Socialist

leader Alfred Rosenberg.

It was Rosenberg at this time who was at the fore front of promulgating

and popularising the concept of “Jewish Bolshevism” and of sowing the

seeds of so much fear and misunderstanding. This relatively obscure

publication essentially embodied the National Socialist doctrine that

Jewishness and Bolshevism are in effect one and the same thing; or that

Bolshevism is Jewish, whether or not everything Jewish is included

within Bolshevism. The methodology used consisted of identifying

Bolsheviks as Jews; by birth, or by name or by demographics.

In 1922, historian Gisela C. Lebzelter wrote:

“The Britons published a brochure entitled Jewish Bolshevism, which featured drawings of Russian leaders supplemented by brief comments on their Jewish descent and affiliation. This booklet, which was prefaced by Alfred Rosenberg, had previously been published in English by völkisch Deutscher Volksverlag.”42

Walter Laqueur also traces the Jewish-Bolshevik conspiracy theory to

Alfred Rosenberg, for whom Bolshevism was:

“the revolt of the Jewish, Slavic and Mongolian races against the German (Aryan) element in Russia.”

42 Political Anti-Semitism in England, 1918-1939 (p. 64).

Germans, according to Rosenberg, had been responsible for Russia’s

historic achievements, but they had been sidelined by the Bolsheviks,

who did not represent the interests of the Russian people, but rather only

those of its ethnic Jewish population.43

In Hitler’s Germany this misconception of a Jewish Bolshevism reflected

a perception that Communism was a Jewish-inspired and led movement,

and that from its origin it had sought world domination. It was

strengthened by the fact that some 78% of the activists within the

German Communist Party were in fact Jewish after the First World War.

The idea of particularly “Jewish Bolshevism” was popularised as a term

by German journalist Dietrich Eckhart's 1924 pamphlet “Bolshevism

from Moses to Lenin”. This depicted Moses and Lenin as both being

Communists and Jews. This was followed by Alfred Rosenberg’s 1923

edition of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” and Hitler's “Mein

Kampf” in 1924, which saw Bolshevism as “Jewry's twentieth century

effort to take world dominion unto itself.”

According to French spymaster and writer Henri Rollin, “Hitlerism”

more specifically was based on an “anti-Soviet counter-revolution”. An

attitude that promoted the “myth of a mysterious Jewish-Masonic-

Bolshevik plot” that the First World War had been instigated by a vast

Jewish-Masonic strategy to topple the Russian, German, and Austro-

Hungarian Empires and implement Bolshevism by propagating liberal

ideas.44

43 Laqueur, Walter (1990) “Russia and Germany: A Century of Conflict”, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers (p.33-34). 44 Kellogg, Michael (2008) “ The Russian Roots of Nazism. White Émigrés and the Making of National Socialism”, 1917–1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

A major source for the increasingly dangerous propaganda about

“Jewish Bolshevism” in the 1930s and early 1940s was the pro-National

Socialist, anti-Semitic international Welt-Dienst news agency founded in

1933 by Ulrich Fleischhauer. Within the German Army also, a tendency

to see Soviet Communism as a Jewish conspiracy had grown since the

First World War. All this became official doctrine under the National

Socialists. A 1932 pamphlet by Ewald Banse of the Government-financed

German National Association for the Military Sciences further describes

the Soviet leadership as “mostly Jewish”, and one which dominated an

apathetic and mindless Russian population.45

Propaganda produced in 1935 by the psychological war laboratory of the

German War Ministry was even more objectionable. It described Soviet

officials as “mostly filthy Jews” and called on Red Army soldiers to rise

up and kill their “Jewish commissars”. This material was not used at the

time, but indicates an increasingly intolerant and extremist view towards

the Jews as a whole. It served as a basis for propaganda in the 1940s.46

This view can be encapsulated in Hitler’s speech to the Reichstag

justifying Operation Barbarossa in 1941. Here Hitler said:

“For more than two decades the Jewish Bolshevik regime in Moscow had tried to set fire not merely to Germany but to all of Europe…The Jewish Bolshevik rulers in Moscow have unswervingly undertaken to force their domination upon us and the other European nations and that is not merely spiritually, but also in terms of military power…Now the time has

45 Förster, Jürgen (2005) “The German Military's Image of Russia”. In Erickson, Ljubica; Erickson, Mark. Russia War, Peace and Diplomacy. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson p.119). 46 Förster, (op.cit. p. 122-127).

come to confront the plot of the Anglo-Saxon Jewish war-mongers and the equally Jewish rulers of the Bolshevik centre in Moscow!”47

German propaganda presented Barbarossa as an ideological-race war

between National Socialism and “Judeo-Bolshevism”. It sought to

dehumanise the Soviet enemy as a force of Slavic sub-humans and

“Asiatic” savages engaging in “barbaric Asiatic fighting methods” that

were commanded by evil Jewish commissars whom German troops were

to show no mercy to.48 The vast majority of the Wehrmacht officers and

soldiers generally were encouraged or expected to regard the war in

these terms, seeing their Soviet opponents as something less than

human.49

Neither are such ideas dead today. In 2006, Iranian Presidential Advisor

Mohammad Ali Ramin, secretary-general of the new “World Foundation

for Holocaust Studies” established at the International Conference to

Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust, stated:

“The Bolshevik Soviet government in Lenin’s time, and later, in Stalin’s - both of whom were Jewish, though they presented themselves as Marxists and atheists... - was one of the forces that, until the Second World War, cooperated with Hitler in promoting the idea of establishing the State of Israel.”50

47 Hillgruber, Andreas (1987). “War in the East and the Extermination of the Jews” 18. Yad Vashem Studies. pp. 103–132. 48 Förster (op. cit... p. 126). 49 Förster (op. cit... p. 127). 50 Mohammad Ali Ramin, Advisor to Iranian President Ahmadinejad: ‘Hitler Was Jewish’". Middle East Media Research Institute. 3 January 2007.

Was Lenin a Jew?

In respect to Lenin, many have sought to prove his Jewish credentials to

strengthen the Jewish Bolshevik association. Lenin however was a

contrary mixed character. He is generally thought to have been of mostly

Russian and Kalmuck ancestry, and thus was only one-quarter Jewish.

His maternal grandfather, on his mother’s side, was Israel (Alexander)

Blank, a Ukrainian Jew, who was later baptised into the Russian

Orthodox Church. Jewish lineage is passed down on the mother’s side,

although others have sought to emphasise him only as a thorough-going

Marxist internationalist; a characteristic and quality that fits with

Lenin’s view that ethnic or cultural loyalties should be viewed with

contempt. This however does not fit with other comments he made

concerning his disregard for his non-Jewish Russian countrymen in

contrast to his view of the superiority of the Jews:

“An intelligent Russian is almost always a Jew or someone with Jewish blood in his veins.”

Lenin was born in Simbirsk, a part of the Russian Empire (now

Ulyanovsk), as the son of Ilya Nikolaevich Ulyanov, a Russian official in

public education, who worked for progressive democracy and free

universal education in Russia. His mother was Maria Alexandrovna

Ulyanova. Her father was (allegedly) Alexandr Blank (born Israel Blank),

a well-to-do physician who was a Jewish convert to Orthodox

Christianity. Her mother, Anna Ivanovna Groschopf, was the daughter of

a German father, Johann Groschopf, and a Swedish mother, Anna

Östedt.51 In this respect then, no more can be accurately said other than

51 Read, Christopher (2005). “Lenin: A Revolutionary Life”. Routledge.

that Lenin’s extended family was certainly of mixed ethnic ancestry.

Lenin’s antecedents were Russian, Kalmyk, Jewish, German and

Swedish, and possibly others besides. Lenin himself was baptised into

the Russian Orthodox Church.

In respect to Lenin, however, as with Stalin (and many of the key figures

of the revolution) a number of statements (some contradictory) have

been cited. These have contributed to the inaccurate emphasis on his

Jewishness. First, more generally Herbert T. Fitch “Traitors Within” (p.

16) describes Lenin as :

“ a smooth-headed, oval-faced, narrow-eyed, typical Jew, with a devilish sureness in every line of his powerful magnetic face. Beside him was a different type of Jew, the kind one might see in any Soho shop, strong-nosed, sallow-faced, long-moustached,with a little tuft of beard wagging from his chin and a great shock of wild hair, Leiba Bronstein, afterwards Lev Trotsky.”

Whilst Major-General, Count Cherep-Spiridovich in “The Secret World

Government” (p. 36) comments:

“Lenin, or Oulianov by adoption, originally Zederbaum, a Kalmuck Jew, married a Jewess, and whose children speak Yiddish.”

Concerning his true parentage, another statement concerns the German

Goldman Family as Lenin’s Parents by D. Petrovsky in his “Russia under

the Jews” (p. 86):

“Lenin, as a child, was left behind, there, by a company of prisoners passing through, and later his Jewish convict father, Ilko Sroul Goldman, wrote inquiring his whereabouts. Lenin had already been picked up and adopted by Qulianoff.”

Another source also supports the Goldman Family as Lenin’s true Jewish

Parentage (“Common Sense” dated April 1, 1963):

“Lenin was born on April 10, 1870 in the vicinity of Odessa, South of Russia, as a son of Ilko Sroul Goldmann, a German Jew, and Sofie Goldmann, a German Jewess. Lenin was circumcised as Hiam Goldmann.”

Whereas, more generally, it is not in dispute that Lenin had Jewish

relatives, the extent of his ideological view being shaped by ideas that

were also in some sense quintessentially “Jewish” can only indirectly be

made via a reference to Dr. Chaim Weizmann in “The London Jewish

Chronicle” (Dec 16 1932) who wrote:

“Lenin had taken part in Jewish student meetings in Switzerland thirty-five years before.”

Whilst this was a long time before his ideological views truly formed, his

connection with “International Jews” has also been suggested as Lenin's

Funding for the Red Revolution

can be traced to financing from American and British Jews. This is

attested in “Red Symphony” (p. 252):

“...the main purveyors of funds for the revolution, however, were neither the crackpot Russian millionaires nor the armed bandits of Lenin. The 'real' money primarily came from certain British and American circles which for a long time past had lent their support to the Russian revolutionary cause...The important part played by the wealthy American Jewish Banker, Jacob Schiff, in the events in Russia...is no longer a secret.”

Debunking the international Jewish conspiracy

Henry Wickham Steed in his “Through 30 Years 1892-1922” (vol.2 p.

302) details how he attempted to bring the idea of an international

Jewish conspiracy thesis to the attention of Colonel Edward M. House

and President Woodrow Wilson. One day in March 1919 Wickham Steed

called Colonel House and found him disturbed over Steed’s recent

criticism of U.S. recognition of the Bolsheviks. Steed pointed out to

House that Wilson would be discredited among the many peoples and

nations of Europe and insisted that, unknown to him, the chief culprits

were Jacob Schiff, Warburg and other international financiers, who

wished above all to support the Jewish Bolsheviks in order to secure a

field for German and Jewish exploitation of Russia. According to Steed,

Colonel House argued for the establishment of economic relations with

the Soviet Union.

A collection of documents that purportedly support the theory of the

financing of the revolution by a conspiracy of Jews exists in the State

Department Decimal File 861.00/5339. The central document is one

entitled “Bolshevism and Judaism”, dated November 13, 1918. The text is

in the form of a report, which states that the revolution in Russia was

engineered in February 1916, and (I quote):

“…it was found that the following persons and firms were engaged in this destructive work: (1) Jacob Schiff (Jew) (2) Kuhn, Loeb & Company (Jewish Firm) Management: Jacob Schiff (Jew) Felix Warburg (Jew) Otto H. Kahn (Jew) Mortimer L. Schiff (Jew) Jerome J. Hanauer (Jew) (3) Guggenheim (Jew) (4) Max Breitung (Jew) (5) Isaac Seligman (Jew)”

The report goes on to assert that there can be no doubt that the Russian

Revolution was started and engineered by this group of international

financiers; that in April 1917 Jacob Schiff in fact made a public

announcement; and that it was due to his financial influence that the

Russian revolution was successfully accomplished. It supports the view

that in the Spring of 1917 Jacob Schiff started to finance Trotsky, for the

purpose of accomplishing a social revolution in Russia. The report also

contains other information about Max Warburg’s financing of Trotsky;

the role of the Rheinish-Westphalian syndicate, and Olof Aschberg’s

influence in the Nya Banken (Stockholm) together with Jivotovsky. The

anonymous author states that the links between these organisations and

their financing of the Bolshevik Revolution show how:

“the link between Jewish multi-millionaires and Jewish proletarians was forged.”52 The report goes on to list a large number of Bolsheviks who were also

Jews, and then describes the actions of Paul Warburg, Judus Magnes,

Kuhn, Loeb & Company, and Speyer & Company.

Accompanying this report are a number of cables between the State

Department in Washington and the American embassy in London and

concern the steps to be taken. The U.S. State Dept. Decimal File,

861.00/5399 is cited here from Anthony Sutton’s “Wall Street and the

Bolshevik Revolution” (Appendix 3) and reads as follows:

5399 Great Britain, TEL. 3253 1 pm October 16, 1919 In

Confidential File

Secret for Winslow from Wright. Financial aid to Bolshevism & Bolshevik Revolution in Russia from prominent Am. Jews: Jacob Schiff, Felix Warburg, Otto Kahn, Mendell Schiff, Jerome Hanauer, Max Breitung & one of the Guggenheims. Document re- in possession of Brit. police authorities from French sources. Asks for any facts re-.

52 The anonymous author was a Russian employed by the U.S. War Trade Board. One of the three directors of the U.S. War Trade Board at this time was John Foster

Dulles.

Oct. 17 Great Britain TEL. 6084, noon r c-h 5399 Very secret. Wright from Winslow. Financial aid to Bolshevik revolution in Russia from prominent Am. Jews. No proof re- but investigating. Asks to urge Brit. authorities to suspend publication at least until receipt of document by Dept. Nov. 28 Great Britain TEL. 6223 R 5 pro. 5399 FOR WRIGHT. Document re financial aid to Bolsheviki by prominent American jews. Reports — identified as French translation of a statement originally prepared in English by Russian citizen in Am. etc. Seem most unwise to give — the distinction of publicity. It was agreed to suppress this material and the files conclude, "I think we have the whole thing in cold storage."

Another document marked “Top Secret” was also included. The origin of

the document is unknown; it may perhaps be a communique from the

FBI or Military Intelligence. It also reviews a translation of the Protocols

of Zion and concludes:

“In this connection a letter was sent to Mr. W. enclosing a memorandum from us with regard to certain information from the American Military Attache to the effect that the British authorities had letters intercepted from various groups of international Jews setting out a scheme for world dominion. Copies of this material will be very useful to us.”

This information was apparently developed and a later British

intelligence report makes the bald charge:

“SUMMARY: There is now definite evidence that Bolshevism is an international movement controlled by Jews; communications are passing between the leaders in America, France, Russia and England with a view to concerted action....”53

The value of the evidence to support an international Jewish-Bolshevik

conspiracy thesis is however sniffed at by Anthony Sutton himself

(op.cit.) who claims none of the above statements can be supported with

53 Great Britain, Directorate of Intelligence, A Monthly Review of the Progress of Revolutionary Movements Abroad, no. 9, July 16, 1913 (861.99/5067).

hard empirical evidence. The most significant information being only

that the British authorities claimed to possess “letters intercepted from

various groups of international Jews” setting out a scheme for world

domination. No such letters have ever been verified however, and as

Sutton comments, if such letters did exist they would indeed provide

support for the Jewish conspiracy thesis, whilst also substantiating the

view that other revolutions had also been the work of a worldwide

Jewish plot. However and more importantly he asserts:

“when statements and assertions are not supported by hard evidence and where attempts to unearth hard evidence lead in a circle back to the starting point- particularly when everyone is quoting everyone else- then we must reject the story as spurious.”

There is no hard data to suppose that Jews were involved in the

Bolshevik Revolution because they were Jewish,54 even if there is an

amount of controversial circumstantial evidence to perpetuate a false

line of reasoning.

As Sutton asserts (op.cit. Appendix 3) to underline the point:

“There may indeed have been a higher proportion of Jews involved, but given tsarist treatment of Jews, what else would we expect? There were probably many Englishmen or persons of English origin in the American Revolution fighting the redcoats. So what? Does that make the American Revolution an English conspiracy?” 54 It cannot be proven true as a correct syllogism that:

1. Lenin and Stalin were Bolsheviks.

2. Many Bolsheviks were Jews.

3. Therefore Lenin and Stalin were Jews.

It can however clearly be shown to be a fallacious line of reasoning that many does

not equate to all when both Lenin and Stalin were not Jewish.

As noted, Winston Churchill’s more general statement is often cited in

support of the fact it was a popularly held view, but considering his

distinctions he appears to be asserting only that a minority of Jews had

“a very great role” in the Bolshevik Revolution. His error however, was in

the citing of Mrs Webster as a proof of a more widespread, coordinated

international Jewish conspiracy. Her later fascist sympathies were well

known, and she often had a tendency to mysticism.55 Her specialist work

is rather theoretical more than factual, and is in any case poorly sourced.

56

The list of Jews involved in the Bolshevik Revolution must be weighed

against lists of non-Jews involved. When this measure is used, the

proportion of foreign Jewish Bolsheviks falls by Sutton’s estimate to less

than 20% of the total number of revolutionaries and of those, many were

deported, murdered, or sent to Siberia in the following years.

55 Webster became involved in several right-wing groups including the British Fascists, the Anti-Socialist Union, The Link, and the British Union of Fascists. She was also the leading writer of "The Patriot", an anti-Semitic paper. Webster dismissed much of the persecution of the Jews by Nazi Germany as exaggeration and propaganda. 56 Webster also published “Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, The Need for Fascism in Great Britain”, “The Menace of Communism” (with Mrs. Katherine Atkinson) and “The Origin and Progress of the World Revolution”. In the latter book, published in 1921, she wrote: “What mysteries of iniquity would be revealed if the Jew, like the mole, did not make a point of working in the dark! Jews have never been more Jews than when we tried to make them men and citizens.” In her books, Webster argued that Bolshevism was part of a much older and more secret, self-perpetuating conspiracy. She described three possible sources for this conspiracy: Zionism, Pan-Germanism, or “the occult power”. She stated that she leaned towards Zionism as the most likely culprit of the three. She also claimed that even if the Protocols were fake, they still describe how Jews behave.

Sutton (ibid Appendix 3 Document 3 c) makes a fairly good case based

on the evidence of documents in the State Department files that the

investment banker Jacob Schiff, cited as a source of funds for the

Bolshevik Revolution, was in fact against support of the Bolshevik

regime.57 This position being in contrast to the Morgan-Rockefeller

promotion of the Bolsheviks. He cites an important series of letters to

refute as he claims “the story of a Jewish bank conspiracy behind the

Bolshevik Revolution.”

Clearly Jacob Schiff was not interested in supporting the Kerensky

Liberty Loan based on the evidence, and Schiff even went to the trouble

of drawing State Department attention to Kamenka’s pleas for Allied

intervention against the Bolsheviks. Obviously Schiff and fellow banker

Kamenka, unlike J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller, were as unhappy

about the increasingly absolutist nature of the Bolsheviks as they had

been about the tsars. In this respect Sutton comments:

“The persistence with which the Jewish-conspiracy myth has been pushed suggests that it may well be a deliberate device to divert attention from the real issues and the real causes. The evidence provided… suggests that the New York bankers who were also Jewish had relatively minor roles in supporting the Bolsheviks, while the New York bankers who were also Gentiles (Morgan, Rockefeller, Thompson) had major

57 DOCUMENT NO. 3 Consists of four parts: (a) Cable from Ambassador Francis, April 27, 1917, in Petrograd to Washington, D.C., requesting transmission of a message from prominent Russian Jewish bankers to prominent Jewish bankers in New York and requesting their subscription to the Kerensky Liberty Loan (861.51/139). (b) Reply from Louis Marshall (May 10, 1917) representing American Jews; he declined the invitation while expressing support for the American Liberty Loan (861.51/143). (c) Letter from Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb (November 25, 1918) to State Department (Mr. Polk) relaying a message from Russian Jewish banker Kamenka calling for Allied help against the Bolsheviks ("because Bolshevist government does not represent Russian People"). (d) Cable from Kamenka relayed by Jacob Schiff.

roles. What better way to divert attention from the real operators than by the medieval bogeyman of anti-Semitism?”58 58 In respect to this too, Solzhenitzyn makes a number of statements in his Two

Hundred Years Together (op.cit. p.113). First he notes the support of Schiff for

Zionism:

“In April, the Zionist movement was strongly reinforced by the public announcement of Jacob Schiff, who had decided to join Zionists because of fear of Jewish assimilation as a result of Jewish civil equality in Russia. He believed that Palestine could become the center to spread ideals of Jewish culture all over the world.” A little earlier he comments on his support for the liberation from persecution he

presumed the Revolution would bring (p.104):

“ The newspapers Birzhevka, Rech and many others reported on the sympathies of Jacob Schiff, “a well-known leader of North American circles that are hostile to Russia.” He wrote: “I was always the enemy of Russian absolutism, which mercilessly persecuted my co-religionists. Now let me congratulate … the Russian people for this great act which they committed so perfectly.” Schiff, then, extended an invitation indicative of continuing support. Solzhenitsyn

claims he:

“invites the new Russia to conduct broad credit operations in America. Indeed, “at the time he provided substantial credit to the Kerensky government.” Later in emigration, the exiled Russian right-wing press published investigative reports attempting to show that Schiff actively financed the Revolution itself.” Notably Solzhenitsyn cites sources from Birzheviye Vedomosti, dated March 10,

1917, (pages 3, 6). Whereas Sutton’s sources based on the later dated telegrams April

1917, and more particularly the letter dated November 1918, shows a change of heart

by Schiff against the emerging Communist state absolutism. Hence his later public

support for Jewish nationalism, rather than Bolshevism as a means to safeguard the

propagation of Jewish values. His change of heart at the emerging Communist

absolutism explains Solzhenitsyn’s remark:

“Perhaps Schiff shared the short-sighted Western hope that the liberal revolution in Russia would strengthen Russia in the war. Still, the known and public acts of Schiff, who had always been hostile to Russian absolutism, had even greater effect than any possible secret assistance to such a revolution.”

Jewish attitudes and loyalties in a shifting scenario In October in Petrograd I. Trumpeldor had organised Jewish self-

defence forces for protection against pogroms, but they were never

needed. As Solzhenitsyn notes in his Two Hundred Years Together:

“Russian minds were confused, and so were Jewish ones” (op.cit. p.128).

Overriding the confusion however the collective spirit of a Jewish

nihilism arose, causing G. Landau to comment (op.cit 128-129):

“Jewish participation in the Russian turmoil had astonishingly suicidal overtones in it; I am referring not only to their role in Bolshevism, but to their involvement in the whole thing. And it is not just about the huge number of politically active people, socialists and revolutionaries, who have joined the revolution; I am talking mainly about the broad sympathy of the masses it was met with…. Although many harboured pessimistic expectations, in particular, an anticipation of pogroms, they were still able to reconcile such a foreboding with an acceptance of turmoil which unleashed countless miseries and pogroms. It resembled the fatal attraction of butterflies to fire, to the annihilating fire…It is certain there were some strong motives pushing the Jews into that direction, and yet those were clearly suicidal…. Granted, Jews were not different in that from the rest of Russian intelligentsia and from the Russian society…. Yet we had to be different … we, the ancient people of city-dwellers, merchants, artisans, intellectuals … we had to be different from the people of land and power, from peasants, landowners, officials.” The eight-month period between the February Revolution and the

Bolshevik coup d’état of October was defined by the uneasy coexistence

of two competing political authorities. A Provisional Government was

formed by a group of former Duma deputies and won widespread

recognition, if not deep loyalty. At the same time, the “workers’ councils”

(or Soviets) of the Revolution of 1905 were revived by a small group of

socialist intellectuals. They proclaimed themselves the “Executive

Committee of the Council of Workers’ Deputies” before any actual

council was formed, and their so-called Executive Committee remained a

more important body than the council it called into being. Plenary

sessions of the two to three-thousand member “Petrograd Soviet”, in

whose name it spoke, became an impotent forum for rhetoric.

There were no constitutional rules to define the spheres of authority of

the Provisional Government and the Soviet’s Executive Committee. What

actually happened was that the Executive Committee assumed a

“supervisory” role in relation to the Provisional Government, thwarting

its purposes as it saw fit, whilst simultaneously it refused to take upon

itself the responsibilities of governing. In Solzhenitsyn’s words:

“The EC was a shadow government of the worst sort: it deprived the Provisional Government of all real power while criminally avoiding the direct and open assumption of power itself.” (p. 46).

The result was paralysis at the heart of government and the perfect

conditions for an eventual takeover by a determined and ruthless

minority. A symptom of this paralysis was evident in the Executive

Committee, where for several weeks its own membership was not even

divulged:

“. . . several of the members hide behind pseudonyms and for two months refused to appear in public: no one knew exactly who was governing Russia. Later it came out that there were ten stupid soldiers in the EC for show, kept at arm’s length. Among the rest—the thirty active members—more than half were Jewish socialists. There were Russians, Caucasians, Latvians, and Poles, but the Russians amounted to less than a quarter of the whole. A moderate socialist, Stankevitch, noted that “the most striking thing about the composition of the EC was the number of foreign elements . . . out of all proportion with their numbers in Petrograd or in the country.” (p. 47)

These men were chosen to represent neither their own nationalities, nor

the people of Russia, but the various socialist parties: Mensheviks,

Bolsheviks, Socialist Revolutionaries, and so forth. As such it was a

question not of national, religious or racial distinctions, but of political

ideology. After June, the EC was replaced by a smaller Central Executive

Committee of nine persons: five were Jewish, only one Russian (p. 67).

In view of these statistics and subsequent events, however, it has largely

been forgotten that most politically active Jews in Russia that year were

not involved with these socialist parties at all:

“In the course of the summer and autumn of 1917, the Zionist movement continued to gather strength in Russia: in September it had 300,000 adherents. Less known is that Orthodox Jewish organisations enjoyed great popularity in 1917, yielding only to the Zionists and surpassing the socialist parties.” (p. 54)

Furthermore, most Jews who did belong to socialist parties were not

Bolsheviks.

“during the year 1917 Jews were proportionally much more numerous in leading positions among the Mensheviks, right Socialist Revolutionaries, left Socialist Revolutionaries and anarchists than among the Bolsheviks.” (p. 65).

Shortly before the Bolshevik Putsch, however, the Jewish socialists

“Natanson, Kamkov, and Steinberg formed an alliance with Trotsky and

Kamenev in the name of the left Socialist Revolutionaries.” (p. 81). This

brief alliance was useful to Lenin in giving the false impression that the

new “Soviet” government was far more than a mere front for the

Bolshevik Party. As Solzhenitsyn writes:

“It must be stated clearly that the October Putsch was not led by the Jews (except for the glorious Trotsky and the young and dynamic Grigori Chudnovsky)” (op. cit... p. 80).

He remarks that there were also some Jews in the Winter Palace

defending the Provisional Government from the Bolsheviks, and recalls

meeting one of them in a Soviet prison later himself.

The new government’s first challenge was a mass strike of service

personnel in support of the deposed Provisional Government. Ministry

buildings barred their doors against the new “Soviet Commissars”;

Trotsky became an object of ridicule and ejected from the Defence

Ministry. Most importantly, banks refused Bolshevik demands for funds.

In 1919, Lenin specifically credited his Jewish followers for keeping him in

power until this point:

“immediately after October, it was the Jews who saved the revolution by breaking the resistance of the civil servants.” (p. 105).

Lenin’s team claimed at first to be a mere caretaker government pending

the convocation of a Constituent Assembly. Elections for such an

assembly had been scheduled by the Provisional Government for

November 12th, and the Bolsheviks reluctantly allowed them to go ahead

in the hope of dominating the resulting body. However their rivals, the

Socialist Revolutionary Party, won a large majority. This was a surprise

in respect of Jewish influence, as most Jewish voters at this time were

supporting Zionist parties. The Constituent Assembly was forcibly

dispersed the night after it convened, January 6, 1918, and all Bolshevik

pretenses to democratic legitimacy were then jettisoned.

Solzhenitsyn discusses some of the arguments used by Jewish apologists

to excuse or palliate Jewish involvement in Bolshevik rule. He accepts

the common argument that the Jewish Bolsheviks were “renegades”, i.e.

“not Jews in spirit”. He points out, however, that the same was true of

Russian Bolsheviks, and denies that any nation may simply disown its

renegades:

“for if we release ourselves from all responsibility for the actions of our national kin, the very concept of a nation loses any real meaning.” (p. 132).

“There are many Jewish authors who to this very day either deny the support of Jews for Bolshevism, or even reject it angrily, or else-the most common case-only speak defensively about it. The matter is well-attested, however: these Jewish renegades were for several years leaders at the center of the Bolshevik Party, at the head of the Red Army (Trotsky), of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (Sverdlov), of the two capitals (Zinoviev and Kamenev), of the Comintern (Zinoviev), of the Profintern (Dridzo-Lozovsky), and of the Komsomol (Oskar Ryvkin, then Lazar Shatskin).” (p. 91).

Socialists of this type were of course “internationalists”, and Trotsky was

especially emphatic in rejecting his ethnic lineage. But does it necessarily

follow that he was not influenced by it, or its common cultural

connections? To judge by the appointments he made Solzhenitsyn

observes:

“Jewish renegades were closer to him than Russian renegades” (p. 92).

Particularly striking too was his appointment of the incompetent Jewish

doctor Sklianski to a high post in the Commissariat of War.

The author goes on to discuss the roles of the Jews Uritsky, Drabkin, and

Sverdlov in dispersing the Constituent Assembly, concluding with the

observation:

“by these sorts of operations the new Jewish form of government was sketched out.” (p. 93).

He reproduces the remarks of some contemporary observers:

“you see nothing but Latvians upon Latvians, Jews upon Jews. I have never been an anti-Semite, but here there were so many it leapt out at you, and each one younger than the next.” (I. F. Nazhivin’s impressions at the very beginning of Soviet power at the Kremlin in the administration of the Sovnarkom). So too there is the writer Vladimir Korolenko a liberal and tolerant

man who wrote in his journal in the Spring of 1919:

“Among the Bolsheviks there are a great number of Jewish men and women. Their tactlessness, their self-assurance are striking and irritating. . . . In their ranks, and above all in the Cheka [the secret police], you constantly see Jewish physiognomies, and this exacerbates the still virulent traditional feelings of Judeophobia.” (p. 99)

Another witness quoted by Solzhenitsyn specifies that most of the heads

of prisons were Poles and Latvians, while the section charged with

combating black marketers, those he considered the “least dangerous

and most lucrative” were “in the hands of Jews” (p. 94). Jews are also

said to have been unusually noticeable in the organs charged with

provisioning (p. 97). Solzhenitsyn too also lists the now familiar names

of ten Jewish bankers who provided the important financial services for

the Bolsheviks (p. 115).

Some Jews were also implicated in the murder of the Imperial family,

notably Sverdlov (who transmitted the order from Moscow) and Urovsky

(who led the execution squad), but Solzhenitsyn believes the point has

been exaggerated in recent years by certain Russian nationalists “who

take a morbid pleasure in this agonizing thought” (p. 100). Most of the

executioners were Hungarian prisoners of war; ultimate responsibility

for the crime rested with Lenin.

The Bolshevik Putsch led to a split in Jewish parties such as the Bund and

the Zionist-Socialists. Those who would not support Lenin either

emigrated or were suppressed. The left wings of two Zionist-Socialist

groupings then joined the Communist Party en masse in 1919 and 1921.

In effect, the left wing of the Bund simply dissolved, with many of its

members joining the Communists. According to an internal survey of

1926, 2,500 Bundists had become Party members. Many Mensheviks,

Jewish and otherwise, did likewise. Most of these would later face

persecution under Stalin (pp. 118–19).

Of course there were Jews who resisted Soviet power, but as Solzhenitsyn notes:

“they did not have any way of making themselves heard publicly, and the present pages are naturally filled not with their names but with those who guided the course of events” (p. 123).

He does however, quite rightly relate the stories of two Jews who are

known to have sacrificed their lives fighting the new regime. Leonid

Kannegiesser assassinated Moisei Uritsky, a Jewish Chekist, explaining

in a letter to his sister that (among other motives) he was ashamed to see

Jews helping to install the Bolsheviks into power. Also Alexander

Abramovich Vilenkin, four-times decorated cavalry officer, who was shot

in 1918 for belonging to a clandestine anti-Bolshevik Organisation.

“These combatants of Bolshevism, whatever may have been their motivation—we honour their memory as Jews. We deplore that there were so few of them, just as the White forces in the Civil War were too few” (p. 125).

Solzhenitsyn writes that in 1918 Trotsky, with the aid of Sklianski and

Yakov Sverdlov, created the Red Army and Jewish soldiers were

numerous in its ranks. Several units of the Red Army were composed

entirely of Jews, as, for example, the brigade commanded by Joseph

Forman. Among the officers of the Red Army, the share of Jews grew in

number and importance for many years after the Civil War. (p. 135).

According to one of the author’s Jewish sources:

“the proportion of Jews in the position of Political Adjuncts was especially high at all levels of the Red Army.” (p. 136).

Of special interest to this is the Cheka, the secret political police who

carried out the Red Terror and eventually built the Gulag. In their early

phase, national minorities composed almost 50 percent of the central

apparatus of the Cheka, and nearly 70 percent of the responsible posts.

An inventory on 25 September 1918 reveals a considerable number of

Jews, along with a great number of Latvians and a not insignificant

number of Poles. In addition, in respect to the judges assigned to the

struggle against counter-revolution, by far the most important section in

the structure of the Cheka were Jews, the number of which constituted

about 50% (p. 142–43).

The Ukrainian Cheka, in what used to be the Pale of Settlement, was

composed of about 80% of Jews (p. 150). In Kiev, which was 21% Jewish

in 1919 (p. 156), key positions in the Cheka were “almost exclusively” in

Jewish hands. Of the twenty members of the commission which decided

people’s fate, fourteen were Jews (p. 148).

The Kievan Cheka even published a newsletter, “The Red Sword”, which

offers an unusual glimpse into the minds of those who carried out the

Terror. In an article by its Jewish editor-in-chief Leon Kraini we read:

“For us there cannot be any question of encumbering ourselves with old principles of morality and humanitarianism invented by the bourgeoisie.”

Schwartz echoes his sentiments:

“The Red Terror which has been proclaimed must be carried out in a proletarian fashion. . . If in order to institute the dictatorship of the proletariat in the whole world it is necessary to annihilate all the servants of tsarism and capitalism, we will not hesitate to do so.” (p. 141).

Vasily Shulgin, an old political ally of Stolypin,59 witnessed an enormous

exodus from Kiev on October 1st, 1919 as the town was about to be

occupied by the Bolsheviks. Some 60,000 Russians, according to his

estimate, left on foot with nothing more than what they could carry. At

the time there were some 100,000 Jews living in Kiev.

“But there were no Jews in this exodus; you could not see any among these thousands of Russians. They did not want to share our destiny.”

Even the wealthiest “bourgeois” Jews preferred to take their chances

with the Bolsheviks (pp. 149–50).

In connection with this Sergei Maslov, author of “Russia after Four Years

of Revolution” wrote:

“In the towns of southern Russia, especially the Western half of the Ukraine which changed hands several times, the advent of Soviet power gave rise to ostentatious sympathy and the greatest joy in the Jewish quarters, and often nowhere else.” (p. 150).

This celebration of self-centred sympathy and joy was ultimately to be

eclipsed by fear. It was to be endured far longer in the regime of

persecution and terror that swiftly arose. It would later be seized upon

not only by the dominating figure of Joseph Stalin, and his iron will of

59 Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin served as Prime Minister and the leader of the third Duma, from 1906 to 1911. His tenure was marked by efforts to counter revolutionary groups and by the implementation of noteworthy agrarian reforms. Stolypin's reforms aimed to stem peasant unrest by creating a class of market-oriented smallholding landowners. He is considered one of the last major statesmen of Imperial Russia to show clearly defined public policies with a will to implement major reforms.

power, but also find its nadir in the horrors and tribulations of yet

another world war.

Debunking the Jewish tribalism thesis

The Jewish-Bolshevik thesis as it exists today has largely been

propagated by such writers as David Duke in “The Secret Behind

Communism”. His thesis, however, appears to rest largely on a

preconceived interpretation of historical evidence gleaned and filtered in

support of his views on Jewish tribalism. Doctor Duke does offer a great

deal in support for his views, but rather takes for granted a biologically

based, evolutionary perspective for group behaviour. This is the kind of

theory advocated by his friend Professor Kevin Macdonald. 60 Doctor

Duke’s broad themes at any rate can be briefly dealt with and assessed

here.

Essentially, Dr Duke proposes a Jewish led and inspired Russian

revolution, despite a great percentage of Russians of differing ethnicity,

religious background and political views participating. This alienated,

non-Russian, war-like race of Jews, who possibly originated from

Khazaria,61 converted to Talmudic Judaism from a “serpent religion”,

60 K.B. Macdonald “The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements” (Praeger 1998). One problem with Dr. MacDonald's thesis of an evolutionary strategy for Jewish advancement is that the liberal, university Jews who are inclined towards cultural Marxism tend to be universalist, and accordingly have a high rate of intermarriage. They also exhibit a low level of support for Israel. Torah aligned Jews also do not support Israel. This does not seem like a very good recipe for "ethnic cohesiveness". 61 The Khazarian thesis is notably claimed by Frank Britton (op. cit). Doctor Duke recently claimed, after many years of believing, he now no longer believes the Jews originated from Khazaria. See here. But this simply strengthens my criticism that he

and over generations preserved their racial and cultural distinctions in a

competitive tribal mentality. Revolution was to be utilised for their own

devious advantage, and was a historical manifestation reflective of their

inner nature, which is often described more generally in a universal,

negative, anti-Semitic fashion. As Doctor Duke asserts (p.255):

“We are dealing with a group who, firstly, genuinely believe that they are chosen by God to be superior to everyone else-hence they call non-Jews cattle, or goyim, to be herded along like inferior creatures, and who, secondly, continually fear persecution which they know and understand, even subconsciously, to be the inevitable result of their own scandalous behaviour toward the goyim, should their victims ever attain a degree of racial consciousness and understanding of what the Jews are doing.”

The Khazarian thesis is often promulgated by those critical of Jews and

conflated with a presumption of supremacism. However in recent years,

after being an advocate, Duke now asserts that the theory is possibly one

promulgated by “controlled opposition” who wish to deflect from:

“…the proven historical record that Jewish Supremacist behaviour is common to both Ashkenazim and Sephardic Jewish extremists.”62

In this he also claims what we face is not:

“… a “Khazar” problem, it is a Jewish problem, it is a problem of extremist Jewish racism and supremacism which continually plunges our world into war, hatred, tyranny and degradation.”

believes the Jewish extremists responsible for murder share in their DNA something quintessentially Jewish. It is this racial Jewishness for Duke which unites them and reinforces a shared psychological tendency, reinforces a stronger sense of tribal identification and which drives their group behaviour. This facilitates and exacerbates murder according to the group evolutionary theory. It is then fundamentally ethnocentric supremacism, a vile racist theory advocating logically a universal tendency amongst Jews by virtue of being genetically Jewish. 62 See here.

This, he claims, is proven by the fact that Israel uses DNA tests to check

if potential immigrants to that country are Jewish or not.

“If there was a wide divergence between Ashkenazim and Sephardic Jewry, as the “Khazar theory” would maintain, then it would not be possible for Israel to genetically distinguish who is a Jew and who is not.” (webpage).

This ethnocentric supremacist view of a quintessentially “Jewish”

behaviour, Duke claims, is the result of a tribal mentality informed by an

evolutionary group behavioural psychology.

“Jewish tribalism (racism) and favoritism and preference for fellow Jews combined with discrimination against non-Jews ultimately enables them to take over almost any institution. Without Jewish racism, Zionism could not flourish, for that is what gives the Jewish extremists its enormous economic, media and political influence.” (webpage).

In this there is no:

“…tightly directed conspiracy going back hundreds or thousands of years, it is a loose conspiracy in the classic sense of a group banding together for its own perceived interests.” (The Secret Behind Communism p.255).

In respect to this tribal mentality, that exerts itself as a desire for

“advancing their ethnic supremacy”, Duke yet recognises the apparent

contradiction: namely that Jews themselves are sometimes not always in

agreement as to the best strategy to utilise in order to achieve this.

Contrarily, he uses this as an explanation for why:

“…we had two sectors of Jews sometimes working together and sometimes fighting: the Communists and the Zionists.” (op. cit.p. 255).63

Immediately it appears ideological distinctions override tribal loyalties,

undercutting Duke’s thesis. For unlike the “Russian revolution” thesis

that rests on ideological distinctions, the view of a Jewish-Bolshevik

thesis rests on the view that Jews primarily were sympathetic to the

cause, and some of whatever number instigated revolution based on a

racial tribal imperative. Jewish counter revolutionaries do not really

figure in such an approach, nor are they emphasised. This does not

however mean they did not exist, even if such dissent was largely

silenced by those who wielded the levers of power and guided the course

of history. The emphasis for a Jewish revolutionary thesis rests, then,

largely on a justification along racial and tribal lines, but in such a

scenario, why would their fellow Jews of the tribe seek to override their

interests?

Duke finds both of these groups damaging to the majority of non Jews

amongst whom they live and as a consequence:

“Because these interests may be detrimental to the majority of the population…they must develop deceptive strategies for maintaining their influences and power.” (op. cit. p.255).

63 For Duke, in “The Secret Behind Communism”, Zionism and Communism both display Jewish motivations, originating from a biogenetic urge to act, and manifest in their histories. This is because they have “similar ethnic and ideological roots”. He points to Karl Marx particularly here who was descended from a long line of Talmudic scholars, and who learned much of his Communist theory from Moses Hess, whom he claims “later morphed into a rabid Jewish racial supremacist and Zionist.” But in this he fails to consider sufficient social and cultural influences from what might be termed the White Occident (using his own world view).

In this, he places Communists and Zionists together into one group,

characterising them both as deceivers and united as Jews in their

common concern to secure influence and power. He fails to explain how

or why destroying the society in which they themselves need to live and

function can be of benefit to their ambitions and aims to further

themselves. He also fails to satisfactorily explain why at times one

Jewish group’s ideology should override tribal loyalties and fight another

Jewish group in competing and conflicting interests. He seeks only to

emphasise the tribe collectively and its root imperatives. By virtue of

this, he is logically obliged to emphasise their loyalties to race and

common concerns.

He supposes both groups, and by extension the vast majority of Jews, act

by virtue of the fact they are Jewish. In this, for Duke, both appear to be

presumed to have a common genetic base as Jews and this informs their

tribal proclivity, which in spite of Duke’s claims that not all Jews exhibit

such a characteristic tendency, contrarily suggests, by his reasoning, a

common characteristic or tendency to supremacism by virtue of their

gene class. The specific genetic based characteristic that causes this tribal

tendency to manifest and how it is lacking in other Jews is not

sufficiently explained, but a common characteristic for all Jews must be

logically presumed by Duke, if a motivational urge to act by virtue of

being Jewish is supposed. The reasoning, however, is fallacious in

respect to an ethnocentric tribal supremacism for Jews, and is indeed a

reductio ad absurdum argument. It implies that because one or any

number of Jews act in a specific way, all Jews act in the same way by

virtue of the universal of Jewishness.

In respect to the Revolution, these people hated Russians and the Tsar

for their alleged anti-Semitism it is claimed, characterised in the

enforced assimilation programme. Their fellow tribalists around the

world even financed them in a revolution to further their goals and

vouchsafe their survival. Eventually their shock troops overthrew the

Christian Russian monarchy and ultimately murdered them. Upon

achieving total power, their deep, psychopathic, racist hatred manifest

itself in one of the greatest human slaughters of all time.

As Duke asserts in his introduction to “The Secrets Behind

Communism”:

“Any historian who has truly studied modern Communism from its ideological origins with Karl Marx and Moses Hess, through the mass dispossession, forced starvations, and Gulags of the twentieth century, is aware that Communists are the real world champions of mass murder; for there is no historical dispute that Communist regime killed many times more innocents than did Hitler’s National Socialist Germany.”

Whilst this is indeed true in respect to Communism, the more pertinent

question in respect to Dr Duke’s thesis, is whether this is specifically in

whole or part the specific fault of the Jews. More specifically, whether

Jews act in some tribalistic nihilistic manner because of their

Jewishness? Anti-Semites want to say it is, because Jews were inspired

to act due to their “Jewishness” in some sense, and that this biological

characteristic informed a tribal mentality that reinforced their attitudes

and behaviour, which in turn helped form and implement their political

ideology. They do not want to simply accept that Bolsheviks were

Bolsheviks and some (of whatever disputed percentage) just happened to

be Jews. They prefer instead to deride any notions of individuality,

individualism, different social circumstance, historical events,

differences of political allegiance, or even chance, and rest their

prejudice in a racial, bio-genetic and by extension psychological

explanation that produces recognisable and determined patterns for a

group behavioural identity.

Whilst the logical inconsistency of this kind of reasoning is obvious, for

not all Jews act, think, or even believe the same things, it is a prejudice

that still blinds the mind. In Duke’s case it finds its most obvious

manifestation in his claim that Jewish prejudice (the notion of their

supremacism) is also an explanation for their “inbreeding” (op. cit.

p.255). This he claims produces not only Tay-Sachs disease but:

“unusually high levels of imbecility among Jews, to the point where you will even find exclusively Jewish mental asylums.” (op.cit. p.255).

The imbecility claim is an assertion not borne out by facts: neither in the

general acknowledgement of some Jews’ high academic achievements in

today’s universities, nor in the achievement of many Russian Jews’

remarkable ability to learn and succeed (even in trying times) during the

Tsarist era. That aside however, Duke’s particular interpretation is that

the group gene pool drives group psychology, and in turn reinforces the

Jewish proclivity for “inbreeding”. It exacerbates a general “paranoia”

manifest as fear (op.cit p.257-258), both in terms of “delusions of

grandeur and delusions of persecution” (p.253). Common psychological

traits promulgated not by others, who might hate or persecute them, but

because of, Duke claims, their own inherent disposition, which due to

cause and effect produces:

“… inevitable reactions to their own behaviour. And the persecutions in turn reinforce and fuel their own misanthropic behaviour.” (op. cit. p.258). Whilst accepting in some instances that some children do not exhibit

“Jewishness”, or the “common and prevailing tendencies” of every

member of the group, Duke finds this largely due to chance, an anomaly,

or a throw of the “genetic dice cup”. He accepts that actions and

environmental factors might also play their part to skew the imperative,

but overall there is a general biological predisposition to exhibit the fear,

paranoia and tribal racism that encourages a deviant desire for

supremacism, and rather like an individual who has a predisposition to

alcoholism, even if it has not manifest itself at the present moment, the

implication is it will necessarily arise in Jews at some point, because

they are genetically predisposed to it, given the suitable environment,

behaviour, or circumstances (op. cit. p.258). Indeed the theory tends to

supposing environment and culture are very much effected and formed

itself as a response to this biogenetic racial profile.

Duke is at pains to cover his rear guard time and time again by claiming

not all Jews display these characteristics. This reeks of hypocrisy

however, for his explanation leans on a racial and tribal explanation of

what constitutes Jewish behaviour, which in turn suggests a universal.

The innate proclivity to act in such a manner is characteristic of all Jews

because his view appeals to “genetics” and is universally race based. It is

this racial component that reinforces the tribal identification and the

imperative to act. It is a universal by virtue of his racial categorisation. A

position he seeks to strengthen with his appeal to a common gene pool

when he disputes the Khazar thesis.

In this objectionable reasoning too, which identifies a revolutionary and

murderous instinct as quintessentially Jewish, Duke fails to consider

even that this instinct may be a universal characteristic of human beings

more generally. Nor does he seek to explain the circumstances which

might exacerbate it or even justify it. He fails to consider that in specific

circumstances it may even amount to no more than an inherent tribal

instinct to survive, or that it could be an impulse to help members of the

group displayed in all races as human beings, if the circumstances of

history might appropriate such a response.

This human impulse may arise due to a perceived threat to their

particular tribe from others, or because of an enormous social or ethnic

change to their culture that exacerbates fear and triggers a need for

group survival. But in this reasoning then, it need not necessarily be

limited to Jews, but is a characteristic equally likely to be exhibited by

any and all humans that hold the perception or fear of a threat from

without, of the kind that the Germans themselves felt in the run up to

World War 2. Furthermore, it might just as equally be attributed to the

North American Indians, when they too felt their lands were being

invaded, or contrastingly the early European frontier settlers in the mid

West against the Indians. This psychological and very human response

is a shadow that is increasingly haunting modern day Europe and might

even have justified atrocities against the Jews themselves as a minority

but capable scapegoat. In this, then, Duke does not pay enough

consideration to the manner social and political events influence

psychological behaviour and the consequences of such events generally

on the reactions of human beings, nor does he apply his desire to

universalise to the wider scope of humankind.

But let us accept Duke’s claim that Jews particularly exhibit such

features to revolutionary and warlike behaviour and as a consequence

murder and genocide. Let us assume too, as he contrarily claims, that not

all Jews do exhibit such features.64 A claim overridden by his own recall

to genetic reasoning, and which by any rational measure proves him to

be an inconsistent thinker. Let us even put to one side his reasoning of

DNA evidence, biology, tribalism and ethnocentric supremacism that

labels him more generally a racist and an anti-Semite, and try to locate

the specific features that distinguish those Jews in his thinking from

other Jews; this in spite of the “common and prevailing tendencies”

(op.cit.) he alludes to due to their Jewishness. What then are the

distinctive features that manifest the Jewish ethnocentric tribalism to

support the claims he makes?

It appears Duke wants to distinguish the fact at least some Jews were:

followers of the Talmud (who later became Zionists)

Bolsheviks and therefore atheists.

A race plagued with an inbuilt sense of supremacism due to their

belief they are the “chosen people”.

Let us deal with the first two characteristic on the list first. We can deal

in more detail with why the supremacism claim is nonsense later.

Considering the first two claims, taken together this criticism of some

Jews would constitute a very large number suggestive of the majority of

Jews being revolutionaries and murderers during this time period in

Russia. But these two general classifications in themselves are

contradictory. They produce general assumptions to support a collective

tribal mentality for Duke, but it is by no means substantiated.

64 It is notable Duke generally speaks of Jewish extremists, rather than political extremists, or even Israeli extremists. This distinction emphasises his view of a racial imperative to extremism. It therefore makes a presupposition of a universal tendency amongst Jews by virtue of being Jewish.

First, and generally speaking, a Jew of religious persuasion is not an

atheist. They are therefore unlikely to be a Bolshevik. However, a Jewish

Bolshevik is an atheist. They cannot therefore believe in religion, or be

specifically motivated by the imperatives of religious belief in the

Talmud. Indeed this is why, as Duke himself recognises, they fought

against each other on points of principle. But in all of this, being a

Bolshevik need not necessitate being a Jew, nor being a Jew necessitate

being a Bolshevik. What then unites followers of the Talmud and

Bolsheviks in respect to them exhibiting a common characteristic as a

group for Duke? In all of this, it appears, Duke’s distinction rests on a

racial explanation for their behaviour, by virtue of them being

genetically Jewish. They exhibit or have “Jewishness” in some biological

sense. This causes them to have an innate tendency to act dangerously,

murderously, etc. as a collective. These acts arise because they are

reinforced by a tribal group identification. They act because they are

Jews, and it is this racial bond that causes them to feel a sense of kinship

in the tribe. The tribal affinity then reinforces a sense of their own

supremacism over others, an imperative that results in hatred,

xenophobia and murder of any who are non -Jews.

Doctor Duke appears to favour, in spite of his claims in respect to certain

individuals, a specifically Jewish gene trait that influences behaviour and

attitudes in a particular way. But in this he does not make enough of the

Ashkenazi and Sephardic distinctions. He speaks of genetics and tribal

influence only generally, whilst recognising these distinctions do exist.

Generally his argument requires a need to downplay distinctions. When

he does offer distinctions by identifying only some Jews as “extremists”

and the adherence of some Jews to the Talmud as opposed to the Torah

as a distinguishing factor for exacerbating dangerous behaviour, he

tends all too soon to then want to widen his circle of inclusion.

Contrarily too, in respect to genetics and his racial emphasis on

uniformity, his lack of distinctions appears logically to suggest a Jewish

universalism, and this can only be one based on prejudice.65 It is one he

identifies as anti-Christian, immoral and one which exacerbates a

nihilistic instinct.

His view seeks to corral Jews into a stereotypical pen. It seeks a general

classification for individuals and their behaviour by virtue of biology and

genetic attributes. It presumes innate negative characteristics that will

become manifest, even if such individuals do not exhibit such

characteristics presently. It links a racial cause to a set of unpleasant

behaviour patterns, and a number of uncomplimentary and hereditary

personality weaknesses. Logically it invokes a universal, as it appears

they are to be attributed via an appeal to race traits. A theory appealing

to biology and psychology by no means scientifically substantiated, but

in the whole corroborated by the “evolutionary psychology of group

65 Speculation that the Ashkenazi arose from Khazar stock gained popularity in the later 19th century and has met with mixed fortunes in the scholarly literature. In late 2012 Eran Elhaik, a research associate studying genetics at the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, argued for Khazar descent in his paper The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses. A 2013 study of Ashkenazi mitochondrial DNA found no significant evidence of Khazar contribution to the Ashkenazi Jewish DNA, as would be predicted by the Khazar hypothesis. See "A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages", Nature Communications. Retrieved 8 November 2013. A 2013 abstract for the American Society of Human Genetics with more than 10 scientists participating concluded that there was “no indication of Khazar genetic ancestry among Ashkenazi Jews”. See “No indication of Khazar genetic ancestry among Ashkenazi Jews”. ASHG. Retrieved 5 November 2013.

behaviour”; a theory favoured by his friend Professor Kevin

Macdonald.66

66 In light of the ongoing controversy regarding Dr. Kevin MacDonald, the members

of the CSULB Jewish Studies Program agreed to the following statement:

“We in the CSULB Jewish Studies Program firmly believe in and seek to protect the

guiding tenets of academic freedom, but we also understand that the mantle of

“academic freedom” can sometimes be used to advance racism, bigotry, or other

forms of intolerance. When racism or other forms of intolerance are promoted in

academia, they undermine the principles upon which CSULB was founded. As a

university, we have an obligation to maintain a campus climate in which

individuals from a wide range of religious, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds can

have meaningful exchanges in a context of mutual respect. The prejudicial views

expressed by Professor Kevin MacDonald in his writings and in his public

statements are professionally irresponsible and morally untenable. We refer in

particular to MacDonald’s close association with the white nationalist journal The

Occidental Quarterly, his call for the creation of a white ethno-state

to “protect” the interest of white Americans, and his repeated descriptions of Jews

as a threat to white, European civilization. Not only do MacDonald’s writings bear

a close resemblance to aspects of Nazi racial theory (and, in fact, he relies on one

such theorist explicitly), but his writings are regularly used by white separatists

and neo-Nazis to advance their cause. In his recent public writings, MacDonald is

identified as a professor at CSULB. These writings have damaged both the

reputation of the university as well as the relationship between the university and

the wider community. The community has expressed shock and dismay over these

writings and asked why the university does not disassociate itself from these white

nationalist and anti-Jewish statements. An analysis of these writings shows that

these concerns are legitimate. This has led

some in the community to mistakenly believe that MacDonald’s work has the

university’s endorsement. The university should make it clear that MacDonald does

not speak for CSULB when he advocates any of the positions described above. We

wish to make it clear that in no way do we wish to impede Dr. MacDonald’s First

Amendment rights or interfere with his academic freedom. But just as he has the

freedom of speech to advance his white nationalist agenda, so too do we have the

freedom of speech to deplore his prejudicial views of Jews and non-whites and state

that Dr. MacDonald’s writings on white ethnocentrism, Jews, race, and

immigration do not enjoy the respect of many of his colleagues.”

- Dr. Arlene Lazarowitz Co-Director, Jewish Studies Program Dr. Donald Schwartz Professor, History Department Associate Professor, History Department Dr. Jeffrey Blutinger Co-Director, Jewish Studies Program Assistant Professor, History Department. A summary of further responses to Dr MacDonald’s views can be found in Appendix II.

The recourse to a racial explanation is particularly insidious as it steps

outside the context of historical analysis and tends to tar all with the sins

of others now dead by virtue of racial lineage. Consequently it makes

present Jews the inheritors of the terrible events of the past, but it also

makes them the purveyors of deviousness and slaughter in the future.

The theory justifies and vilifies. It stirs up suspicions against present

innocent Jews by a racial connection to the past and an interpretation of

history that is at best prejudiced and biased. The present innocent are

brandished guilty by virtue of a bloodline lineage. A genetic

characteristic that continues supposedly to give rise to a particular

proclivity that might nullify any presently displayed virtues and

characteristics, or beneficent actions offered now, or potentially in the

future. This logically too by his own perspective is inconsistent with his

claim that “some Jews” such as Gilad Atzmon and Israel Shahak do not

exhibit such tendencies (op. cit. p.258).

Whilst recognising the tremendous work that such individuals do in their

attempt to expose what he views as Jewish tribalism, and by extension

Jewish racism and supremacism (op. cit. p.258), the tendency by Duke

to attribute general innate characteristics by virtue of them being Jews,

due to an inherited biological/ genetic makeup, and race tribalism,

logically implies that individual strivings at odds with the group are

likely to be overridden. In any case these strivings, for Duke, largely

appear to be treated as genetic anomalies. But the lessons of history

have taught mankind where such an erroneous and racist justification

along genetic and biological lines eventually leads with this kind of

reasoning Dr Duke- to the table of Doctor Mengele.67

The disposition to maintain ethnocentrism has resulted in, as Duke

writes: “the great mass of organised world Jewry” supporting the

“Jewish-led” revolution in Russia. He claims too that Jews generally

have predominantly given their support to many international Marxist-

style movements that continue this imperative to revolution and murder.

He even claims that Jews share as a rule a general proclivity to the Left

(op. cit. p.249). A plain oxymoron in terms of Zionist nationalism, or

Jewish Conservativism versus Marxist Leninist internationalism. In this

broad assumption, he is again continually at pains to stress that not all

67 During his 21-month stay at Auschwitz, Mengele was referred to as the “White Angel” by camp inmates because when he stood on the platform inspecting and selecting new arrivals his white coat and white arms outstretched evoked the image of a white angel. Mengele took turns with the other SS physicians at Auschwitz in meeting incoming prisoners at the camp, where it was determined who would be retained for work and who would be sent to the gas chambers immediately. He also appeared there frequently in search of twins for his experimentation. He would wade through the incoming prisoners, shouting “Zwillinge heraus!” (“Twins out!”), “Zwillinge heraustreten!” (“Twins step forward!”) with, according to an assistant he recruited, “…such a face that I would think he's mad”. “He had a look that said 'I am the power,'” said one survivor. When it was reported that one block was infested with lice, Mengele ordered that the 750 women who lived inside the dormitories be gassed.

Mengele used Auschwitz as an opportunity to continue his research on heredity, using inmates for human experimentation. He was particularly interested in identical twins; they would be selected and placed in special barracks. He recruited Berthold Epstein, a Jewish pediatrician, and Miklós Nyiszli, a Hungarian Jewish pathologist, to assist with his inhuman experiments.

Mengele’s experiments included attempts to change eye colour by injecting chemicals into children’s eyes, various amputations of limbs, and other surgeries such as kidney removal, without anesthesia. Rena Gelissen’s account of her time in Auschwitz details certain experiments performed on female prisoners around October 1943. Mengele would experiment on the chosen girls, performing forced sterilisation and electroconvulsive therapy. Most of the victims died, because of either the experiments or later infections.

Jews are Communists (op. cit. p.249). He does however appear to be

speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Another example of this is when

he gives us his rather gratingly pious judgement, as a former Grand

Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, that honour should be paid to those Jews

with the courage and inclination to expose the tribal group’s reinforced

values “prevalent” amongst them (op. cit. p. 258).

Duke’s argument constantly overrides individual distinctions and tends

to universal tendencies. Jews have an innate disposition, which displays

a manifest ethnocentric supremacism. This is particularly so he claims

in respect to Israel, which reveals an inherent psychological

underpinning encouraging racism. This racism is a “staggering

hypocrisy”, Duke claims, which would be justly condemned by the

“Jewish controlled media” and by the Israeli government if it were to be

exhibited by any other nation or race on Earth.68

Jewish hypocrisy is a natural extension of Jewish ethnocentrism for

Duke; a tendency that arose from a peculiarly Jewish tribal instinct that

resulted ultimately in the horrors of the Holodomor. The hypocrisy is

further exacerbated for Duke, as due reparation or recognition has not

68 Having been codified in the Protocols and strengthened with a lie by Henry Ford through the 1920s. “The Twelfth Protocol”, proclaimed his Dearborn Independent: “contains the entire plan of Control of the Press, reaching from the present time into the future when the Jewish World Government shall be established.” Today, the myth of Jewish control of the media is as widespread as ever--and no one appears to be strongly refuting it. Such diatribes play up the Eisners and the Sulzbergers—and down play many other non-Jews such as: Jack Welch and Michael H. Jordan, CEOs, respectively, of GE (NBC) and Westinghouse (CBS); Rupert Murdoch (who owns 20th Century Fox); John Malone, CEO of TCI, the nation's largest cable company; maverick globalist Ted Turner; and many more. Also tuned out are the non- Jewish Hearst Communications, Times Mirror, the Chicago Tribune's empire, Reader's Digest Inc.--and the Shintoist directorship of Sony (which owns Columbia Studios and Tri-Star Pictures).

been made to those who were murdered during this Jewish led greater

death event, unlike the Holocaust. The reason again he claims is due to

the largely Jewish owned and controlled media, who in their bias

promote only the Holocaust. They do this for the benefit of those Jews

who survived and also for Jewish political leverage with a slanted

sympathy vote today.

A similar kind of argument is used to vilify the Jews generally, when they

are identified as having been the largest percentage of merchant ship

owners in America during the slave trade. This argument is often used by

Black civil rights activists, particularly separatists (usually of the Nation

of Islam) 69 who often appear to want to compete with some Jewish

rights activists for the title of “the world’s most persecuted” ethnicity to

add traction to their multiple political and social causes. 70

69 In respect of this generally see Brackman, Harold, “Jew on the brain: A public refutation of the Nation of Islam's The Secret relationship between Blacks and Jews” (1992). Later re-named and re-published as “Farrakhan's Reign of Historical Error: The Truth behind The Secret Relationship” (published by the Simon Wiesenthal Center). Expanded into a book in 1994: “Ministry of Lies: The Truth Behind the Nation of Islam's “the Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews” (published by Four Walls, Eight Windows).

70 In the middle ages, Jews were minimally involved in slave trade. Reiss, “The Jews in Colonial America”, p 85. During the 1490s, trade with the New World began to open up. At the same time, the monarchies of Spain and Portugal expelled all of their Jewish subjects.

Several scholarly works have been published to rebut the anti-Semitic canard of Jewish domination of the slave trade in Medieval Europe, Africa, and/or the Americas; eg. Saul Friedman. “Jews and the American Slave Trade”, pp. 250–254.

Jews had no major or continuing impact on the history of New World slavery. See “Reviewed Work: Jews, Slaves, and the Slave Trade: Setting the Record Straight” by Eli Faber by Paul Finkelman. Journal of Law and Religion, Vol 17, No 1/2 (2002), p 125-28. They possessed far fewer slaves than non-Jews in every British territory in North America and the Caribbean, and in no period did they play a leading role as financiers, ship owners, or factors in the transatlantic or Caribbean slave trades.

The Columbia History of Jews and Judaism in America, p. 43, by Rabbi Marc Lee Raphael, (Columbia University Press, February 12, 2008) asserts that in the 1990s,

Duke’s appeal to Solzhenitsyn

David Duke often likes to bolster his views by citing his meeting with

Solzhenitsyn. It has already been noted that Solzhenitsyn too has raised

the subject of the ethnic driving force behind Communism and its

slaughters, but his perspective is supported by his own, sometimes

moving, personal experiences. Such experiences and the subtleness of

his writing appear to have largely escaped Doctor Duke, who tends to

want to give the impression that his own perspective and cause is

strengthened by a claim to this association. A distinction however needs

to be made between the two less Solzhenitsyn too be tarred by

allegations that Jews financed, dominated, and controlled the slave trade captured wide attention and were widely accepted in the African American community (on the latter point, see Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s "Black Demagogues and Pseudo-Scholars", New York Times, July 20, 1992, p 15). Subsequent extensive research demonstrated this was not the case, see David Brion Davis, "Jews in the Slave Trade", Culture front (Fall 1992): 42-45; Seymour Drescher, "The Role of Jews in the Transatlantic Slave Trade", Immigrants and Minorities 12 (1993): 113-25 Eli Faber, Jews, Slaves, and the Slave Trade: Setting the Record Straight (New York, 1998); Saul S. Friedman, Jews and the American Slave Trade (New Brunswick, NJ, 1998).

For numerical data demonstrating the minute role played by mainland colonial Jews in the importation of slaves from Africa and the Caribbean and their marginal role as slave sellers, see Faber, Jews, Slaves, and the Slave Trade, pp 131-42.It is currently known that American mainland colonial Jews played a merely proportionate role in the importation of slaves from Africa and a marginal role as slave sellers, although their involvement in the Brazilian and Caribbean trade is believed to be considerably more significant.[Jason H. Silverman, a historian of slavery, describes the part of Jews in slave trading in the southern United states as "minuscule", and writes that the historical rise and fall of slavery in the United States would not have been affected at all had there been no Jews living in the American South. Jews accounted for 1.25% of all Southern slave owners, and were not significantly different from other slave owners in their treatment of slaves.

Dr. Raphael's book “Jews and Judaism in the United States: A Documentary History” (New York: Behrman House, Inc., Pub, 1983), discusses the central role of the Jews in the New World commerce and the African slave trade (pp. 23-25).

association with Duke, who by now it should be clear is nothing more

than a “Zio-globalist” Jew hater.

Solzhenitsyn’s actual views of Jews

In “The Gulag Archipelago”, Solzhenitsyn describes his imprisonment by

the Soviets. Here he writes that almost all the commanders of the Gulag

camps were Jews. In this book, he also includes pictures of six Jewish

Chekist Gulag bosses of the 1930s. In “Two Hundred Years Together”

Solzhenitsyn states he had taken the pictures included from an official

Soviet-era publication, which had even “boasted” about the Gulags.

Such material is not easily dealt with and for some the question of

Solzhenitsyn’s own anti- Semitism has been raised. One of any number

of instances can be cited to dispel such an opinion however.

In Solzhenitsyn’s “Two Hundred Years Together” a plea for “mutual

comprehension” on the part of Russians and Russian Jews is made. In

this respect too, the author comments that the book was conceived in the

hope of promoting “mutually agreeable and fruitful pathways for the

future development of Russian-Jewish relations.”71

In this interest he is capable of making a good distinction between eye-

witness testimonies that claim Russian Jews were ecstatic about the

February Revolution itself, and the attitude of counter-witnesses, such as

71 Ericson, Edward E., Jr. and Mahoney, Daniel J., ed. (2009). “The Solzhenitsyn Reader: New and Essential Writings, 1947–2005”. ISI Books (p.489)

Gregory Aronson who felt otherwise. Aronson formed and led the Soviet

of Workers’ Deputies of Vitebsk (which later had as a member Y.V. Tarle,

a future historian). Solzhenitsyn recounts Aronson’s feelings of the very

first day, when news of the Revolution reached Vitebsk.

“…the newly formed Security Council met in the city Duma, and immediately afterwards Aronson was invited to a meeting of representatives of the Jewish community (clearly, not 105 rank and file, but leaders). “Apparently, there was a need to consult with me as a representative of the new dawning era, what to do further…. I felt alienation from these people, from the circle of their interests and from the tense atmosphere, which was at that meeting…. I had a sense that this society belonged mostly to the old world, which was retreating into the past. We were not able to eliminate a certain mutual chill that had come from somewhere. The faces of the people I was working with, displayed no uplift or faith. At times, it appeared that these selfless social activists perceived themselves as elements of the old order.” – (op. cit.. p.105). This distinction was contrasted as a:

“bewilderment, caution and wavering predominated among religiously conservative Jews” generally and the “sensible old Jewry” who: “carrying a sense of many centuries of experience of hard ordeals, was apparently shocked by the sudden overthrow of the monarchy and had serious misgivings.”

Tradition here clearly contrasted with the secularism of a new age where

the “spirit of the 20th century, the dynamic masses of every nation,

including Jews”, were not bound to traditions. These younger Jews then

in contrast to the more mature were very eager to build a “happy new

world” (op. cit.).

Such a contrast appears again in the sharp difference of opinion

concerning the allegation of Solzhenitsyn’s supposed anti-Semitism. In

respect to his own essay “Repentance and Self-Limitation in the Life of

Nations”72, he calls for Russians and Jews alike to take moral

responsibility for the “renegades” that arose from both communities-

those enthusiastic agents who supported a Marxist dictatorship after the

October Revolution. This perceptive view is not limiting or divisive, but

neither does it seek to excuse some Jews for the atrocities that occurred.

At the end of chapter 15 he writes that Jews must answer for the

“revolutionary cutthroats” in their ranks, just as the Russian Gentiles

must repent “for the pogroms, for those merciless arsonist peasants” and

for those “crazed revolutionary soldiers”. It is not, he adds, a matter of

answering before other people:

“but to oneself, to one's consciousness, and before God.”73

Writing of Solzhenitsyn on August 1914 in the New York Times on 13

November 1985, the American historian Richard Pipes commented:

“Every culture has its own brand of anti-Semitism. In Solzhenitsyn's case, it's not racial. It has nothing to do with blood. He's certainly not a racist; the question is fundamentally religious and cultural. He bears some resemblance to Dostoyevsky, who was a fervent Christian and patriot and a rabid anti-Semite. Solzhenitsyn is unquestionably in the grip of the Russian extreme right’s view of the Revolution, which is that it was the doing of the Jews.”74

This then is quite different from the view of Doctor Duke. In respect to

this also, Solzhenitsyn even emphatically rejects this “extreme right-

wing” position in chapter nine of “Two Hundred Years Together”. A view

he regarded as “myopic and facile”. In respect also to any international

72 Ericson, Edward E., Jr. and Mahoney, Daniel J., ed. (2009) “The Solzhenitsyn Reader: New and Essential Writings”, 1947–2005. ISI Books (p. 527-555). 73 Ericson (2009, op. cit.. p. 505). 74 Thomas, D.M. (1998) “Alexander Solzhenitsyn: A Century in his Life”, New York: St. Martin's Press.

Jewish conspiracy, whilst he notes “a sharp intensification of the political

activity of Jewry, noticeable even against a background of stormy social

uplift that gripped Russia after February 1917” (op.cit.), he also notes

that, whilst the Jews organised the revolutions of 1905 and 1917, it was

not organised by any other nation as such.

This point punctures the fantasy bubble in respect to the more fantastic

associations and explanations of an international Jewish conspiracy.

Indeed in “Russia in Collapse” (1998) in a piece entitled “The Maladies of

Russian Nationalism”, Solzhenitsyn takes a broad swipe at the enduring

obsession of those writers generally who focus on the link between Free

Masons, Jews and other absurd conspiracy theories. 75

For those seeking to charge him as an anti-Semite one remark which

infuriated many in “Two Hundred Years Together” was the following:

“If I would care to generalise, and to say that the life of the Jews in the camps was especially hard, I could, and would not face reproach for an unjust national generalisation. But in the camps where I was kept, it was different. The Jews whose experience I saw - their life was softer than that of others.”

Much was made of this. Yet he also added:

“… it is impossible to find the answer to the eternal question: who is to be blamed, who led us to our death? To explain the actions of the Kiev cheka [secret police] only by the fact that two thirds were Jews, is certainly incorrect.”

In an interview cited in the Guardian January 25 in 2003 Nick Paton

Walsh cites Solzhenitsyn’s own explanation.

75 Ericson (2009, op. cit... p. 496).

“My book was directed to empathise with the thoughts, feelings and the psychology of the Jews - their spiritual component. I have never made general conclusions about a people. I will always differentiate between layers of Jews. One layer rushed headfirst to the revolution. Another, to the contrary, was trying to stand back. The Jewish subject for a long time was considered prohibited. Zhabotinsky [a Jewish writer] once said that the best service our Russian friends give to us is never to speak aloud about us.”

Whilst Solzhenitsyn’s book has caused controversy in Russia, where one

Jewish leader said it was “not of any merit”, Yevgeny Satanovsky,

president of the Russian Jewish Congress went on to say it was:

“a mistake, but even geniuses make mistakes. Richard Wagner did not like the Jews, but was a great composer. Dostoyevsky was a great Russian writer, but had a very sceptical attitude towards the Jews.”

On the other hand DM Thomas, one of Solzhenitsyn's biographers, said

that he did not think the book was fueled by anti-Semitism particularly:

“I would not doubt his sincerity. He says that he firmly supports the state of Israel. In his fiction and factual writing there are Jewish characters that he writes about who are bright, decent, anti-Stalinist people.”

Professor Robert Service of Oxford University, an expert on 20th century

Russian history, also added that from what he had read about the book,

Solzhenitsyn was “absolutely right”, particularly in respect to Trotsky,

who was of Jewish origin. He offers the balanced view, adding that even

Trotsky himself had commented that Jews were disproportionately

represented in the Soviet civil bureaucracy, including the Cheka.

“Trotsky's idea was that the spread of anti-Semitism was [partly down to] objections about their entrance into the civil service. There is something in this; that they were not just passive spectators of the revolution. They were part-victims and part-perpetrators.”76

76 Nick Paton Walsh “ Solzhenitsyn breaks last taboo of the revolution”, Guardian January 25, 2003.

He adds (ibid) :

“It is not a question that anyone can write about without a huge amount of bravery, and [it] needs doing in Russia because the Jews are quite often written about by fanatics. Mr Solzhenitsyn's book seems much more measured than that.”

In contrast however, Vassili Berezhkov, a retired KGB colonel and

historian of the secret services and the NKVD (the precursor of the KGB)

said:

“The question of ethnicity did not have any importance either in the revolution or the story of the NKVD. This was a social revolution and those who served in the NKVD and Cheka were serving ideas of social change. If Solzhenitsyn writes that there were many Jews in the NKVD, it will increase the passions of anti-Semitism, which has deep roots in Russian history. I think it is better not to discuss such a question now.”

Others however, such as D. M. Thomas, believe Solzhenitsyn is not an

anti-Semite because “he is too intelligent, too honest, too courageous

[and] too great a writer.” He says he wishes Solzhenitsyn had written

more sensitively at times of Jewish suffering, but he believes the

insensitivity displayed was not born of racial hatred, but the difficulty of

the subject matter. Whilst this statement predates the publication of

“Two Hundred Years Together” by three years, there is little in the half

translated volume that would really undermine it.77

Similarities between “Two Hundred Years Together” and an anti-Semitic

essay entitled “Jews in the USSR and in the Future Russia”, attributed to

Solzhenitsyn, led to the suggestion that he is supportive of the more anti-

Semitic inferences in his work. Solzhenitsyn himself however claimed

that the essay consists of manuscripts stolen from him, and then 77 Thomas ( op. cit. p. 491).

manipulated, forty years ago.78 However, according to the historian

Semyon Reznik, textological analyses have proven them to be

Solzhenitsyn’s.

Certainly in the second volume of “Two Hundred Years Together”, his

position becomes quite clear when he seeks to explain why the book is a

necessary supplement to his principal work on the Revolution, “The Red

Wheel”:

“I described the revolution literally hour by hour, and never ceased encountering episodes and discussion of the Jewish theme in the sources. Would I have been right to put all of it into the pages of March 1917? It would not have been the first time in history that a book and its readers succumbed to the facile and crude temptation to throw all the blame on the Jews, their actions, their ideas, to allow oneself to see in them the principal cause of events and thereby avoid the search for the real causes. To avoid letting the Russians fall for this optical illusion, I systematically muted the Jewish theme throughout the entire Red Wheel, at least in comparison with the way it resonated in the press and hung in the air at the time.” (pp. 45–46).

Solzhenitsyn then emphatically states that:

“I came to this conclusion and can now repeat: no, the February Revolution was not something the Jews did to the Russians, but rather it was done by the Russians themselves, which I believe I amply demonstrated in The Red Wheel. We committed this downfall ourselves: our anointed Tsar, the court circles, the hapless high-ranking generals, obtuse administrators, and their enemies — the elite intelligentsia, the Octobrist Party, the Zemstvo, the Kadets, the Revolutionary Democrats, socialists and revolutionaries, and along with them, a bandit element of army reservists, distressingly confined to the Petersburg’s barracks. And this is precisely why we perished. True, there were already many Jews

78 Young, Cathy (May 2004) “Traditional Prejudices. The anti-Semitism of Alexander Solzhenitsyn”, Reason Magazine. See also Young, Cathy (August–September 2004) Reply to Daniel J. Mahoney in Reason Magazine.

among the intelligentsia by that time, yet that is in no way a basis to call it a Jewish revolution.”

The February Revolution he states was not made by the Jews for the

Russians it was certainly carried out by the Russians themselves. In this

he asserts:

“We were ourselves the authors of this shipwreck” (pp. 44–45).

This view dispels any notion of a quintessentially Jewish Revolution,

even if Jewish leaders experienced the primary wave of “liberating”

edicts. In this liberation, the Pale of Settlement too, practically

nonexistent since the great Russian retreat of 1915, was formally

abolished. Indeed many restrictions and regulations were dropped;

restrictions on the Jewish practice of law, the entry into the officers

corps were lifted, etc. Measures were taken against public expressions of

anti-Semitism, amidst widespread rumours of pogroms in the provinces.

All this generated an ecstatic mood. It was soon to dissipate however, as

Solzhenitsyn writes:

“… in mid-September, when the all gains of the February Revolution were already irreversibly ruined, on the eve of the by now imminent Bolshevik coup, Ya. Kantorovich warned in Rech about the danger that: “The dark forces and evil geniuses of Russia will soon emerge from their dens to jubilantly perform Black Masses….Yet what kind of Black masses? ” The answer he writes as given by Kantorovich is indisputible: “…Of bestial patriotism and pogrom-loving ‘truly-Russian’ national identity.” The anti-Semitic controversy however has been one that has refused to

die. It has been one stoked by the complexity of his interpretation. In

1984, for example, when Solzhenitsyn was interviewed by Nikolay

Kazantsev for Nasha Strana, a Russian language newspaper based in

Buenos Aires he said:

“We are walking a narrow isthmus between Communists and the World Jewry. Neither is acceptable for us... And I mean this not in the racial sense, but in the sense of the Jewry as a certain world view. Jewry is embodied in capitalist globalism. Neither side is acceptable to us...” Whilst Liberal Progressive shock troops scrambled to cry foul,

Solzhenitsyn’s comments here reveal his belief that, rather like Churchill

in the 1920s, “World Jewry” exists as a distinct world view that

transcends national identity. But in this it is not one to be simply cast in

terms of race, but is one that is ideologically specific. The controversy

again rest in his use of language oddly identifying the ideology as being

quintessentially a “Jewish” world view which appears, at the present

time, to inhabit global capitalism. But it stings his critics further,

particularly in his comments concerning Israel, which he claims controls

the United States and which he rather disparagingly views as no more

than its “province”.

The nuts and bolts of this world view are not unpacked by him, but it

clearly transcends purely racial distinctions and encompass a specific

ideological world view in some fundamentalist politico-economic

interpretation. The issue however is when does such a world view stop

being Jewish, and indeed should it even be thought of as such?

For David Duke, at any rate, this “Zio-globalist” world view is

quintessentially race centred, and has led to the domination of the

important power centres of the United States. It inhabits and controls

the media, legislation, and the economic and financial machinery of the

country (op. cit p.250). It exerts power today just as it may have once

utilised Bolshevism to further its own particularly “Jewish” agenda and

aims in Russia. The details of the ultimate goal is one not clearly

specified by either author, but logically for Duke, but not Solzhenitsyn, it

suggests an underlying notion of racial supremacism.

Debunking Jewish supremacism: are “chosen people” necessarily superior?

Advocates of a Jewish supremacism thesis tend to view Jews as

ultimately seeking to establish a “Master Race” and global dominion;

either within the nexus of a Jewish only Greater Israel that exerts

centralised control politically, or by means of a Jewish nexus inhabiting

or infiltrating various nations around the world. This world view seeks

its own specific, pro Jewish goals for absolute global control.79 That the

combined masses of the world might ultimately rise up to quash such a

Jewish-led cabal if it took power, or turn against the cells that seek to

exert control, does not really appear to have occurred to the believers in

such a theory. They simply focus on features of racial exclusivity in

respect to what is often simply and rather disparagingly termed the

“chosen people”, or simply “the Yid” or “the Jew”. General terms that

make no consideration for differing opinions and concerns, the

Ashkenazi and Sephardic distinctions, DNA data that provides

79 A view substantiated anti-Semites claim by Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin who was reputed to have said: “Our race is the Master Race. We are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves.”- quoted from a speech reportedly delivered to the Israeli parliament- “Begin and the Beasts”, New Statesman 1982. The authenticity or otherwise of this statement has been disputed.

distinctions, an acceptance of different points of origination, or even

indeed the Bible’s own recognition of the 12 tribes of Israel. 80

80 The total Ashkenazi population is estimated at around 8 million people. The estimated world Jewish population is about 13 million. Before the advent of advanced DNA research, it had been thought by some historians that European Jewry traced to the largely pagan population of ancient Khazaria in the Caucuses, whose leadership was believed to have converted to Judaism beginning around 700 AD. But that theory—known as the Khazarian hypothesis—has been largely discredited by DNA research. One geneticist, Eran Elhaik, has recently attempted to revive the theory, but his research has been sharply challenged.

A paper published in 2000 by Harry Ostrer, a professor of genetics at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, and University of Arizona geneticist Michael Hammer showed that most modern Jews are descended on their male side from a core population of approximately 20,000 Jews who migrated from Italy over the first millennium and eventually settled in Eastern Europe. “All European [Ashkenazi] Jews seem connected on the order of fourth or fifth cousins” Ostrer has said. Known as the so-called “Rhineland hypothesis” the consensus research holds that most Ashkenazi Jews, as well as many Jews tracing their lineage to Italy, North Africa, Iraq, Iran, Kurdish regions and Yemen, share common paternal haplotypes also found among many Arabs from Palestine, Lebanon and Syria. Only a small percentage of the Y-DNA of Ashkenazi Jews—less than 25 percent—originated outside of the Near East, presumably as converts.

This historical and genetic mosaic has provided support for the controversial concept of a “Jewish people”. The Law of Return (Aliya), the Israeli law that established the right of Jews around the world to settle in Israel and which remains in force today, was a central tenet of Zionism. It is invoked by some religious Jews to support territorial claims (even though, based on this research, many Arabs, including Palestinians, also have a genetic ‘right of return’).

But what about the female lineage? That history is more obscure and contentiously debated. Duke University’s David Goldstein and Mark Thomas of the Centre for Genetic Anthropology in London reported in 2002 that much of the mitochondrial DNA of women in Jewish communities around the world did not seem to be of Middle or Near Eastern origin, and indeed each community had its own genetic pattern. This suggested that migrating Jewish men might have taken on local wives, who converted to Judaism. The estimates of the percentage of Ashkenazi women of European image was probably more than 50 percent, they estimated, but the data was too murky to come up with a firm estimate. However a subsequent and more extensive study in 2006, by a team based at Technion and Rambam Medical Centre in Haifa, suggested that Ashkenazi women—40 percent or more—may indeed have had ancient Near and Middle Eastern roots, and may have accompanied their husbands as part of families migrating together. The new study published in Nature Communications aligns itself more closely with the 2002 hypothesis, although there are differences. Professor Martin Richards, who heads the University of Huddersfield’s Archaeogenetics Research

In connection with this, the twin notions of a persecution complex born

by the Jewish race, as well as the idea of Jewish supremacism are the two

arms used to justify their thesis. In this, it is argued, Jews themselves

have sought to delineate themselves as a race apart and “the chosen

people”. It is this attitude itself which anti-Semites claim has

exacerbated persecution. But here racial distinctions are conflated with

the teachings of what it means to be “chosen” as contained in the Torah

and other religious texts.

To prove his argument that Jews harbour an inbuilt sense of

supremacism, Duke asserts (op.cit.) as many as 50% of Jews who attend

synagogues do not necessarily profess any particular belief in God, and

are atheistic in their beliefs, whilst still professing themselves to be Jews.

Group (and who participated in the 2002 study), and colleagues, sequenced 74 mitochondrial genomes and analysed more than 3,500 mitochondrial genomes – far more data than the 2006 survey, which reviewed only a short length of the mitochondrial DNA, containing just 1,000 or so of its 16,600 DNA units, in all their subjects. Richards and his team claim that maternal lineages did not originate in the Near or Middle East or the Khazarian Caucasus, but largely within Mediterranean Europe. Another twist in the findings: Jewish women may have been assimilated in Europe as far back as 2,000 years ago—earlier than most other studies have projected. The researchers believe the DNA could be traced back to the early Roman Empire, when as much as 10 percent of the population practiced Judaism, many of them converts. Overall, they claim, at least 80 percent of Ashkenazi maternal ancestry comes from women indigenous to Europe while 8 percent originated in the Near East, with the rest uncertain.

According to Nicholas Wade of the New York Times, Doron Behar, one of the key authors of the 2006 analysis, said he disagreed with the conclusions, but has provided no detailed critique as yet. Wade also talked to David Goldstein, who said he believed the estimate that 80 percent of Ashkenazi Jewry originating in Europe was too high considering the unpredictability of mitochondrial DNA data. The new research underscores an emerging consensus that wandering Jewish men, from the Near East, established a mosaic of small Jewish communities—first in Italy and then scattered throughout Europe, often taking on local Gentile wives and raising their children as Jews.

This identification of racial lineage, however, does not necessarily denote

a belief in racial superiority. In this, the fact that atheist Jews would also

fail to recognise the biblical assertion that they are the “chosen people”,

or even the teachings of the Talmud if they do not believe in religion, is

not contemplated by Duke; for the synagogue attendance justifies a non-

faith view of “Jewishness” justified naturally in terms of racial lineage

and ethno-supremacism. This atheist race based “supremacism”

however sits uncomfortably with his interpretation of their “chosen”

status as indicating superior status in religious texts.

In support of supremacism, Duke also makes a great deal out of

Rabbinical law that forbids intermarriage; the Talmud and its

purportedly derogatory remarks concerning the goyim and the shiksha

or “prostitute women” as he terms them; its anti-Christian sexual insults

concerning Jesus and his mother Mary; 81 the current Israeli law that

81 Apologists for the Talmud deny that it contains any scurrilous references to Jesus Christ. Whereas certain Orthodox Jewish organisations are more forthcoming and admit that the Talmud not only mentions Jesus, but disparages him. For example, on the website of the Orthodox Jewish Hasidic Lubavitch group the following statement appears, complete with Talmudic citations: "The Talmud (Babylonian edition) records other sins of 'Jesus the Nazarene':

1) He and his disciples practiced sorcery and black magic, led Jews astray into idolatry, and were sponsored by foreign, gentile powers for the purpose of subverting Jewish worship (Sanhedrin 43a).

2) He was sexually immoral, worshipped statues of stone (a brick is mentioned), was cut off from the Jewish people for his wickedness, and refused to repent (Sanhedrin 107b; Sotah 47a).

3) He learned witchcraft in Egypt and, to perform miracles, used procedures that involved cutting his flesh, which is also explicitly banned in the Bible (Shabbos 104b).

Talmud passages in translation have included the following highly unpleasant statements:

Gittin 57a. Says Jesus is in hell, being boiled in “hot excrement”.

Sanhedrin 43a. Says Jesus (“Yeshu” and in Soncino footnote #6, Yeshu “the Nazarene”) was executed because he practiced sorcery: “It is taught that on the eve of Passover Jesus was hung, and forty days before this the proclamation was made: Jesus is to be stoned to death because he has practiced sorcery and has lured the people to idolatry...He was an enticer and of such thou shalt not pity or condone.”

Kallah 51a.”The elders were once sitting in the gate when two young lads passed by; one covered his head and the other uncovered his head. Of him who uncovered his head Rabbi Eliezer remarked that he is a bastard. Rabbi Joshua remarked that he is the son of a niddah (a child conceived during a woman's menstrual period). Rabbi Akiba said that he is both a bastard and a son of a niddah.

They said, “What induced you to contradict the opinion of your colleagues?” He replied, “I will prove it concerning him.” He went to the lad's mother and found her sitting in the market selling beans.

He said to her, “My daughter, if you will answer the question I will put to you, I will bring you to the world to come.” (eternal life). She said to him: ”'Swear it to me.”

Rabbi Akiba, taking the oath with his lips but annulling it in his heart, said to her, “What is the status of your son?” She replied “'When I entered the bridal chamber I was niddah (menstruating) and my husband kept away from me; but my best man had intercourse with me and this son was born to me.” Consequently the child was both a bastard and the son of a niddah.”

In addition to the theme that God rewards clever liars, the preceding Talmud discussion is supposedly actually about Jesus . The boy's adulterous mother in this Talmud story is the mother of Christ, Blessed Mary (called Miriam and sometimes, Miriam the hairdresser, in the Talmud).

These are corroborated in The Editio Princeps of the complete Code of Talmudic Law, Maimonides' Mishneh Torah -- replete with offensive precepts against Gentiles, but also explicit attacks on Christianity and on Jesus (after whose name the author adds piously, “May the name of the wicked perish”)... --Dr. Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, p. 21.

“The Talmud contains a few explicit references to Jesus...These references are certainly not complimentary...There seems little doubt that the account of the execution of Jesus on the eve of Passover does refer to the Christian Jesus...The passage in which Jesus' punishment in hell is described also seems to refer to the Christian Jesus. It is a piece of anti-Christian polemic dating from the post-70 CE period...” --Hyam Maccoby, Judaism on Trial, pp. 26-27.

permits only citizenship to Jews and forbids intermarriage; evidence

concerning genetic purity via DNA studies, IQ tests and the ability to

vocalise concepts better than others; all of which contributes to a

general “tribal” instinct based on “scientific” psychological studies, or so

he claims. This general tribal instinct betrays a notion of racial elitism

and by turn xenophobia towards their fellow men and women of the

goyim or “cattle” class Duke emphasises. 82

“According to the Talmud, Jesus was executed by a proper rabbinical court for idolatry, inciting other Jews to idolatry, and contempt of rabbinical authority. All classical Jewish sources which mention his execution are quite happy to take responsibility for it; in the talmudic account the Romans are not even mentioned.

The more popular accounts--which were nevertheless taken quite seriously--such as the notorious Toldot Yeshu are even worse, for in addition to the above crimes they accuse him of witchcraft. The very name 'Jesus' was for Jews a symbol of all that is abominable and this popular tradition still persists...

The Hebrew form of the name Jesus--Yeshu--was interpreted as an acronym for the curse, 'may his name and memory be wiped out,' which is used as an extreme form of abuse. In fact, anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews (such as Neturey Qarta) sometimes refer to Herzl as 'Herzl Jesus' and I have found in religious Zionist writings expressions such as "Nasser Jesus" and more recently 'Arafat Jesus." -Dr. Israel Shahak, “Jewish History, Jewish Religion”, pp. 97- 98, 118.

82 Peter Schäfer “Jesus in the Talmud”, Princeton University Press, 2007, (p.7-9)

concluded that the references to Jesus and Mary and Christianity were not from the early tannaitic period (1st and 2nd centuries) but rather from the 3rd and 4th centuries, during the amoraic period. He asserts that the references in the Babylonian Talmud were “polemical counter-narratives that parody the New Testament stories, most notably the story of Jesus' birth and death”. The rabbinical authors were familiar with the Gospels (particularly the Gospel of John) in their form as the Diatessaron and the Peshitta, the New Testament of the Syrian Church. Schäfer argues that the message conveyed in the Talmud was a “bold and self-confident” assertion of the correctness of Judaism. He asserts:

“They ridicule Jesus' birth from a virgin, as maintained by the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, and they contest fervently the claim that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God. Most remarkably, they counter the New Testament Passion story with its message of the Jews' guilt and shame as Christ killers. Instead, they reverse it completely: yes, they maintain, we accept responsibility for it, but there is no reason to feel ashamed because we rightfully executed a blasphemer and idolater. Jesus deserved death, and he got what he deserved. Accordingly, they subvert the Christian idea of Jesus' resurrection by having him punished forever in hell and by making clear that this fate awaits his followers as well, who believe in this impostor. There is

Whilst racial identity clearly exists independently of religion, a fact

recognised by the atheist Ed Miliband himself in his acknowledgement

that “I’m Jewish by birth of origin…and its part of who I am”, the Jewish

supremacism thesis takes a quantum leap in advocating that distinction

of race necessarily implies racial superiority. An erroneous reading, that

presupposes Jews consider themselves in some sense elite as “the chosen

people”. In this Duke fails to realise that being “chosen”, whilst it may

indeed be the religious belief that Jews are selected to be in

a covenant with God, need not necessarily be a blessing, nor even one

that it is gladly sought as an expected or guaranteed privilege of better

treatment or superior status. In this sense then, there is no consensus on

what exactly it means to be “chosen”.

The idea is first found in the Torah (the first five books of the Tanakh),

which are also included in the Christian Bible. It is also elaborated in

later books of the Hebrew Bible. Much is written about these topics

in Rabbinic literature. The three largest Jewish denominations

no resurrection, they insist, not for him and not for his followers; in other words, there is no justification whatsoever for this Christian sect that impudently claims to be the new covenant and that is on its way to establish itself as a new religion (not least as a "Church" with political power).”

In contrast to Peter Schäfer, Daniel J. Lasker suggests that the Talmudic stories about Jesus are not deliberate, provocative polemics, but instead demonstrate “embryonic” Jewish objections to Christianity which would later “blossom into a full-scale Jewish polemical attack on Christianity [the Toledoth Yeshu]”.

By way of comparison the New Testament itself also documents conflict with rabbinical Judaism, for example in the John 8:41 charge “We are not born of fornication.”Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?”. Also in the description in Revelation of a “synagogue of Satan”. See Ekkehard Stegemann, Wolfgang Stegemann “The Jesus movement: a social history of its first century 1999 (p346)”. Other interpreters understand the author's anti-Jewish polemic as an expression of his conviction that believers in Christ are the true Jews.

(Orthodox Judaism, Conservative Judaism and Reform Judaism)

maintain the belief that the Jews have been chosen by God for a purpose,

but there are still differences of interpretation as to exactly being

“chosen” might denote or entail.

According to the traditional Jewish interpretation of the Bible, Israel’s

character as the chosen people is unconditional, as it says

in Deuteronomy 14:2:

“For you are a holy people to YHWH your God, and God has chosen you to be his treasured people from all the nations that are on the face of the earth.”

Yet also in the Torah it denotes that this is not a license to rule the Earth

or the peoples thereof, or to claim ownership of it, which is in any case

God’s, but a command to obey the will of God. It is through obeying this

command in their actions that they shall ensure they remain God’s

“peculiar treasure”.

“Now therefore, if you will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then you shall be a peculiar treasure unto me from all the peoples, for all the earth is mine.” (Exodus 19:5).

In fulfilling this servitude, God establishes that the order to His people

will be an everlasting responsibility to be fulfilled down the generations

of the lineage and in return He shall be their God:

“And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you.” (Genesis 17:7).

Other Torah verses about being chosen are:

“And you shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation” (Exodus 19:6).

“The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because you were more in number than any people; for you were the fewest of all people; but because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your ancestors.” (Deuteronomy 7:7-8).

These gifts conferred by the oath yet differ from the idea of being chosen

in Amos (3:2), where the obligation is one emphasising trials and

tribulations:

“You only have one singled out of all the families of the earth: therefore will I visit upon you all your iniquities.”

Traditionally the idea of being chosen has been interpreted by Jews in

two ways: one way is that God chose the Israelites, while the other is that

the Israelites chose God. Although collectively this choice was made

freely, religious Jews clearly believe that it created individual obligations

for the descendants of the lineage and the consequences of the choice

were not always necessarily pleasant.

Another interpretation is that the choice was free in a limited context.

Thus, although the Jews chose to follow precepts ordained by God,

the Kabbalah and Tanya teach that even prior to creation the “Jewish

soul” had already been chosen. The obligations are exclusive to Jews, but

non-Jews are still thought of as receiving from God other covenants and

other responsibilities. Generally, it does not entail exclusive rewards for

Jews, nor does it denote superiority over others because of them.

Rabbi Lord Immanuel Jakobovits, former Chief Rabbi of the United

Synagogue of Great Britain (Modern Orthodox Judaism), describes it in

this way:

“Yes, I do believe that the chosen people concept as affirmed by Judaism in its holy writ, its prayers, and its millennial tradition. In fact, I believe

that every people—and indeed, in a more limited way, every individual—is "chosen" or destined for some distinct purpose in advancing the designs of Providence. Only, some fulfil their mission and others do not. Maybe the Greeks were chosen for their unique contributions to art and philosophy, the Romans for their pioneering services in law and government, the British for bringing parliamentary rule into the world, and the Americans for piloting democracy in a pluralistic society. The Jews were chosen by God to be 'peculiar unto Me' as the pioneers of religion and morality; that was and is their national purpose.”

Conservative Judaism and its Israeli counterpart Masorti Judaism, views

the concept in this way:

“Few beliefs have been subject to as much misunderstanding as the "Chosen People" doctrine. The Torah and the Prophets clearly stated that this does not imply any innate Jewish superiority. In the words of Amos (3:2) "You alone have I singled out of all the families of the earth—that is why I will call you to account for your iniquities". The Torah tells us that we are to be "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" with obligations and duties which flowed from our willingness to accept this status. Far from being a license for special privilege, it entailed additional responsibilities not only toward God but to our fellow human beings. As expressed in the blessing at the reading of the Torah, our people have always felt it to be a privilege to be selected for such a purpose. For the modern traditional Jew, the doctrine of the election and the covenant of Israel offers a purpose for Jewish existence which transcends its own self interests. It suggests that because of our special history and unique heritage we are in a position to demonstrate that a people that takes seriously the idea of being covenanted with God can not only thrive in the face of oppression, but can be a source of blessing to its children and its neighbours. It obligates us to build a just and compassionate society throughout the world and especially in the land of Israel where we may teach by example what it means to be a "covenant people, a light unto the nations".”

Rabbi Reuven Hammer of Masorti Judaism comments on the excised

sentence in the Aleinu prayer in respect to a misunderstanding of being

chosen:

“Originally the text read that God has not made us like the nations who "bow down to nothingness and vanity, and pray to an impotent god", [...]

In the Middle Ages these words were censored, since the church believed they were an insult to Christianity. Omitting them tends to give the impression that the Aleinu teaches that we are both different and better than others. The actual intent is to say that we are thankful that God has enlightened us so that, unlike the pagans, we worship the true God and not idols. There is no inherent superiority in being Jewish, but we do assert the superiority of monotheistic belief over paganism. Although paganism still exists today, we are no longer the only ones to have a belief in one God.”

Nachman of Breslov believed that Jewishness is a level of consciousness,

and not an intrinsic inborn quality. He wrote that, according to the Book

of Malachi, one can find “potential Jews” among all nations. Such souls

are illumined by the leap of “holy faith”, which “activated” the

Jewishness in their soul. These people would otherwise convert to

Judaism, but prefer not to do so. Instead, they recognize the Divine unity

within their own religions.

In all this it is clear being Jewish doesn’t equate to being superior, or

thinking one is exclusively superior, nor is such an idea propagated by

Jews themselves. Race distinctions do not equate to an ethnocentric

sense of superiority, only an acknowledgement of the unique and valued

differences of all races.

Whilst many Bolsheviks were atheistic Jews, the presumption by Duke

tends to identify a more universal Jewish impulse and a world view that

underpins it. This characteristic necessarily exists as Jewishness and

transcends or overrides the specific and different moral teachings of the

Bible or Torah. Whilst he does not like the idea, as a professed Christian,

that the Bible (or Torah) informed Communism, he has no problem

citing the Talmud with its anti-Christian emphasis. He identifies the

Talmud as being in some sense responsible for igniting supremacist

racist feelings of violence during the Revolution. Yet such views do not

readily sit with the facts of at least some interpretations of Talmudic

scholarship.

Isaac Arama, an influential philosopher and mystic of the 15th century,

for example, believed that righteous non-Jews are spiritually identical to

the righteous Jews. Whilst Rabbi Menachem Meiri, a

famous Catalan Talmudic commentator and philosopher, considered all

people, who sincerely profess an ethical religion, to be part of a greater

“spiritual Israel”. He explicitly included Christian and Muslims in this

category. Meiri rejected all Talmudic laws that discriminate between the

Jews and non-Jews, claiming that they only apply to the ancient

idolators, who had no sense of morality. The only exception are a few

laws related directly or indirectly to intermarriage, which Meiri did

recognise, and as we have racial distinctions need not necessarily equate

to supremacist belief.

Meiri also applied his idea of “spiritual Israel” to the Talmudic

statements about the unique qualities of the Jewish people. For example,

he believed that the famous saying that Israel is above astrological

predestination (Ein Mazal le-Israel) also applied to the followers of

other ethical faiths. He also considered countries, inhabited by decent

moral non-Jews, such as Languedoc, as a spiritual part of the Holy Land.

Duke however ignores such traditions of Talmudic scholarship and

identifies it as a cause of bigotry and violence. He emphasises

Jewishness and its concomitant tribal impulse as a catalyst to the

Revolution due to purely murderous imperatives caused by this

misconstrued sense of supremacism. This claim for a tribal impulse for

opportunism, and a desire to seek organisational control for the sake of

the tribe too, are traits he constantly characterises as being specifically

Jewish. However, this impulse is not necessarily uniquely characteristic

of Jewishness per se, but more generally only of all human beings given

the necessary event or circumstance. It is not necessarily exclusive to

Jewishness, or limited to that tribe, but only of a more universal

tendency of particular individuals as they behave in respect to their own

groups, and may even be a proclivity to exert power for their own ends

or needs as individuals, rather than the benefit of a particular group, or

indeed subset within the group. In this the maxim is : in the law of the

jungle only the strong survive. But it is a maxim not necessarily

indicative of Jewishness, but only of human beings generally if pressed

into trying circumstances.

A universal of Jewishness is supposed by Duke. A genetic trait manifests

as a predisposition. The predisposition informs a proclivity to tribalism,

which results in unvirtuous actions and shapes a world view, whilst

contrarily it is also claimed that not all Jews believe it, advocate it, nor

seek to implement it. This contradiction cannot be sustained

successfully. It is more indicative therefore of an outright lie that simply

seeks to cover Duke’s own racial prejudices. Further, the Duke genetic

cause fails sufficiently to consider the multiplicity of different Jewish

views, both in respect to their political perspectives on Communism,

their different attitudes to its implementation and their opposition to it

amongst themselves (consider the Menshevik Bolshevik conflict as one

example) or even the disputes about the existence or abolition by

different Jews of the state of Israel. A contradiction in terms then of what

Jewish tribalism supposedly advocates.

The Shoa sympathy vote versus the forgotten Holodomor

The Jewish supremacism thesis is quite happy to establish an association

between those that are believers of Judaism and those that term

themselves atheists and yet identify racially as Jews. They incorrectly

assume “chosen people” denotes (for all Jews) not simply a religious

duty, but a racial distinction harbouring an inbred notion of superiority.

In this conflation, it is argued, the idea of the persecution of the Jewish

race plays a key psychological role. The Holocaust and the idea of Jewish

persecution by Goyim generally throughout history is one Jews seek to

promote, whereas any notion of a specifically Jewish responsibility for

genocide during the Holodomor is downplayed, the Holocaust being

deliberately and cynically promoted to their own advantage in the

predominantly “Jewish run media”. 83

Whilst some Jewish historians who have written about the Jewish role in

the Holodomor and published such articles in the press are praised by

Duke, it is not considered a general virtue of the Jewish run media sites

that permitted or enabled such publications to happen. Nor does Doctor

Duke (op.cit.) consider their willingness to publish a laudable concern to

keep alive such history as an attempt to ensure the mistakes do not

occur again. It is criticised only as being more indicative of hypocrisy- a

83 The Jewish run media thesis ignores the role of major shareholders such as Warren Buffett (Disney's largest investor); Bill Gates (who owns a big piece of Dreamworks and MSNBC) and Gordon Crawford, who manages the media holdings for the secretive Capital Group (which owns a chunk of every major player). But more importantly, it ignores a crucial point about today’s media, namely that their owners are publicly traded multinational corporations, chiefly answerable to banks, insurance companies and other institutional investors, as well as to advertisers. As such it is these who are almost always the key source of revenue. Thus guided, corporate capitalism runs the show with no concern for any race or faith or for anything but profits.

cruel, ostentatious egocentrism, or at best an irony, as if they are proud

of such events, a feature, he claims, which is highly indicative of their

bigoted racism- whilst any “Gentiles” who dare to also raise the topic are

disadvantaged and shot down, being immediately decried as “anti-

Semitic”. The hypocrisy, he claims, only adds an arrogant veneer to their

supremacism.

As he asserts in Jewish Supremacism:

“Jewish historians and publications have no reluctance to point out to Jewish readers in Jewish publications the dominant role of Jews in the Bolshevik revolution in Russia and internationally, even their role in the greatest mass murders of all time. But shockingly, the information is covered up in mainstream publications and broadcasting in Europe and America.” As an example of these dual standards in “The Secret Behind

Communism” (p. 130) Dr Duke cites an article from the popular Israeli

online Jewish Zionist news source YnetNews.com. He describes how in

December 2006 it shared an article with its Jewish readers called

“Stalin’s Jews”, which tells facts about the nature of Communism that

would certainly be criticised as “anti-Semitic” if any Gentile historian or

publication had told them.

In the article, after claiming that “we must not forget that some of the

greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish” Sever Plocker writes:

“We cannot know with certainty the number of deaths Cheka was responsible for in its various manifestations, but the number is surely at least 20 million, including victims of the forced collectivization, the hunger, large purges, expulsions, banishments, executions, and mass death at Gulags.” He continues:

“Genrikh Yagoda was the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th Century, the GPU’s deputy commander and the founder and commander of the NKVD. Yagoda diligently implemented Stalin’s collectivization orders and is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag system.” Whilst Yagoda murdered twice the number of people alleged under Adolf

Hitler’s rule, his name is barely known reasons Duke. The fact he too was

murdered by Stalin (a non-Jew) whose decisions, orders and actions

were ultimately responsible for the Holodomor appears to be of lesser

concern.

Duke’s chief concern then, seeks to distinguish the good Jewish writer

that exposes the horrors of the Holodomor and the “hypocrisy” of a

major Jewish Israeli website that appears to have no problem reporting

that the Jewish Bolshevik Yagoda murdered twice the number. This

number being double the alleged 5.1 million deaths estimated by the

Holocaust historian, Raul Hilberg.84 It is an artificial distinction

however, that does not convince, and rather exposes his dislike and

prejudice of Jewish media sites generally with greater clarity. In claiming

the Jewish writer Plocker has been brave to write such a good article and

yet contrarily that their willingness to publish it suggests hypocrisy,

arrogance and racism, he fails to consider any productive or educational

benefit in the act of publishing such an article by Jews to a general 84 The number in respect to the Holocaust since the figure of approximately 6 million was floated has been criticised by such controversial Hitler loving individuals such as Ernst Zundel. A figure generally (and for some scandalously argued) as one that has largely included all the Jews who died in the war, whether they be allies or enemies and not simply those interned in the concentration camps. The estimated number associated with the camps has in any respect dramatically declined as the Simon Wiesenthal Centre acknowledges in respect to Auschwitz-Birkenau. Thus: “For years, the statistics at Auschwitz-Birkenau had been put at well over 3 million. Recently, however, a memorial plaque at the former death camp estimated Jewish losses closer to 1 million... new figures imply that Jewish losses for the Holocaust are much lower than previously thought.”

readership that might not even be Jewish. Terming them hypocrites, his

accusations of racism and prejudice serve only as a mirror held up to

reveal the prejudices in his own mind.

Another fact produced by Dr Duke is the official honour parades for the

Soviet Red Army that Israel holds. The Ynetnews.com service of May

2013 reported that the Israeli Parliament, the Knesset, officially

honoured Red Army veterans living in that country - and this less than a

year after Israel became the first country since the fall of the Soviet

Union to formally erect a monument honouring the Red Army.

“This behaviour appears counter-intuitive to the uninformed. After all, we are told time and time again that the Soviet Union was “anti-Jewish” and that Jews were “persecuted” in the USSR. If so, why would Israel honour the Red Army of Soviet Russia? ”

This honouring, he asserts, tragically provides a link between the

murderous ways of the Jewish tribalists in Russia and the Zionist ethnic

cleansing of Palestine. The relationship between the two “cannot be

overstated” he claims, and lies in the connecting notion of a racist, tribal,

Jewish supremacism.85

To explain this link, he offers the example of the Israeli honouring of Ilya

Ehrenburg, whom he considers was one of the worst Bolshevik criminals

of the Second World War. In this case there seems less concern to

highlight the fact the Russians were allies with Britain and America

85 For Duke, Zionism and Communism both display Jewish racism in their histories because they have “similar ethnic and ideological roots”. Duke continuously confuses racial distinctions with notions of supremacism more generally.

during WW2 against the so called “Nazi” threat.86 He seeks only to

emphasise Ehrenburg’s inflammatory propaganda which he blames as a

cause of German trials and another connecting link for a Jewish

murdering mentality generally.

Who was Ilya Ehrenberg?

Ehrenburg was a leading international propagandists for Stalin when

the Soviets committed one of the worst mass murders in history. He is

also sometimes considered to have been in part responsible for the

estimated six million figure which was later disseminated in Soviet

Propaganda materials after the Second World War.87 The six million

figure also appeared in the public domain in Hoettl's affidavit to the

Nuremberg Tribunal (November 1945) where the figure (correctly or

not) is ascribed to Eichmann.88 However in respect to Ehrenburg, Duke

is more concerned to emphasise his role as the chief propagandist for the

86 A term created by Konred Heiden, a Marxist Jew, to ridicule the National Socialists. 87 In December of 1944, with the German troops about to invade Prussia, Ehrenburg emphasized the “Nazi’s greatest crime,” the crime against the Jews: “Ask any captured German why his countrymen destroyed six million innocent people and he will answer: “They are Jews. They are black or red-haired. They have different blood…” and all this begin with stupid jokes, with the shouts of street kids, with signposts, and it led to Maidanek, Babi Yar, Treblinka, to ditches filled with children’s corpses.” “Pravda”, December 17, 1994 (p. 3). See also “Pravda”, August 11, 1994, (p. 2), August 12, 1994, (p. 3), October 27, 1944, (p. 4). 88 The six million figure has a long history and is considered today to be largely symbolic. Statements regularly appeared in the world press from 1900 onwards concerning the persecution of this particular number of Jews in the movement for establishing a Jewish homeland. Earlier statements can be traced back to 1870 in the Press. Arguments for more or less than the number estimated during WW2 can be made.

Red Army, and specifically his incitement to mass murder and the rape

of Germans and other Eastern European civilians whilst deriding him.

As the leading Soviet journalist during World War II, Ehrenburg’s

writings against the German invaders were circulated among millions of

Soviet soldiers. His articles appeared regularly in “Pravda”, “Izvestia”,

the Soviet military daily “Krasnaya Zvezda”, and in numerous leaflets

distributed to troops at the front.

In one leaflet headlined “Kill” Ehrenburg incites the Soviet soldiers to

treat Germans (not just the soldiers) as sub-human. The final paragraph

concludes:

“The Germans are not human beings. From now on the word German means to use the most terrible oath. From now on the word German strikes us to the quick. We shall not speak any more. We shall not get excited. We shall kill. If you have not killed at least one German a day, you have wasted that day ... If you cannot kill your German with a bullet, kill him with your bayonet. If there is calm on your part of the front, or if you are waiting for the fighting, kill a German in the meantime. If you leave a German alive, the German will hang a Russian and rape a Russian woman. If you kill one German, kill another -- there is nothing more amusing for us than a heap of German corpses. Do not count days, do not count kilometers. Count only the number of Germans killed by you. Kill the German -- that is your grandmother's request. Kill the German -- that is your child's prayer. Kill the German -- that is your motherland's loud request. Do not miss. Do not let through. Kill.”89 Based on this and other writings, Duke asserts Ehrenburg certainly

contributed to the murder and rape by Soviet soldiers against German

89 Ehrenburg responded that he never meant wiping out the German people, but only German aggressors who came to our soil with weapons, because "we are not Nazi" to fight with civilians. His writings do not justify the raping of defenceless women and children which his writing urged however. However his justification is consistent with the emphasis on German soldiers. He wrote already in May 1942 : "The German soldier with weapon in hand is not a man for us, but a fascist. We hate him [...] When the German soldier gives up his weapon and surrenders, we will not touch him with a finger - he will live." Ehrenburg fell into disgrace at that time and it is estimated that Aleksandrov's article was a signal of change in Stalin's policy towards Germany.

and other Eastern European civilians, whilst failing to emphasise that

Russia was an ally of the British and Americans, or noting the influence

of numerous other propaganda sources that might have played their

part. He focuses only on Ehrenburg the Jew and the injustice of his call

to kill.

As heinous as the call to kill is, and the reported atrocities that ensued

make for difficult reading, the question is whether Ehrenburg’s call to

kill was due to his political ideology, or whether it should be identified as

a particularly tribal trait of Jewishness per se; a cause of some essentially

Jewish reaction, a more universal imperative that by racial association

Israeli Jews also share? For Duke it appears he wants to suggest it is a

tribal trait of Jewishness, a line of reasoning justified by his conflation of

Jewish-Bolshevism and genetic and tribal characteristics. A murderous

imperative awoken further by Ehrenberg’s bloodthirsty need for revenge

at the atrocities committed against the Jews in the concentration camps.

The full extent of such atrocities would have hardly been known at this

time however. It would also be far more sensible to see the call to kill as

simply an attitude more generally that killing the enemy during a war is

justifiable for victory, and that as the events in Yugoslavia or Cambodia

or Vietnam can prove, it is one not necessarily originated by a racially

derived imperative, irrespective of its inhumane taint.

A case justifying the cause of Ehrenburg’s call to kill might even be made,

if one assumes that it was at that time one that sought to ensure victory

in order to diminish the deaths of Jews in the Holocaust, or for that

matter bring the war to an end sooner to save any number of human

lives. The same kind of argument and reasoning that justified the US

atrocities against the Japanese at Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the

dropping of the A bombs. The moral and immoral arguments can be

made, but certainly can never be entirely resolved in respect to

Ehrenburg’s true intentions or motives.

Duke cites The Canadian Jewish News (Dec. 11 1987) concerning

Ehrenburg’s political loyalties which stated that until his death in 1967

he showed:

“his support for the Soviet state, and for Stalin, [which] never wavered. His loyalty and service were acknowledged in 1952 when he received the Stalin Prize. In keeping with official Soviet policy, he publicly criticized Israel and Zionism.”

He cites correctly that they:

“ … arranged to transfer his private archives to Jerusalem’s Yad Vashem library and archive, while still alive.”

The agreed transfer of his archive coming to light 20 years after by the

stipulation of his will.

Doctor Duke finds it suspicious that a “dedicated Bolshevik Soviet

leader” (op.cit. p. 20) secretly willed his private papers, not to the Soviet

Union, but to the Zionist State, where he is honoured at Yad Vashem.

He asserts:

“…the honoring of a genocidal Bolshevik at Yad Vashem, the most important Jewish memorial to the Holocaust, speaks of an enormous hypocrisy that boggles the mind. Only in a deeply corrupted morality could the most important memorial in the world against genocide honor a man who drove on mass murder, and get away with it. All without a word of criticism. It seems that one man’s genocidal maniac is another man’s hero.”

So far as the figure of Ehrenburg was concerned, the reality of who he

was, and what motivated him, is something that itself is indeed mired in

controversy. Certainly Ehrenburg’s identity as a Jew is not in dispute,

but his identity as a committed Communist, and the extent to which one

sustained or undermined the other can be variously assessed. Certainly

Ehrenburg, in his brilliant if now neglected writings, was a chameleon in

this respect, and much of what was written in the Stalin era may have at

least been written not simply out of a pure and unswerving commitment

to Stalinism, as much as an impulse to create as a writer, and again out

of an instinct merely for personal survival, as well as a desire to save the

lives of others.90 The latter could even be justified as a virtue rather than

an instinct to murder.

90 Ehrenburg is particularly well known for his memoirs ("People, Years, Life"), which contain many portraits of interest to literary historians and biographers. In this book, Ehrenburg was the first legal Soviet author to mention positively a lot of names banned under Stalin, including the one of Marina Tsvetaeva. At the same time, he disapproved of the Russian and Soviet intellectuals who had explicitly rejected Stalinism or defected to the West. He also criticized writers like Boris Pasternak, author of "Doctor Zhivago", for not having been able to understand the course of history.

“The Thaw”, however, tested the limits of censorship in the post-Stalin Soviet Union. It shows a man not necessarily uncritical of Stalin. It portrays a corrupted and despotic factory boss, a "little Stalin", and tells the story of his wife, who increasingly feels estranged from him, and the views he represents. In the novel, the spring thaw comes to represent a period of change in the characters’ emotional journey, and when the wife eventually leaves her husband this event coincides with the melting of the snow. Thus the novel can be seen as a representation of the “thaw”, and the increased freedom of the writer after the 'frozen' political period under Stalin.

In August 1954, Konstantin Simonov attacked The Thaw in articles published in Literaturnaya Gazeta, arguing that such writings are too dark and do not serve the Soviet state. The novel gave its name to the Khrushchev Thaw. Just prior to publishing the book, however, Ehrenburg did receive the Stalin Peace Prize in 1952.

Ilya Ehrenburg: a Jewish chameleon

According to the logic of the times, Ehrenburg the Jew should have been

executed at least three or four times, but as Yevgeny Yevtushenko once

said: Ehrenburg “taught us all how to survive.” His life can be

characterised as a colourful one, full of change and contradiction 91. It is

one perhaps best summed up by Ehrenburg himself in his memoirs:

“If within a lifetime a man changes his skin an infinite number of times, almost as often as his suits, he still does not change his heart; he has but one.”

It appeared Ehrenburg’s heart rested ultimately as a Jew in Israel, but

his life reveals a man of multiple personae and not one that can be

simply stereotyped by the one dimensional description of him as merely

a murderous and “dedicated Bolshevik Soviet leader”; one Doctor Duke

appears to want to claim was informed and strengthened primarily by

his “Jewishness”. It might be claimed indeed that it is a plain

oversimplification if not a distortion of the facts by Doctor Duke, and

goes in large part to supporting an argument that seeks to propagate a

rather dangerous anti-Semitism.

91 Another contradictory account of his behaviour is when Ehrenburg tried to enlist in the French army during World War I. He was rejected as being too gaunt and so instead wound up working as a war correspondent for the Russian papers “Utro Rossii” (Morning Russia) and “Birzheviye Vedomosti” (Stock Market news). His reporting was intelligent, skeptical and fair. His coverage of the French army's shameless use of bewildered Senegalese troops in the most exposed positions so infuriated the French government, however, that Ehrenburg was almost expelled from the country. The war took a toll on Ehrenburg and he suffered a nervous breakdown. He began to yearn for his homeland, and after the February Revolution, he was sent back to Russia. He arrived in Petrograd in July and moved on to Moscow where he met the October Revolution by cowering in his room as street fighting raged outside his window.

After becoming an activist for Moscow’s Bolshevik underground,

Ehrenburg was imprisoned at the age of seventeen in 1908. He then fled

Tsarist Russia for Paris, where he met Vladimir Lenin for the first time.

His intellectual colleagues included Picasso, Chagall, Modigliani, and

Rivera (all active Communists, but not all Jews).

By early 1918, Ehrenburg had published a collection of verse entitled “A

Prayer for Russia.” One work in this collection, “Judgment Day” clearly

makes Ehrenburg’s hostility to the Bolsheviks apparent. It features Red

soldiers stopping to rape a woman as they storm the Winter Palace.

Mayakovsky denounced the collection as “tiresome prose printed in

verses” and Ehrenburg as “a frightened intellectual”. Later (in 1921)

Ehrenburg himself dismissed the collection as “artistically weak and

ideologically impotent”, yet the anti-Bolshevik sentiment at this time is

clear.

Throughout 1918 Ehrenburg continued to write anti-Bolshevik articles.

He even ridiculed Lenin as “a stocky bald man” who resembled “a good-

natured burgher”. He likewise ridiculed Marxist atheism by calling

Kamenev and Zinoviev “high priests” who “prayed to the god Lenin”.

By 1919, these kind of activities had made things too difficult for him to

remain in Moscow, and prompted a move to his hometown of Kiev. He

met and was friends during this time with various writers, including

Andrey Sobol (a Jewish Zionist poet) and Osip Mandelshtam92, before he

married a distant cousin Lyubov Kozintseva.

92 After his Stalin’s epigram of 1934, for which the dictator used to say that “vengeance is a dish best served cold”, Mandelstam was first sent to Cherdyn’ in Siberia. Then due to the protection of several powerful Communist party functionaries who were fond of Mandelstam’s poetry, his term became somewhat

The anti-Bolshevik attitude resumed in 1919 when the Whites took

control of Kiev, and Ehrenburg continued publishing hate-filled anti-

Bolshevik articles, calling Lenin’s revolution a “drunken orgy” and the

Bolsheviks “rapists and conquerors”. This attitude, however, did not

appease the fiercely anti-Semitic Whites. They even came looking for

Ehrenburg at his place of work once, but the printers hid him.

Ehrenburg then fled to the Crimea with his wife and his mistress, and

from there returned to Moscow, where he was subsequently arrested for

being an agent of Wrangel. Four days later, he was released, probably

through the intervention of Bukharin.

Resuming his literary life, Ehrenburg worked alongside Andrey Bely,

Boris Pasternak, Sergey Esenin, Vladimir Mayakovsky, Marina

Tsvetaeva, Osip Mandelstam, and others. He barely survived by doing

readings and literary reviews. Then he found a “real” job supervising

children’s theatres for the Ministry of Education.

Although life was hard, he once again with Bukharin's help, became one

of the first Soviet intellectuals to be granted a passport to travel abroad.

Forced to leave his mistress behind this time, Ehrenburg took his wife

and set off for Paris in March 1921. However, after only two weeks in the

French capital, the French police grabbed Ehrenburg and expelled him

from the country, never offering a reason.

From 1921 to 1924 Ehrenburg lived in Berlin and Belgium. His first

novel, “The Extraordinary Adventures of Julio Jurenito and his

Disciples”, was written at this time in some 28 days. It importantly

ridiculed both the capitalist West and the Communist system. The work

milder when he lived in the provincial town of Voronezh. He was deprived of the right to live in the capital and big cities, before he was finally arrested again in 1937. He was then sent to Vladivostok labour camp, where he perished in 1938.

was a parody of the Gospels and was in many ways controversial. It was

blasphemous towards Christianity, but notably attacked both socialists

and pacifists too and also, more significantly, all government

organisations. 93

In October 1921, Ehrenburg moved to Berlin, where his literary output

increased. Of note here is that during this time Ehrenburg was still

critical of governments and specifically the era of the New Economic

Policy in the Soviet Union. It was only with the writing of “Breathless”

(1935) that the writer, by now under the shadow of Stalinism, began to

wholeheartedly accept the official Communist policy in economic and

political matters in his writings.

Although from 1925 to 1945 Ehrenburg lived in Paris, the increasingly

pro Stalinist attitude can perhaps be explained by an awareness of the

influence of Stalin’s reach, as well as the demonstrated threat he posed

to his Russian based comrades. In this respect, even whilst working as a

foreign editor of Soviet newspapers, he was occasionally asked to return

to the USSR “by order”.

During this period of Stalinist compliance Ehrenburg did compose a

screenplay for a film, based on one of his stories. The film was never

realised, but when the International Writers Congress was held in

93 The central character, the cynical prophet Julio Jurenito, is described as having seven disciples thrown into global turmoil. The main character dies at the age of 33 in a provincial Russian town. He is an Antichrist figure, whose teachings appear to be based on hatred. He promotes the destruction of beauty and all arts, unless there is a utilitarian purpose for their products. His involvement in secret plots, somehow connected with the progression toward World War I and the Russian Revolution, never really becomes clear. Among his seven disciples are such ethnic stereotypes as an American industrial entrepreneur, an easy-going Italian, a militaristic German and a noble and naive African. Ehrenburg himself is the first disciple and the author-narrator. The novel also includes authentic characters, such as Mayakovsky, Picasso, Chaplin, Riviera, and Tatlin.

Moscow in 1934, he opposed Gorky, who advocated the doctrine of

Socialist Realism. The anti-Stalin criticism was evident throughout this

period in fairly restrained form. The most notable being “Conspiracy of

Equals” published in 1928. This was a historical novel concerning the

Babeuf movement in Revolutionary France, which rejected terror and

advocated an egalitarian democracy. Stalin again notably did not like this

work, dismissing it as “pulp literature” suitable only for “a real bourgeois

chamber theatre.”

In the face of increasing criticism from Moscow, Ehrenburg gradually

began to shift his writings into a more openly pro-Soviet direction. The

reason might not necessarily have been that he became an ardent

Stalinist, but more because he felt his life was in danger. It might also

have been a concern for the welfare of others associated with him. It

might have been both. To this effect, his work began to focus on

European peasants, blasted Poland’s authoritarian rule, and criticised

France and its racist colonialism. He also more generally undertook a

series of stories and novels exposing the greed of noted wealthy

entrepreneurs.94 These anti- Capitalist writings clearly did not curry

favour with western entrepreneurs and law suits occurred. Bata sued

Ehrenburg, and Kreuger opened a public relations war against the

writer. But Moscow wasn't particularly thrilled either; for while these

books exposed the abuses of capitalism, they also fell short and failed to

suggest Communism as the solution to bourgeois ills.

94 “The Life of the Automobile” focused on Andre Citroen, Pierpont Morgan, and Henry Fordand provides a critique of capitalism. “The Shoe King” attacked Tomas Bata, the Czech footwear capitalist. “Factory of Dreams” took on Hollywood, George Eastman, and the Kodak camera company. “The Single Front” chose as its target Kreuger, the Swedish Match King.

In respect to this, the 1931 edition of the Small Soviet Encyclopaedia

described Ehrenburg as follows:

“He ridicules Western capitalism and the bourgeoisie with genuine wit. But he does not believe in Communism or the proletariat's creative strength.”

A shift in his artistic and anti-political fence sitting came in 1931

however, when Ehrenburg visited Germany twice. The rise of National

Socialism, affected him greatly. It seemed to him that war was inevitable

and he could no longer remain an uncommitted sceptic. However his

comment at this time still reveals a more general disdain for the

authoritarian absolutism of tyranny and notably as he wrote later:

“Between us and the Fascists there was not even a narrow strip of no-man's land.”

In 1932, Ehrenburg became a reporter for Izvestiya. During this time he

covered the trial of a deranged Russian who had assassinated the French

President. In addition, his articles were persistent and clear in calling

attention to the danger of the rise of fascism. Later that year, Ehrenburg

was then obliged to return once more to the Soviet Union, spending

weeks in Siberia, touring construction sites in Sverdlovsk, Tomsk, and

Kuznetsk.

Upon his return to Paris, Ehrenburg penned “The Second Day”

sometimes translated as “Out of Chaos”. It is a day-to-day account of the

harsh conditions of life and the heroic efforts of workers to overcome

nature’s resistance as they build a blast furnace in Kuznetsk. In the

novel, a weak dreamer tries to fit in with the more dedicated workers,

but fails. He therefore becomes complicit in an act of vandalism.

Ashamed of his own spiritual bankruptcy, he kills himself.

The symbolism here might well have been reflective of the author’s own

feelings of trying to identify and fit in with the Communist ethos at this

time and failing. Whatever the case, the work appears to represent

Ehrenburg's attempt to reestablish himself politically in the Soviet

Union. An attempt that was initially rejected before being finally

approved by Stalin.95

Ehrenburg was one of the principal organisers of the International

Writers’ Congress in Defence of Culture, which began its work on 21

June 1935. The goal of the congress was to organise a broad anti-fascist

coalition of writers from a wide range of perspectives, including liberal,

socialist, Communist, Christian, and Surrealist. In 1935, while in

Moscow, he gave speeches and wrote articles in praise of Pasternak,

Babel, Meyerhold, Dovzhenko and the independence of art, but this

resulted only in some criticism again of Ehrenburg. Vera Inber, for

example, rebuked him for implying that only Pasternak had a conscience

among Soviet poets.

When the Spanish Civil War broke out in summer 1936, Ehrenburg

travelled to Spain to report on the war, disobeying instructions from

Izvestia, which ordered him to stay in Paris. His reporting during this

period maintained an anti-Fascist theme. By 1937, he had put together a

book of sketches on the war entitled “What a Man Needs”. Ehrenburg

continued writing dispatches from Spain and France. Then in August

95 Another semi veiled, personal character appears in 1932, when Ehrenburg produced the novel “Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears”. This is about the difficulties of a Russian artist who has the opportunity to study in Paris. The artist is attacked by a critic at home, who denounces his work as degenerate and bourgeois. In this work, notably, Ehrenburg makes the reparatory point of comparing western capitalist society to a lavatory in a fifth-rate Paris hotel.

1939 he suffered a severe shock with the announcement of the Hitler-

Stalin pact. 96

In December 1937, Ehrenburg went to Moscow for a short vacation at the

height of the terror campaign. His friends in Moscow couldn't believe

how foolhardy he was to return at a time when writers were being

regularly arrested and killed. He expected to return to Spain after two

weeks, but the authorities told him this would not be possible. Then, on

the orders of Stalin, he was given a ticket to attend the trial of his old

friend Nikolay Bukharin97. Izvestia wanted him to write an article on the

trial, but Ehrenburg refused. Unknown to Ehrenburg at the time, Karl

Radek, one of Bukharin's co-defendants, had revealed under

“interrogation” that Ehrenburg had been present while Radek and

Bukharin were plotting their coup. Fearful and tired of waiting,

Ehrenburg sent an appeal to Stalin, asking to be sent back to Spain. The

request was refused. Knowing that he was being extremely foolhardy,

96 This event was so shocking to Ehrenburg that for eight months he could only take in liquids and chew on vegetables and a few herbs. He apparently lost 44 pounds in weight during this time. It therefore suggests he viewed Communism and Fascism as diametrically opposed and not simply both “totalitarian” ideologies that he opposed.

97 Nikolai Ivanovich Bukharin, a Russian Bolshevik revolutionary, Soviet politician

and prolific author on revolutionary theory. As a young man, he spent six years in exile, working closely with fellow-exiles Lenin and Trotsky. After the revolution of February 1917, he returned to Moscow, where his Bolshevik credentials earned him a high rank in the party, and after the October revolution, he became editor of the party newspaper Pravda. Within the bitterly divided Bolsheviks, his gradual move to the right, as a defender of the New Economic Policy (NEP), positioned him favourably as Stalin’s chief ally, and together they ousted Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev from the party leadership. From 1926-1929, Bukharin enjoyed great power as General Secretary of Comintern's executive committee. But Stalin’s decision to proceed with Collectivisation drove the two men apart, and Bukharin was expelled from the Politburo.

Ehrenburg decided to send a second appeal to Stalin that again, for

reasons unknown, was granted.

During the war, he wrote over two thousand articles, mainly for the

paper Krasnaya Zvezda. He gained credibility and popularity among the

troops by frankly assessing German strength and admitting Soviet losses,

as well as expressing a fierce hatred for the enemy. Molotov reported

that Ehrenburg “was worth several divisions” in this respect. On May

Day 1944, these efforts were recognised, when he received the Lenin

Prize.

In 1948, Ehrenburg produced the novel “Storm” about World War II

with action set both in the Soviet Union and in France. It described the

enormous efforts of the Red Army to defeat “Nazi” Germany. While it

contained descriptions of the massacres of Jews at Baby Yar. It also

portrayed a shocking liaison between a Russian and a French actress

(marriages with foreigners were illegal at the time) and made an oblique

jibe at the Hitler-Stalin pact. Nonetheless, it still won the Stalin Prize.

In 1954, Ehrenburg wrote “The Thaw”. This tested the boundaries of free

speech in the relatively less rigid, but short lived period. Ehrenburg's

connections with the top of the Soviet political hierarchy were

exceptionally good at this time, and just before Stalin’s death rumors

began to spread in Moscow that the writer had even been chosen to

deliver a petition to Stalin, begging him to let Russia’s Jews leave for

Siberia. Stalin publically voiced support, but behind the scenes planned

to launch another purge whilst using Jewish doctors and their absurdly

invented “crimes” as an alibi for his own heinous crimes.

In the last years of his life Ehrenburg devoted his time to campaigning

to have published works by writers who had been earlier politically

condemned by the regime. For example, when Boris Pasternak was

awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1958 for his novel “Doctor

Zhivago”, and Soviet authorities started a protest campaign, Ehrenburg

refused to participate in it. This put his own life in danger. Similarly,

when Yevgeny Yevtushenko came under attack for his poem “Babi Yar”

in 1961, Ehrenburg rose to his defence by writing a letter to the editor of

“Literaturnaya Gazeta”. Ehrenburg lent support to younger writers also.

He signed a letter in support of Iosif Brodsky, counselled Andrey

Voznesensky on how best to avoid complications, protested against the

sentences given to Sinyavsky and Danil and expressed positive views

about Solzhenitsyn.

The above account then hardly supports the epithet of Ehrenburg as “a

genocidal manic” (op. cit.) or :

“..one of worst Bolshevik criminals of the Second World War”, as Doctor

Duke also describes him (op.cit. p 19).

It shows a man concerned with the principles of freedom and the human

condition: a Communist yes, but a man just as capable of exposing its

frailities, injustices and limitations. This could more easily be said of his

attitude to the limitations of capitalism and a decadent Western society,

but Communism under both Lenin and Stalin regimes was not beyond

his critical perception either. Neither is it clear that as The Canadian

Jewish News states:

“Until his death in 1967 his support for the Soviet state and for Stalin never wavered.”

Whilst Ehrenburg in this respect is often cited as a prototypical

“assimilated Jew” of the Soviet Union, a Communist and one who lacked

“Jewish national consciousness”98 , he more accurately represents a:

“strange blend of nihilistic and alienated sentiment with regard to Jewish national culture [with a] boundless admiration for the culture of the host nation… characteristic of assimilated Jews the world over.”99

Any “national consciousness” that did emerge, for Ehrenburg, was in

response to anti-Semitism. A danger prevalent both in his opposition to

National Socialism and his shifting attitudes during the changes of the

Stalinist regime. In this, as his memoirs indicate, Ilya Ehrenburg’s

identity as a Soviet Jewish intellectual is a paradox in and of itself, whose

contradictions need to be understood in the context of a complex and for

him highly dangerous and continually changing Soviet environment.

Remembering what drove the Holocaust and the Holodomor

For David Duke (op. cit.. p.22-23) Jewishness (manifest as Zionism) and

“Communism” (manifest as Bolshevism) are not necessarily

incompatible because they are driven by an underlying common tribal

urge, which in turn exhibits an essential racism and prejudice that

exacerbates murder and genocide. In this he identifies Jewishness as the

cause and projects the past into the present time:

“Zionist influence over American and EU policy directly led to the Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, and the death and suffering of millions of innocents by Zionist, tribalist- driven wars in the Mideast. What do these events have in common? Racial hatred is shown as a clear motivation in the genocides of the Jewish Bolsheviks. Their motivations

98 Pinkus, Benjamin The Soviet Government and the Jews 1984. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. p.20 . 99 (op.cit. p.20)

must be fully understood. Can one understand the crimes of Zionism without seeing their relationship to the crimes of Communism?”

The Communist Holodomor is an event that all people of the world must

become better educated about, lest humanity be “doomed to repeat such

horrors” warns Duke (op. cit.. p. 23). This is not in dispute and is

perfectly true and correct. Yet the question arises as to whether it should

be utilised as a pretext to stir up the racial prejudice of the past and to

vilify and brand a particular race with the hot iron of hatred today? Can

it be productively remembered if it is used only as a means to stir up

anti-Semitism and tribal instincts amongst others that might lead to the

same errors being perpetrated again, but this time against the Jews more

generally as scapegoats? In this it is to be noted that Doctor Duke often

conflates Zionism, Bolshevism and Jewishness by recourse to a Jewish

universal characterised by immorality.

The same reasoning continues with his claim that the Holodomor’s lack

of publicity in comparison to the Holocaust is because of a Jewish

conspiracy by a largely Jewish owned media, to promote purely Jewish

sympathies and by extension aid purely Jewish interests globally. There

is little distinction of competing Jewish individuals or interests in these

arguments. There is more a tendency to seek a general trait of

Jewishness as a default position for what he terms “Zio-globalism”. This

term, denoting a desire by the Jewish elite to take over the planet, and

presumably enslave or slaughter any who stand in their way.

Duke emphasises the Holodomor as being but one historic event in an

onward progression toward Jewish supremacism worldwide. He

emphasises its relative lack of promotion in comparison to the Holocaust

as being part of the Jewish strategy for global domination by drawing

influence using a sympathy vote. In this, however, whilst it is undeniably

true that the Holodomor has been less publicised than the Holocaust, it

need not necessarily imply a Jewish concern for domination, nor need it

suppose Jewish prejudice, or enforce a desire to manipulate emotions for

their own advantage.

Admittedly more publicity for both would serve a dual utility, as it would

evoke sympathy for all those who perished and survived, whilst instilling

an interest or fear that such events should not happen again. However it

should always be contextualised clearly in terms of what precisely the

chief motivating factors were which caused these events to arise.

In this respect, the Holocaust appears to have been instigated due to a

more general racial hatred. Also it cannot be overstated that even the

possibility of a reprisal of anti-Semitic feeling that might be awoken by

the dissemination of such a view that: “Jews were responsible for the

slaughter of many more millions than the National Socialists during the

Holodomor”, rather than appealing to the tragedy of such an event in the

name of an anti-Communism, could awaken the spectre of persecution of

Jews as a race once more, adding to the recurrence of their persecution.

Whilst it is important, right and fitting to give air to the Holodomor, as it

is in the case of the Holocaust, it may also be used to channel a more

dangerous prejudice that should always be guarded against: an outrage

towards Jews more generally for atrocities committed, even if those

individuals acted out of a purely political persuasion that overrode all

else that might be identified more readily as Jewish. This leads to a kind

of self-fulfilling justification for hatred against them once more and

creates a racial identity target of the kind that creates the events he

wishes to guard against. The danger of contextualising the event in terms

of race is not one hung on the Communist ideology, which transcends

race and nation as a specific.

Whilst atrocities might be further justified in the name of a mistaken

application of its ideology, and often are by Communists and Socialists

themselves, the targeting of a specific race as perpetrators due to an

inherent sense of their own superiority, the claim Dr Duke seeks to

make, is one that is explicit and far more specific and not so easily shook

off by those influenced by fear and prejudice.

That his reasoning invites a recurrence of the danger however is not one

that appears to concern Doctor Duke. He emphasises that the

Holodomor itself was informed by a Talmudic imperative when he then

goes on to cite particularly inflammatory passages from it. In this, he

also targets not just those Jewish atheists who were Bolsheviks, whom

he claims yet were ultimately believers in a “Jewish” ethnic

supremacism, but the whole lineage of Jews. This is yet not confined to

those Jews who are followers of Talmudic practise, but non-religious

also. Where is this to end?

Duke believes, when referencing the Holodomor, that it arose from a

more general Jewish imperative, which motivated the ethnic cleansing of

races that opposed their fundamental interests throughout history. Yet

the dangers of awakening such racial prejudice currently with this type of

interpretation should not be justified for events now past. Whilst the

memory of the Holocaust itself at least attempts to provide the true

safety valve for the dangers of a genocide cast in not simply political, but

racially motivated terms. This in turn also provides a necessary and

important protection for others in respect to the dangers of racism, as

well as the Jews generally, one of the most vilified and persecuted races

in history.

In assuming his thesis, Doctor Duke fails to take into account the degree

of the assimilation of the Jews to their national or political identity, or

indeed the degree to which diaspora, and the concomitant alienation as a

race apart from their deeper sense of what constitutes national identity

might have determined individual behaviour. He seeks only to prove

Jewishness is responsible for strengthening a tribal mind-set, which

when given the requisite circumstances, will always impose its notions

of supremacy over others by instigating mass murder. He fails in this to

see it in terms of an ideological conflict of different political paradigms,

but rather as something in the blood.

One example of the conflict however can be given in respect to the

organisation called the Association of German National Jews. They were

a pro-National Socialist Jewish group whose membership not only

welcomed Hitler’s accession, but actively promoted the self-eradication

of Jewish identity and its absorption into the new, heroic, master-

culture.

In respect to the Holocaust and the Second World War, Duke fails to

consider the extent that national identity and political sympathies drove

even some Jews to join the German army and serve in Hitler’s ranks; a

fact that clearly overrode any tendency to a specifically Jewish tribalism

and supremacism. He also fails to consider the definition of what it

means to be Jewish itself adequately in respect to these cited

contradictions.

For those who cling to ideas of racial purity there is clearly only

accumulated genocide as a solution if a race appears to pose a danger.

The example can be seen in respect to Hitler who trod the murderous

road based on ideas of “racial purity” which had no clearly delimited

borders and which began to incorporate a wider spectrum of deaths in

his concerns for maintaining racial purity and supremacism. Hitler

encountered unexpected detours in this. In respect to the Jews, this was

largely due to his own inconsistent views and policies regarding Jewish

identity. After centuries of Jewish assimilation and intermarriage in

German society, he discovered that eliminating Jews from the rest of the

population was more difficult than he had first anticipated.

As Bryan Mark Rigg shows in “Hitler's Jewish Soldiers: The Untold Story

of Nazi Racial Laws and Men of Jewish Descent in the German Military”

nowhere was that heinous process more fraught with contradiction and

confusion than the Jews within the German military.

Contrary to conventional views, Rigg reveals that a large number of

German military men were classified by the National Socialists as Jews,

or more correctly “partial-Jews” (Mischlinge), in the wake of racial laws

first enacted in the mid-1930s. Rigg demonstrates that the actual

number in the military however was much higher than previously

thought; perhaps as many as 150,000 men, including decorated veterans

and high-ranking officers, even generals and admirals.

As Rigg documents, a great many of these men did not even consider

themselves Jewish, and had embraced the military as a way of life, and

as devoted patriots eager to serve a revived German nation. Here their

national loyalties clearly outweighed any sense of Jewish tribalism. In

turn, they had been embraced by the Wehrmacht, which prior to Hitler

had given little thought to the “race” of these men, but which

nevertheless looked deeply into their ancestry.

The process of investigation and removal of Jews during Hitler’s reign,

was required to address these issues, but it was one that became

characterised by a highly inconsistent application of racial law.

Numerous “exemptions” were made in order to allow a soldier to stay

within the ranks if they were important. Reasons were even found to

spare a soldier’s parent, spouse, or other relative from incarceration.

Hitler’s own signature can even be found on many of these “exemption”

orders, but as the war dragged on, politics came to trump military logic,

even in the face of the Wehrmacht’s growing manpower needs. Legal

loopholes began to be closed and German soldiers too found they could

not escape the fate of millions of other non- serving soldiers as victims of

the Third Reich.

The Holodomor was not a racist inspired death event

The Holocaust and Holodomor provide a more general warning of the

dangers of political extremism in respect to any potential future death

event. However, the Holodomor, in this respect is different, as it was one

not inspired by a racially motivated prejudice. In this the Holocaust is

distinct, inasmuch as the decision made by Hitler to systematically

annihilate the Jews (if it was personally made, for no specific order by

him has been discovered) was based on a loathing and hatred for Jews as

a race.100 An event such as the Holodomor however resulted from a

100 Much can be learnt by Doctor Duke of the dangers of Hitler’s line of reasoning. However it is in respect to Hitler not supported by his befriending of Jews himself. His chauffeur and body guard Emil Maurice was reputedly Jewish by virtue of his grandfather and yet was made on discovering this fact an honorary Aryan by Hitler

decision made by Stalin, not as a consequence of any racial prejudice,

but only out of a concern to quell emerging nationalism in the Ukraine

and further his collectivisation programme. It was, therefore, a decision

made primarily out of political expediency, rather than one inspired,

contextualised, or even justified by racial hatred. In this Nationalism in

Germany gave rise to the justification for racial genocide. Whereas

Communism under Stalin gave rise to a death event in order to quash

Nationalism.

That such death events occur due to political motives can be proven if

one considers the events in China under Mao, or the events in Cambodia

under the Khymer Rouge.101 These events were not motivated by racial

distinctions, but political extremism, economic factors and class

distinctions.

In this too, contra Duke, political extremism is quite often the catalyst

which redefines tribal loyalties and creates new group distinctions and

sustains them. They are given a rational justification and they are all the

more dangerous for that. This might then lead to the justification of

genocide, not through simply racial supremacism, fear or hatred of

another race, but through rationalising the justification for prejudice

against those that do not fit into the political group.

himself. Since one-sixteenth Jews were already exempt from the Nuremberg Laws, Maurice, who became an SS general, was probably more Jewish than that. Nazi race laws in this respect then also appear to have been a matter of expediency. 101 The Khmer Rouge regime arrested and eventually executed almost everyone suspected of connections with the former government or with foreign governments, as well as professionals and intellectuals. Ethnic Vietnamese, ethnic Thai, ethnic Chinese, ethnic Cham, Cambodian Christians, and the Buddhist monkhood were the demographic targets of persecution. As a result, Pol Pot is sometimes described as “the Hitler of Cambodia” and “a genocidal tyrant.” Martin Shaw described the Cambodian genocide as “the purest genocide of the Cold War era.”

In respect to Communism however Duke seeks to claim:

“If the world had been aware of the Jewish tribalist forces behind Communism and their organized role in the most massive violation of human rights in all of history… the world could have averted their excesses in modern times.”

A media blitz in respect to the Holocaust neither lessened recent

extinctions in respect of Cambodia or Yugoslavia. Neither is it likely

therefore that the lack of an awareness of the Holodomor contributed to

these quite separate events from still taking place.

Duke further makes the case that the wars orchestrated in the Middle

East by what he terms “Zionist techniques of terrorism” implementing

the “ethnic cleansing, torture and murder in Palestine and across the

Mideast” were strategies learned in the Jewish Bolshevik revolt against

Russian society, which in turn was born of a Jewish racist tribalism

extending back over untold centuries. He claims:

“The massacre at Deir Yassin and the ethnic cleansing of 700,000 Palestinians were born of the same misanthropic tribalism which drove the ethnic genocide of Russians and Ukranians.” 102

102 The Jewish forces that entered Deir Yassin belonged in the main to two extremist, underground, paramilitary groups, the Irgun (Etzel) (National Military Organisation) and the Lehi (Fighters for the Freedom of Israel) also known as the Stern Gang. Both aligned with the right-wing revisionist Zionist movement. In the Deir Yassin massacre, where 254 Arabs were killed, Duke like others with an anti-Semitic bias, conveniently omits the fact that the groups responsible for the act were officially condemned by the organs of the Jewish community. He omits to mention an official apology and sincere regret was sent by David Ben Gurion to King Abdullah after the event. He omits that the attack was centred at a military post in the midst of the village and that the Arab inhabitants had been urged by Jewish forces prior to the attack to leave. He omits to contextualise the event as being part of on-going hostilities where numerous incidents took place on both sides. For example, three days later 77 Jews (doctors, nurses and other university personnel) travelling in a Red Cross convoy were ambushed and mercilessly killed by Arab forces; an incident where no apology was forthcoming. In this Duke tends to view the massacre, terrible as it was, in a vacuum. He appeals to it to justify in a biased, and not accurately historical way, his anti-Semitic tribal

In this, the issue again must be framed first in terms of political

motivations, rather than an imagined inherent disposition of the Jews to

slaughter other races should they oppose the interests of the tribe.

Concerning this, too it is doubtful that Stalin was acting primarily out of

a sense of ethnic hatred or racism in his ordering of sanctions that

instigated the collectivisation pogrom. Neither, is it likely that he was

himself strongly in favour or against particular races, unlike Hitler, or in

a more general sense that he liked or disliked Jews one way or the other.

103 Considering the evidence and his shifting attitude and actions, some

contrary even to the official Party line, he appears to have acted purely

out of a sense of political expediency, varying according to the situation

and the events in a manner he considered were merited to preserve his

own personal power, whilst claiming furthermore that it was for the

overall benefit of the collective.

Stalin’s iron rule was forged by a political not a Jewish

imperative

theory of Jews as mass murderers. It is utilised in rather the same way that the bombing of Dresden by allied forces is used by National Socialist apologists and Holocaust revisionists, when they assert that Dresden was the only real Holocaust of the war, or the only one of any significance. 103 This racist tribalism is ultimately thought to stretch back thousands of years. He also asserts in reference to this that Stalin (a mass murderer) was a cultural Judeo-phile in everything but descent ( op. cit.. p.244). Yet he notes that by the end of his life he too saw the Jews as “the ultimate threat to both himself and the Russian people”.

On January 12, 1931 Stalin gave the following answer to an inquiry on

the subject of the Soviet attitude toward anti-Semitism from the Jewish

News Agency in the United States:

“National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism, as an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of cannibalism.

Anti-semitism is of advantage to the exploiters as a lightning conductor that deflects the blows aimed by the working people at capitalism. Anti-semitism is dangerous for the working people as being a false path that leads them off the right road and lands them in the jungle. Hence Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but be irreconcilable, sworn enemies of anti-semitism.

In the U.S.S.R. anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under U.S.S.R. law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty.”104

This pro Jewish approach was put into practice with the creation of the

“Russian Israel”. This was intended to offset the growing Jewish national

and religious aspirations of Zionism, and was intended to successfully

categorise Soviet Jews under Stalin’s nationality policy. The alternative

Israel was established with the help of Komzet and OZET in 1928. The

Jewish Autonomous Oblast, with its centre in Birobidzhan in the

Russian Far East, was hailed as the new “Soviet Zion”. Yiddish, rather

than “reactionary” Hebrew, was supposed to be the national language,

and proletarian socialist literature and arts would replace Judaism as

acceptable culture.

104 Joseph Stalin. "Reply to an Inquiry of the Jewish News Agency in the United States". Works, Vol. 13, July 1930-January 1934. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1954 (p. 30).

Despite a massive domestic and international state propaganda

campaign, the Jewish population established never reached more than

30% (as of 2003 it was only about 1.2%). The experiment more or less

ground to a halt in the mid-1930s during Stalin’s first campaign of

purges, as local leaders were not spared during the purges.

The so-called Great Purge (or Great Terror) launched in 1936-1937

involved the execution of over a half-million Soviet citizens accused of

treason, terrorism, and other anti-Soviet crimes. The campaign of purges

prominently targeted Stalin’s former opponents and other Old

Bolsheviks, and included a large-scale purge of the Communist Party of

the Soviet Union generally; the repression of the Kulak peasants, Red

Army leaders, and ordinary citizens accused of conspiring against the

Stalinist government.105

Although many of the Great Purge victims were ethnic or religious Jews,

they were not specifically targeted as an ethnic group during this

campaign, at least according to Mikhail Baitalsky,106 David Priestland,107

Jeffrey Veidlinger,108 Roy Medvedev 109 and Edvard Radzinsky.110

86 Figes, Orlando (2007). The Whisperers: Private Life in Stalin's Russia. New York: Metropolitan (p. 227-315).

106 Baitalsky, Mikhail "Russkii evrei vchera i segodnia", unpublished manuscript. Quoted in Roy Medvedev (1989). Let History Judge: The Origins and Consequences of Stalinism. Trans. George Shriver. New York: Columbia University Press (p. 563). 107 Priestland, David (2009). The Red Flag: A History of Communism. New York: Grove Press (p. 282). 108 Veidlinger, Jeffrey (2000). The Moscow State Yiddish Theater: Jewish Culture on the Soviet Stage. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press (p. 10-11). 109 Medvedev, Roy (1989). Let History Judge: The Origins and Consequences of Stalinism. Trans. George Shriver. New York: Columbia University Press (p. 562).

In marked contrast to this attitude however, during his meeting with

Ribbentrop, Stalin did show anti-Semitic tendencies. He did so when he

promised to get rid of the “Jewish domination”, especially among

intellectuals.111 After dismissing Maxim Litvinov as Foreign Minister in

1939,112 Stalin immediately directed incoming Foreign Minister

Vyacheslav Molotov to “purge the ministry of Jews”. However he might

well have done this as a political expedient to appease Hitler and to

signal Nazi Germany that the USSR was ready for non-aggression talks,

than out of personal racial prejudices.113

According to some historians, however, Stalin’s anti-Semitic trends were

evident in the Kremlin’s policies and were exacerbated with the exile of

Leon Trotsky.114 In the late 1930s, 1940s and 1950s far fewer Jews were

appointed to positions of power than previously, with a sharp drop in

Jewish representation in senior positions- evident from around the time

of the beginning of the late 1930s rapprochement with Nazi Germany.

The percentage of Jews in positions of power dropped to 6% in 1938, and

110 Edvard Radzinsky, “Stalin”, Moscow, Vagrius, 1997 (Ch. 24). 111 Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev Twilight, Moscow, 2003 ( p. 208). 112 Herf, Jeffrey (2006), The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda During World War II and the Holocaust, Harvard University Press ( p. 56). 113 Herf, Jeffrey (2006), The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda During World War II and the Holocaust, Harvard University Press, p. 56. See also Resis, Albert (2000), "The Fall of Litvinov: Harbinger of the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact", Europe-Asia Studies 52 (1): 35. Also Moss, Walter, A History of Russia: Since 1855, Anthem Press, 2005. 114 Etinger, Iakov (1995). "The Doctors' Plot: Stalin's Solution to the Jewish Question". In Yaacov Ro'i, Jews and Jewish Life in Russia and the Soviet Union. London: Frank Cass. (p. 103-6). Also Rappaport, Helen, Joseph Stalin: A Biographical Companion, ABC-CLIO, 1999 (p. 297).

to 5% in 1940.115 Yet none of this suggests anything more than a concern

by Stalin to retain his own iron grip on power.

The Jewish Autonomous Oblast experienced a revival as the Soviet

government sponsored the migration of as many as ten thousand

Eastern European Jews to Birobidzhan in 1946-1948.116 In early 1946,

the Council of Ministers of the USSR announced a plan to build new

infrastructure, and Mikhail Kalinin, a champion of the Birobidzhan

project since the late 1920s, stated that he still considered the region as a

“Jewish national state” that could be revived through “creative toil.”117

In the meantime, Stalin also publically warmed to the idea of Israel as a

Jewish state. In 1947, the Soviet Union joined the United States in

supporting the partition of British Palestine into Jewish and Arab states,

and supported Israel in the 1948 Arab–Israeli War with weaponry

supplied via Czechoslovakia.118

Nonetheless, Stalin began a new purge in repressing his wartime allies,

the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. In January 1948, Solomon Mikhoels

was assassinated on Stalin’s personal orders in Minsk. His murder was

disguised as a hit-and-run car accident. Mikhoels was taken to MGB

dacha and killed, along with his non-Jewish colleague Golubov-Potapov,

115 Gennady Коstyrchenko "Stalin's secret policy: Power and Antisemitism" (2003). 116 Weinberg, Robert (1998). Stalin's Forgotten Zion: Birobidzhan and the Making of a Soviet Jewish Homeland. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 72-75 117 Weinberg, Robert (1998). Stalin's Forgotten Zion: Birobidzhan and the Making of a Soviet Jewish Homeland. Berkeley: University of California Press (p. 72-75). 118 Norman Berdichevsky (September 20, 2010). "Israel’s Allies in 1948; The USSR, Czechoslovakia, American Mainline Churches and the Left”, Canada Free Press.

under supervision of Stalin's Deputy Minister of State Security Sergei

Ogoltsov. Their bodies were then dumped on a road-side in Minsk.119

Despite Stalin’s willingness to support Israel early on, various historians

suppose that anti-Semitism in the late 1940s and early 1950s was

motivated by Stalin’s possible perception of Jews as a potential “fifth

column” in light of a pro-Western Israel in the Middle East. In respect to

this Orlando Figes suggests that:

“After the foundation of Israel in May 1948, and its alignment with the USA in the Cold War, the 2 million Soviet Jews, who had always remained loyal to the Soviet system, were portrayed by the Stalinist regime as a potential fifth column. Despite his personal dislike of Jews, Stalin had been an early supporter of a Jewish state in Palestine, which he had hoped to turn into a Soviet satellite in the Middle East. But as the leadership of the emerging state proved hostile to approaches from the Soviet Union, Stalin became increasingly afraid of pro-Israeli feeling among Soviet Jews. His fears intensified as a result of Golda Meir's arrival in Moscow in the autumn of 1948 as the first Israeli ambassador to the USSR. On her visit to a Moscow synagogue on Yom Kippur (13 October), thousands of people lined the streets, many of them shouting ‘Am Yisroel chai’ ('The people of Israel live!')—a traditional affirmation of national renewal to Jews throughout the world but to Stalin a dangerous sign of 'bourgeois Jewish nationalism' that subverted the authority of the Soviet state.”120

Historians Albert S. Lindemann and Richard S. Levy also observe that:

“When, in October 1948, during the high holy days, thousands of Jews rallied around Moscow's central synagogue to honor Golda Meir, the first Israeli ambassador, the authorities became especially alarmed at the signs of Jewish disaffection.” 121

119 Robert Conquest, Reflections on a Ravaged Century, Norton, (2000) 120 Figes, Orlando (2008). The Whisperers: Private Life in Stalin's Russia. New York: Picador USA (p. 493). 121 Lindemann, Albert S. & Richard S. Levy (2010). Antisemitism: A History. New York: Oxford University Press (p. 187).

Jeffrey Veidlinger writes that:

“By October 1948, it was obvious that Mikhoels was by no means the sole advocate of Zionism among Soviet Jews. The revival of Jewish cultural expression during the war had fostered a general sense of boldness among the Jewish masses. Many Jews remained oblivious to the growing Zhdanovshchina and the threat to Soviet Jews that the brewing campaign against 'rootless cosmopolitans' signaled. Indeed, official attitudes toward Jewish culture were ambivalent during this period. On the surface, Jewish culture seemed to be supported by the state: public efforts had been made to sustain the Yiddish theater after Mikhoels's death, Eynikayt was still publishing on schedule, and, most important, the Soviet Union recognized the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. To most Moscow Jews, the state of Soviet Jewry had never been better.”122

In November 1948, Soviet authorities launched a campaign to end what

was left of Jewish culture. The leading members of the Jewish Anti-

Fascist Committee were arrested. They were charged with treason,

bourgeois nationalism and planning to set up a Jewish republic in

Crimea to serve American interests. The Museum of Environmental

Knowledge of the Jewish Autonomous Oblast (established in November

1944) and The Jewish Museum in Vilnius (established at the end of the

war) were closed down in 1948.123 The Historical-Ethnographic Museum

of Georgian Jewry, established in 1933, was shut down at the end of

1951.

In Birobidzhan, the various Jewish cultural institutions that had been

established under Stalin’s earlier policy of support for “proletarian

Jewish culture” in the 1930s were closed down between late 1948 and

early 1949. These included the Kaganovich Yiddish Theatre, the Yiddish

122 Veidlinger, Jeffrey (2000). The Moscow State Yiddish Theater: Jewish Culture on the Soviet Stage. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press (p. 266). 123 Pinkus, Benjamin (1990). The Jews of the Soviet Union: The History of a National Minority. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (p. 205).

publishing house, the Yiddish newspaper Birobidzhan, the library of

Yiddish and Hebrew books, and the local Jewish schools.124 The same

happened to Yiddish theatres all over the Soviet Union, beginning with

the Odessa Yiddish Theatre and including the Moscow State Jewish

Theatre.

In early February 1949, the Stalin Prize-winning microbiologist Nikolay

Gamaleya, a pioneer of bacteriology and member of the Academy of

Sciences, wrote a personal letter to Stalin, protesting the growing anti-

Semitism:

“Judging by absolutely indisputable and obvious indications, the reappearance of antisemitism is not coming from below, not from the masses. . . but is directed from above, by someone's invisible hand. Antisemitism is coming from some high-placed persons who have taken up posts in the leading party organs. . .125 The ninety-year-old scientist wrote Stalin a second letter in mid-February, again mentioning the growing antisemitism. In March, Gamaleya died, still having received no answer.”

During the night of August 12–13, 1952, remembered as the “Night of the

Murdered Poets”, thirteen of the most prominent Yiddish writers of the

Soviet Union were executed on the orders of Stalin. Among the victims

were Peretz Markish, David Bergelson and Itzik Fefer. The case that such

acts were not warranted by an ethnic hatred for Jews specifically, but

were motivated by a desire to retain political control, can be supported in

reference to a statement made on December 1, 1952 in a Politburo

session, where Stalin announced:

124 Pinkus, Benjamin (1990). The Jews of the Soviet Union: The History of a National Minority. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (p. 193). 125 Gamaleya, Nikolay. Letter to J. V. Stalin, Archive of the President of the Russian Federation. Quoted in Vaksberg, Arkady (2003). Iz ada v ray i obratno: yevreyskiy vopros po Leninu, Stalinu i Solzhenitsynu. Moscow: Olimp (p. 344-346).

“Every Jewish nationalist is the agent of the American intelligence service. Jewish nationalists think that their nation was saved by the USA. . . They think they are indebted to the Americans. Among doctors, there are many Jewish nationalists.”126

A notable campaign to quietly remove Jews from positions of authority

within the state security services was carried out in 1952-1953. The

Russian historians Zhores and Roy Medvedev wrote that according to

[MVD] General Sudoplatov,

“simultaneously all Jews were removed from the leadership of the security services, even those in very senior positions. In February the anti-Jewish expulsions were extended to regional branches of the MGB. A secret directive was distributed to all regional directorates of the MGB on 22 February, ordering that all Jewish employees of the MGB be dismissed immediately, regardless of rank, age or service record. . . .”127

The outside world was not ignorant of these developments, and even the

leading members of the Communist Party USA complained about the

situation. Of these some may have been motivated by being Jewish

themselves. In contrast in the memoir “Being Red”, the American writer

and Communist Howard Fast (Jewish) recalls a meeting with Soviet

writer and World Peace Congress delegate Alexander Fadeyev during

this time. Fadeyev insisted that:

“There is no anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union”, despite the evidence:

“that at least eight leading Jewish figures in the Red Army and in government had been arrested on what appeared to be trumped-up

126 Lindemann, Albert S. & Richard S. Levy (2010). Antisemitism: A History. New York: Oxford University Press (p. 187-188). 127 Medvedev, Zhores A. & Roy A. Medvedev (2006). The Unknown Stalin. London: I. B. Tauris (p. 43).

charges. Yiddish-language newspapers had been suppressed. Schools that taught Hebrew had been closed. . . .” 128

On January 13, 1953, the Soviet Union’s TASS information agency

announced the unmasking of a conspiracy of so-called “doctors-

poisoners” who had covertly attempted to decapitate the Soviet

leadership. The accused doctors were all senior physicians—most of

them Jewish—who had allegedly confessed to planning and successfully

carrying out heinous assassinations, including the covert murders of

such high-profile Soviet citizens as writer Alexander Shcherbakov (died

1945) and politician Andrey Zhdanov (died 1948). The alleged

conspirators were accused of acting on behalf of both the American and

British intelligence services and an anti-Soviet international Jewish

bourgeois-nationalist organisation.129

As Western press accused the Soviet Union of anti-Semitism, the Central

Committee of Communist Party decided to organise a propaganda trick,

a collective letter by the Jewish public, condemning with fervour “the

murderers in white overalls” and the agents of imperialism and Zionism.

It sought to assure there was no anti-Semitism in the USSR. The letter

was signed by well-known scientists and culture figures, but they had

been forced to do so by the NKVD. 130

However, the letter, initially planned to be published in February, 1953,

remained unpublished. Instead of the letter, “The Simple-minded and

the Swindlers” was published in Pravda, featuring numerous characters

128 Fast, Howard (1994). Being Red: A Memoir. Armon, New York: M. E. Sharpe (p. 217-218). 129 Ro'i, Yaacov (1980). Soviet Decision Making in Practice: The USSR and Israel, 1947-1954. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Books (p. 373). 130 Edvard Radzinsky. Stalin (in Russian). Moscow, Vagrius, 1997. available online. Translated version: "Stalin", 1996, (Ch. 24).

with Jewish names, all of them swindlers, villains, and saboteurs, whom

the naïve Russian people trusted, having lost vigilance. What followed

was a new wave of anti-Semitic hysteria and rumors that all Jews would

be sent to Siberia, similar to other ethnic groups. Only Stalin’s death the

same year relieved the fear.131 Similar purges against Jews were

organised in Eastern Bloc countries also.

During this time Soviet Jews were dubbed as persons of Jewish ethnicity,

but the charge of anti-Semitism at least in terms of a prejudice towards

Jews due to their racial lineage was still denied. In respect to this

contrary attitude, a dean of the Marxism-Leninism department at one of

the Soviet Universities explained the policy to his students:

“One of you asked if our current political campaign can be regarded as antisemitic. Comrade Stalin said: "We hate National Socialists not because they are Germans, but because they brought enormous suffering to our land". Same can be said about the Jews.”132

In defence of an emphasis on political, rather than specifically racial

concerns, some of Stalin's associates were Jews, or had Jewish spouses,

including Lazar Kaganovich.133 Many of them were purged, including

Nikolai Yezhov's wife and Polina Zhemchuzhina, who was Vyacheslav

Molotov's wife, and also Bronislava Poskrebysheva.134 However, as

historian Geoffrey Roberts points out Stalin “continued to fête Jewish

131 Edvard Radzinsky. Stalin (in Russian). Moscow, Vagrius, 1997 (available online). Translated version: "Stalin". 132 Benedikt Sarnov, “Our Soviet Newspeak: A Short Encyclopedia of Real Socialism”, Moscow: 2002, "Persons of Jewish ethnicity"( pages 287-293). 133 Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar. New York: Random House Inc. 2003. 134 “Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar”, New York: Random House Inc. 2003.

writers and artists even at the height of the anti-Zionist campaign of the

early 1950s.” 135

Stalin’s personal attitude to Jews

When Stalin’s young daughter Svetlana fell in love with a prominent

Soviet filmmaker Alexei Kapler, a Jewish man twenty-three years her

elder, Stalin was strongly irritated by the relationship. According to

Svetlana, “He was irritated more than anything else by the fact that

Kapler was Jewish.”136 Kapler was however officially convicted to ten

years of hard labour in Gulag on the charges of being an “English spy”.

So too, when Stalin's daughter later fell in love with Grigori Morozov,

another Jew, and sought to marry him, Stalin agreed to their marriage

after much pleading on Svetlana's part. He did however refuse to attend

the wedding.

Stalin’s son Yakov also married a Jewish woman, Yulia Meltzer, and

although Stalin disapproved at first, he grew increasingly fond of her.

Stalin’s biographer too, Simon Sebag Montefiore, writes that Lavrenty

Beria's son noted that his father could list a number of affairs of Stalin’s

that had involved Jewish women.137

Nikita Khrushchev in contrast wrote in his memoirs that:

“A hostile attitude toward the Jewish nation was a major shortcoming of Stalin’s. In his speeches and writings as a leader and

135 Roberts, Geoffrey (2006). “Stalin's Wars: From World War to Cold War, 1939-1953”, New Haven: Yale University Press (p. 341). 136 N. Tolstoy (ibid. p. 24). 137 Sebag-Montefiore, Simon (2005). “Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar”. New York: Random House (p. 267).

theoretician there wasn't even a hint of this. God forbid that anyone assert that a statement by him smacked of antisemitism. Outwardly everything looked correct and proper. But in his inner circle, when he had occasion to speak about some Jewish person, he always used an emphatically distorted pronunciation. This was the way backward people lacking in political consciousness would express themselves in daily life—people with a contemptuous attitude toward Jews. They would deliberately mangle the Russian language, putting on a Jewish accent or imitating certain negative characteristics [attributed to Jews]. Stalin loved to do this, and it became one of his characteristic traits.”138

He further professed that Stalin frequently made anti-Semitic comments

after World War II.139

Analysing various explanations for Stalin’s perceived attitude in his book

“The Lesser Terror: Soviet State Security, 1939-1953”, historian Michael

Parrish posits that:

“It has been suggested that Stalin, who remained first and foremost a Georgian throughout his life, somehow became a 'Great Russian' and decided that Jews would make a scapegoat for the ills of the Soviet Union. Others, such as the Polish writer Aleksander Wat (himself a victim), claim that Stalin was not an antisemite by nature, but the pro-Americanism of Soviet Jews forced him to follow a deliberate policy of antisemitism. Wat's views are, however, colored by the fact that Stalin, for obvious reasons, at first depended on Jewish Communists to help carry out his post-war policies in Poland. I believe a better explanation was Stalin's sense of envy (an occupational hazard for Marxists), which consumed him throughout his life. He also found in Jews a convenient target. By

138 Khrushchev, Nikita & Sergei Khrushchev (Ed.) (2006). Memoirs of Nikita Khrushchev, Volume 2. University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press (p. 47). 139 Khrushchev, Nikita & Sergei Khrushchev (Ed.) (2006). Memoirs of Nikita Khrushchev, Volume 2. University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press. (p. 50).

late 1930, Stalin, as [his daughter's] memoirs indicate, was suffering from a full-blown case of antisemitism.”140

On the other hand, in “Esau's Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise

of the Jews”, historian Albert S. Lindemann observes that:

“Determining Stalin's real attitude to Jews is difficult. Not only did he repeatedly speak out against anti-Semitism but both his son and daughter married Jews, and several of his closest and most devoted lieutenants from the late 1920s through the 1930s were of Jewish origin, for example Lazar Moiseyevich Kaganovich, Maxim Litvinov, and the notorious head of the secret police, Genrikh Yagoda. There were not so many Jews allied with Stalin on the party's right as there were allied with Trotsky on the left, but the importance of men like Kaganovich, Litvinov, and Yagoda makes it hard to believe that Stalin harbored a categorical hatred of all Jews, as a race, in the way that Hitler did. Scholars as knowledgeable and diverse in their opinions as Isaac Deutscher and Robert Conquest have denied that anything as crude and dogmatic as Nazi-style anti-Semitism motivated Stalin. It may be enough simply to note that Stalin was a man of towering hatreds, corrosive suspicions, and impenetrable duplicity. He saw enemies everywhere, and it just so happened that many of his enemies—virtually all his enemies—were Jews, above all, the enemy, Trotsky.

Jews in the party were often verbally adroit, polylingual, and broadly educated—all qualities Stalin lacked. To observe, as his daughter Svetlana has, that 'Stalin did not like Jews,' does not tell us much, since he 'did not like' any group: His hatreds and suspicions knew no limits; even party members from his native Georgia were not exempt. Whether he hated Jews with a special intensity or quality is not clear.”141

It is not even clear if Stalin was himself a Jew. It should also be

emphasised that even if he was, it could (considering his ambivalent

140 Parrish, Michael. The Lesser Terror: Soviet State Security, 1939-1953. Westport Connecticut: Greenwood Press (p. 197). 141 Lindemann, Albert (2000). Esau's Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (p. 454).

attitude towards Jews) in any case only strengthen the case against an

underlying Jewish tribalism or loyalty mind-set that unites them as Dr

Duke supposes. Furthermore, if he wasn’t, the argument for an

underlying Jewishness, rather than a political imperative, being

responsible for implementing genocide against the Ukrainians is further

undermined.

Stalin’s disputed Jewish background

Stalin’s name at birth was Iosif Vissarionovich Dzugashvili, which some

erroneously suggest means “Son of [a] Jew” in Old Georgian.

Overlooking his mother, others have asserted Stalin’s actual father was a

Jew named David Papisnedov: a local trader, or that Stalin’s actual

father was a Jewish trader named Nikolai Przhevalsky whom Stalin’s

mother worked for as a washerwoman. This lineage would not make

Stalin a Jew however, even if the facts of his lineage were true in respect

to the paternal lineage. There are, in any case, any number of hypotheses

and popular rumours about the “real” parentage of Stalin.142

There is evidence that Stalin, in his early years as a revolutionary also

took the nickname “Bar Kochba”; thus emulating the Jewish religious

zealot whose name is associated with the second Jewish revolt against

Rome. In fact Stalin actually used the nickname “Koba”.143 “Koba” is a

Georgian romantic and literary figure similar to Robin Hood in English

literature144. As such he fits the Marxist revolutionary Stalin a lot better

than the alleged “Bar Kochba”. The origin of Stalin’s use of the nickname

142 Was Prejevalsky really the father of Joseph Stalin?". Logoi.com. Retrieved 19 October 2008. 143 Wood (op. cit. p. 14). 144 Deutscher (op. cit. p. 7).

“Koba” probably lies again with Egnatashvili, another acclaimed father,

as he used “Koba” as his wrestling alias and was still close to Stalin in

1929.145

The “Bar Kochba” fallacy is supposed to strengthen the Jewish claim,

along with the use of “Djugashvili”, and the supposed meaning “Son of a

Jew” in Old Georgian. The meaning of the name is one that dates back to

the Ukrainian nationalist diaspora of the 1930s, where it appears to have

been first argued. It was popularised as a theory by Maurice Pinay in his

work “The Plot against the Church” 2000, 1967 (p. 67) where he states:

“At the head of the names stands Stalin himself, who for a long time was regarded as a Georgian of pure descent. But it has been revealed, that he belongs to the Jewish race; for Djougachvili, which is his surname, means “Son of Djou,” and Djou is a small island in Persia, whither many banished Portuguese “Gypsies” migrated, who late settled in Georgia. Today it is almost completely proved, that Stalin has Jewish blood, although he neither confirmed or denied the rumors, about which mutterings began in his direction.”

The argument made by Pinay and others lays particular stress on the

meaning of the surname “Djougachvili” or “Djugashvili”, which in

Pinay’s opinion means “Son of Djou” and in the precursor argument:

“Son of [a] Jew”. But neither of these are, in fact, correct since the word

“Djuga” in old Georgian does not mean “Jew” or “Djou”, but “iron” or

“steel”. The old Georgian words for Jew were in fact “Ebraeli” or “Uriya”,

which bear no resemblance to “Djuga” or “Dzhuga”. 146 Hence Stalin’s

surname would actually mean something like the “Son of Steel”, which

then makes sense of Stalin’s adoption of “Stalin” as his surname, which

145 Montefiore (op.cit. p. 387).

146 Edvard Radzinsky, 1997, “Stalin”, 1st Edition, Anchor: London (p. 39).

in Russian roughly means “Man of Steel”. We can speculate that in

Stalin’s eyes he was the “Son of Steel” in Georgia and hence became the

“Man of Steel” in Russia. This impressive name makes sense when we

understand the Georgians regarded themselves as a hard-working

warrior people and had a fearsome reputation in their country for it. 147

Montefiore's claim, based on Stalin's mother’s suggestion, is that

Djugashvili means “Son of the Herd” and is possibly Ossetian in origin.

148. He derives the Ossetian root of Stalin’s name from the testimony of

those around Stalin, who later claimed that he was more Asian than

Russian; that said both of those who principally make this claim are

Jewish (Leon Trotksy and Maxim Litvinov).149. His daughter too has

emphasised this “Asian” legacy in interviews.

This is most likely a tactic of both Trotsky’s and Litvinov’s, as old

Bolsheviks and comrades of Stalin, 150 to try to minimise the impact of

his influence on the international Communist movement. The intention

was to play on the traditional Russian dislike of the peoples of the

Caucasus’- whom they considered to be racially alien. This is evident as

early as 1925, when Trotsky and Kamenev both argued this when they

147 Alfred Reiber, 2005, “Stalin as Georgian: The Formative Years”, pp. 18-20 in Sarah Davies, James Harris (Eds.), 2005, “Stalin: A New History”, 1st Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York. 148 Simon Sebag Montefiore, 2007, “Young Stalin”, 1st Edition, Phoenix: London ( p. 19). 149 Leon Trotsky, 1947, 'Stalin: An Appraisal of the Man and his Influence', 2nd Edition, Hollis and Carter: London, pp. 417-420. Vojtech Mastny, 1976, 'The Cassandra in the Foreign Commissariat: Maxim Litvinov and the Cold War', Foreign Affairs, Vol. 54, (p. 366-376). 150 Robert Service, 2011, 'Spies and Commissars: Bolshevik Russia and the West', 1st Edition, MacMillan: Basingstoke.

were trying to turn the Soviet Central Committee against Stalin, so that

they could become the leaders. 151

This is ironically represented in some of Stalin’s first actions as de facto

ruler, when he systematically undermined the decentralised

governmental systems of the different nationalities that made up the

Russian Empire, 152 in spite of having been instrumental in having set

them up. 153

In this respect, Reiber 154 and Wood 155 argue for his status as a racial

outsider in Russian society, and therefore that he felt a need to modify

superstructure not just the foundation. In this, nationality is an abstract

creation of economic necessity, and Soviet ideas of nationality were

made to accommodate his own status as an alien. Stalin did in fact state

at least once that he was more Asian than European, but was careful to

clarify his meaning when he added that he was a “Russified Georgian”.

156.

What Stalin meant here was quite simple: he was part of a reviled and

distrusted community in Russian society and born of a society that owes

151 Reiber, 'Stalin as Georgian' (op. cit. p. 18). 152 Nikolai Ssorin-Chaikov, 2007, 'Representing “Primitive Communists”: Ethnographic and Political Authority in Early Soviet Siberia', pp. 282-288 in Jane Burbank, Mark von Hagen, Anatolyi Remnev (Eds.), 2007, 'Russian Empire: Space, People, Power, 1700-1930', 1st Edition, Indiana University Press: Indianapolis 153 Jeremy Smith, 2005, 'Stalin as Commissar for Nationality Affairs, 1918-1922', pp. 45-50 in Sarah Davies, James Harris (Eds.), 2005, 'Stalin: A New History', 1st Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York. 154 Albert Reiber, 2001, 'Stalin: Man of the Borderlands', American Historical Review, Vol. 5, (p. 1651-1691). 155 Alan Wood, 2005, 'Stalin and Stalinism', 2nd Edition, Routledge: New York (p. 11). 156 Reiber, 'Stalin as Georgian', (op. cit. p. 18).

more to Asia than to Europe, which meant perhaps in his view that he

has had to become European through becoming Russian, rather than

remaining identified as Asiatic by being Georgian. 157

This subsequent shift of identity is behind Stalin’s time as a student

priest, and explains his attraction to Marxism. A view that allowed him

to change from an Asiatic to a European, free from the restrictions of the

Christian priesthood; which at that time in practise , if not in theory,

enacted racial discrimination. His freedom, he justified, would be by the

comradeship encapsulated in denying the validity of all previous

ideologies except those enunciated by Marx. This in spite of the fact; as

Pipes has argued, 158 that Marxism had in actuality very little influence in

guiding the politics and policy of the Soviet Union (except in its earliest

years) 159, but was rather a way of rationalising and justifying it.160

All this informs any understanding of Stalin’s identity and his attitude to

race, because he was conscious of being Georgian and was in a sense

both proud of it and ashamed of it simultaneously. In this way he was

comparable to Jews like Trotsky; 161 as he was a member of a minority

that may have felt itself persecuted by the Russians 162 and this also

served to strengthen his alliance with those Jews who, resentful of the

fact, also sought to oppose the Russians. 163

157 Montefiore (op. cit.pp. 40-43). 158 Richard Pipes, 1994, 'Russia under the Bolshevik Regime', 1st Edition, The Harvill Press: London (p. 502). 159 Andrjez Walikci, 1995, 'Marxism and the Leap to the Kingdom of Freedom', 1st Edition, Stanford University Press: Stanford (p. 2). 160 Isaac Deutscher, 1967, 'Stalin: A Political Biography', 2nd Edition, Oxford University Press: New York (p. 458-460). 161 Reiber, 'Stalin as Georgian' (op. cit... p. 21). 162 Montefiore (op. cit. p. 133-136). 163 Wood (op. cit. p. 11-12).

However, the association of different races in a political alliance

undermines a Jewish tribal mind-set theory and by consequence the

Jewish supremacism charge as a sole cause for revolution. The alliance

can be also interpreted more readily as a political cause and

consequently as a class struggle. It is a simple matter to use a nationality

denying intellectual system like Marxism, to channel the alliance of races

into a proletariat struggle against a class in a superior position, without

seeming to be overtly racist and thereby diminish both nationalistic and

international appeal.

However Stalin’s ambivalence to the Jews once in power remains. His

attitude towards Jews is of significance, but unresolved. It may have

been reflected specifically in his hatred for Trotsky, but this appears

again to be one of political expediency, and perpetuated by a concern for

retaining absolute power against (in some quarters) a perceived hero in

exile, rather than driven by any sense of specifically racial hatred. If it

was indicative of a wider dislike for Jews generally, then his anti-

Semitism fundamentally determined how the whole post-war world

subsequently developed.164

Closing remarks

164 The assertion of Russian National-Bolshevism as a whole under Stalin meant that many of the original Bolshevik policies were reversed on such issues as the family and parenthood. From 1948 “rootless cosmopolitanism”, which was thought to be synonymous with Jewish influences in the arts and even in the sciences, was purged in favour of a specifically “Soviet culture” based firmly on folk tradition.

In summary, whilst Stalin’s hatred against all that opposed his absolute

and tyrannical power is not in dispute, nor his scant disregard for human

life lessened by his willingness to implement murder for political ends,

what is largely unproven was his attitude towards Jews in terms of a pro-

Semitic favouritism suggestive of supporting a Jewish-Bolshevism

tribalist thesis, or an anti-Semitism that opposes it. He himself was most

likely not of the Jewish race, nor did he consider himself particularly

loyal to Jews.

Evidently the Holdomor ultimately rests as Stalin’s responsibility. How

then can it be cited as David Duke does as being indicative of an

underlying Jewish imperative, or to be more precise (which Duke isn’t) a

Jewish Stalinism as the cause is frankly perverse.

Indeed Jewish Bolshevism cannot even be cited as proving a Jewish

responsibility for the Holodomor generally; for it is the application of a

conflation and a Jewish universal cast in prejudiced terms to prove a

false notion of racism and supremacism. In all of this, the correct

perspective should be one cast in political, rather than racial terms.

Jewish-Bolshevism was clearly not an ethnocentric imperative

motivating the Holodomor.

Stalinism embraced a dictatorial totalitarianism not in keeping with

Marxism’s original principles. Neither should the dangers of a conflation

of Zionism with Bolshevism, nor the dangers of a genetic interpretation

of Jewishness as a murderous, devious and supremacist tendency be

championed. Such events have in the past been used to perpetuate racial

prejudice and genocide against a specific race itself and it appears Doctor

Duke is guilty of making a similar error in his attempt to lessen the

likelihood.

Doctor Duke usually highlights the atrocities committed by Jews, rather

than Communists, or indeed Marxist-Leninists, and especially Stalinists

more specifically. If not then he generally conflates the two and identifies

a common enemy. Yet in respect to the later, and his citing of the

Holodomor, he still focuses on Kaganovich and Yogoda in terms of their

Jewishness. It is this he claims which informs their imperative to act. It

is an interpretation that downplays their political persuasion, or at least

presumes Jewish –Bolshevism; it indicates a prejudice against race in his

own mind.

When Duke does speak of Communists, he rather conflates it with

Jewish ethnocentric supremacism. In respect to Stalin, he does not view

his personal decision as taking precedence, nor does he view it as an act

of political expediency by him. He rather predictably seeks to claim there

is an overriding ethos being implemented by recourse to Jewishness that

brought about the slaughter. He emphasises the claim that the

Holodomor should be remembered (as it should be) in order to prevent

such atrocities happening again, but he does so disingenuously,

emphasising the perpetration of such events in terms of an exclusively

Jewish tribe mentality. He does this in order to awaken people to the

persistent and dangerous idea of a Jewish supremacism, a racism

running through a lineage into the present (a false notion I might add),

rather than emphasising historic events in terms of a Soviet political

ideology that sought to redefine and override and resolve racial and

national distinctions. His line of reasoning is a deceitful strategy itself,

deliberately incited to promulgate and justify (one suspects) a White

supremacism. It perpetuates at the least notions of national identity

drawn upon purely racial, as opposed to political lines.165

165 Duke appears to be more in line with the school of thought promulgated by the Occidental Quarterly journal. A journal that explicitly rejects neo-conservatism and calls for a “third school” to emerge from paleo-conservatism in the form of an ideology of Western European identity politics. It holds that the American political order of freedom and liberty is under ethnic and ideological threat from mostly Jewish ideologies. Its foreign policy positions, broadly, are anti-immigration with the exception of “selected people of European ancestry” and advocate non-interventionism, including the rejection of influence from Israel and Mexico on U.S. politics. See “A Statement of Principles”- The Occidental Quarterly.

Some members of the British New Right amongst others promulgate the slogan “Africa for the Blacks and Europe for the Whites, etc” to ultimately define an Imperium Europa of White supremacist rule that defines yet another variation of a New World Order. A view often preached by people with sympathies towards a pro-National Socialist, Holocaust revisionist mind-set; such as the pro- Palestinian, Israel denying, Birobidzhan (Jewish Autonomous Blast) advocate Lady Michelle Renouf. Whilst she herself claims not to be anti-Semitic, on the grounds that she does not regard Judaism as genetic and criticises Christian Zionism in equivalent terms (“you don't have to be Jewish to be Jew-ish”), she has still described Judaism as a “repugnant and hate-filled religion’. The European Jewish Congress quoted Lady Renouf as telling the Tehran Holocaust denial Conference in 2006: “Anti-Semitism is caused by the anti-Gentile nature of Judaism”. She advocates instead adherence to the four classical virtues, which she believes to be the basis of Western civilisation and the U.S. constitution.

In these views no allowance for determining precisely what it is that defines a Jew or indeed an African or European, or indeed an American is made, but it appears to be drawn in some instances upon racial lines and racial history. Are we to suppose therefore that the United States is to be a native American Indian country only by right of their racial history and birth? It appears not! As Hitler found out determining second, or third generation Germans who just so happened to be of Jewish descent was not easy, and where precisely is one to draw the line in respect to Americans? Clearly second and third generation Britons whose relatives for example emigrated from the West Indies or Pakistan might well view themselves as British or even English without considering themselves Anglo-Saxon. A term that in itself in any case suggests a racial history of hybrid tribal identity, and where are the Celts to fit in all of this? This said, there is no reason to equate a desire to preserve the nation state with racism as some Communists or Socialists who advocate a thorough going left leaning internationalism or a supra-national socialist state might wish to do. More generally, the ideology of political correctness has sought to suppress any notion of nationalism in this sense. They claim it is indicative of racism when it is only indicative of racialism. They also seek to curtail any political group that might oppose an open border, no nation multi-cultural approach that seeks to preserve the indigenous race and culture as Israel itself does. They label them fascists or intolerant bigots in order to support their cause. Many nationalists free of such

Duke’s line of reasoning displays racism pure and simple. Racism (as

opposed to the distinction of race) seeks to justify supremacism within

its perspective and is therefore bigoted. Consequently it should not be

supported. In this, the very vilification and racial identification that Dr

Duke is himself committing (and yet piously and somewhat

hypocritically warns about as a danger) is in fact perpetuated by his own

line of reasoning. The dangers of such reasoning, however, led directly to

the horrors of the Holocaust itself, as my brief history detailing the

Jewish-Bolshevik-Zionist conflation shows. Whilst his reasoning further

seeks to justify such a conflation, by focusing on the primacy of a Jewish

tribal impulse cast in immoral and supremacist terms.

Duke attempts to define Jewishness as a negative universal, rather than

dealing with events on a case by case basis. He does this to influence

people’s thinking to a more anti-Semitic view generally. In doing so, he

fails to make this an issue of whether political extremism influences

actions and imperatives. He rather casts it in terms of a specific racial

prejudice. He justifies it with an anti-Semitic, tribal supremacist

rationale.

Whilst it is clearly the case ultimately that Jews must have some

universal defining characteristic unique to themselves by virtue of being

Jewish, it is not at all clear that this quality necessitates that they are

stereotypically immoral, murdering, devious supremacists that seek to

further their own specific goals and agendas because they are Jews to the

detriment of others. In this, a racial or religious universal for example

need not necessitate a universally held notion of supremacism. Neither is

prejudice are in any case smeared as racists or fascists in the interests of closing down the debate.

it clear that any negative characteristics they might share as Jews are

ones specific to them alone. They might equally be ones we all share as

human beings. In this it cannot be the case that Jews themselves should

be turned into scapegoats for crimes committed by certain Jewish

individuals simply because they were acting (in the case of the Russian

Revolution and Holodomor) to support other, non- Jew specific, political

causes.

The Holodomor was an atrocity originated by political extremism and

one implemented at worst in order to quash a possible national uprising.

A case can be made it was not one originated by purely racial hatred. It

was ordered by Stalin (a non-Jew) and implemented by his agents

irrespective of whether these were Jews, Christians, Atheists, Caucasian,

Russians or indeed Ukrainians. It was implemented in the name of a

Soviet collectivist political imperative that sought to deconstruct national

identities and quash national uprisings. Racial hatred then was an

enemy to be quashed not amplified and the solution lay in an increasing

political extremism.

Racism itself was neither the underlying cause of the Holodomor, nor

would it be recognised as its prerogative. In this respect, the numerous

ethnicities, nationalities, Gentiles and Jews were united by the one

feature they had in common; their allegiance to the political ideology of

Communism, and the desire to quash Ukrainian nationalism in the name

of a political ideology of collectivism. Under Stalin this was a dogmatic

and nihilistic political extremism, where individuals were to be

considered expendable to further the advantages of Stalinism and

particularly advantage Stalin himself. 166 All else is pure speculation and

cannot be conclusively proven.167 Neither is it productive or courageous

to do so in respect of citing the Holodomor.

166 Scholars disagree on the relative importance of natural factors and bad economic policies as causes of the famine and the extent to which the destruction of the Ukrainian peasantry was premeditated on the part of Stalin. Using Holodomor in reference to the famine emphasises its man-made aspects, arguing that actions such as rejection of outside aid, confiscation of all household foodstuffs, and restriction of population movement confer intent, defining the famine as genocide. The loss of life has been compared to the Holocaust: Zisels, Josef; Kharaz, Halyna (11 November 2007). "Will Holodomor receive the same status as the Holocaust?". "Maidan" Alliance. If Soviet policies and actions were conclusively documented as intending to eradicate the rise of Ukrainian nationalism, they would fall under the legal definition of genocide. In the absence of absolute documentary proof of intent, however, scholars have also argued that the Holodomor was ultimately a consequence of the economic problems associated with radical economic changes implemented during the period of liquidation of private property and Soviet industrialisation.

167 Robert Conquest, the author of the Harvest of Sorrow, has stated that the famine of 1932–33 was a deliberate act of mass murder, if not genocide, committed as part of the collectivisation programme in the Soviet Union. Conquest and R.W. Davies and Stephen G. Wheatcroft – believe that, had industrialisation been abandoned, the famine would have been “prevented”, or at least significantly alleviated:

“[We] regard the policy of rapid industrialisation as an underlying cause of the agricultural troubles of the early 1930s, and we do not believe that the Chinese or NEP versions of industrialisation were viable in Soviet national and international circumstances.”

They see the leadership under Stalin as making significant errors in planning for the industrialisation of agriculture. Dr. Michael Ellman of the University of Amsterdam argues that, in addition to deportations, internment in the Gulag camps and shootings was evidence that Stalin used starvation as a weapon in his war against the peasantry (Ellman 2005). He analyses the actions of the Soviet authorities, two of commission and one of omission: (i) exporting 1.8 million tonnes of grain during the mass starvation (enough to feed more than five million people for one year), (ii) preventing migration from famine afflicted areas (which may have cost an estimated 150,000 lives) and (iii) making no effort to secure grain assistance from abroad (which caused an estimated 1.5 million excess deaths), as well as the attitude of the Stalinist regime in 1932–33 (that many of those starving to death were counterrevolutionaries, idlers or thieves who fully deserved their fate). Based on this analysis he concludes, however, that the actions of Stalin’s authorities against Ukrainians do not meet the standards of specific intent required to prove genocide as defined by the UN convention (with the notable exception of the case of Kuban Ukrainians). Ellman (2007) further concluded that if the soft definition of genocide is used, the actions of Stalin’s authorities do fit such a definition of genocide. However, this looser definition of genocide makes the latter the common

historical event, according to Ellman. Regarding the aforementioned actions taken by Stalin in the early 1930s, Ellman states that, from the standpoint of contemporary international criminal law, Stalin is “clearly guilty” of “crimes against humanity” and that, from the standpoint of national criminal law, the only way to defend Stalin from a charge of mass murder is “to argue he was ignorant of the consequences of his actions”. He also rebukes Davies and Wheatcroft for, among other things, their “very narrow understanding” of intent. He states:

“According to them, only taking an action whose sole objective is to cause deaths among the peasantry counts as intent. Taking an action with some other goal (e.g. exporting grain to import machinery) but which the actor certainly knows will also cause peasants to starve does not count as intentionally starving the peasants. However, this is an interpretation of 'intent' which flies in the face of the general legal interpretation.”

Adam Jones (2010 pp. 136-137) stresses that many of the actions of the Soviet leadership during 1931–32 should be considered genocidal. Not only did the famine kill millions, it took place against “a backdrop of persecution, mass execution, and incarceration clearly aimed at undermining Ukrainians as a national group”. Norman Naimark, a historian at Stanford University an expert in modern East European history, genocide and ethnic cleansing, argues that some of the actions of Stalin’s regime, not only those during the Holodomor, but also Dekulakisation and targeted campaigns (with over 110,000 shot) against particular ethnic groups, can be considered genocidal.

In 2006, the Security Service of Ukraine declassified more than 5,000 pages of Holodomor archives SBU documents show that Moscow singled out Ukraine in famine". 5 Kanal. 22 November 2006. These documents suggest that the Soviet regime singled out Ukraine by not giving it the same humanitarian aid given to regions outside it. The statistical distribution of famine's victims among the ethnicities closely reflects the ethnic distribution of the rural population of Ukraine. Moldavian, Polish, German and Bulgarian population that mostly resided in the rural communities of Ukraine suffered in the same proportion as the rural Ukrainian population.

James Mace was one of the first to show that the famine constituted genocide. But British economist Stephen Wheatcroft, who studied the famine, believed that Mace's work debased the field of Russian studies. However, Wheatcroft's characterisation of the famine deaths as largely excusable, negligent homicide has been challenged by economist Steven Rosefielde, who states:

“Grain supplies were sufficient to sustain everyone if properly distributed. People died mostly of terror-starvation (excess grain exports, seizure of edibles from the starving, state refusal to provide emergency relief, bans on outmigration, and forced deportation to food-deficit locales), not poor harvests and routine administrative bungling.”

In his 1953 speech the Father of the [UN] Genocide Convention, Dr Raphael Lemkin described the destruction of the Ukrainian nation as being a “classic example of genocide”, for:

“...the Ukrainian is not and never has been a Russian. His culture, his temperament, his language, his religion, are all different...to eliminate (Ukrainian) nationalism...the Ukrainian peasantry was sacrificed...a famine was necessary for the Soviet and so

The Holodomor should be remembered as a terrible event that warns of

the horrors and dangers of Communism, not twisted in order to

perpetuate and further strengthen or awaken anti-Semitic prejudice.

Lest the horrors of the Holocaust be repeated again. 168

they got one to order...if the Soviet program succeeds completely, if the intelligentsia, the priest, and the peasant can be eliminated [then] Ukraine will be as dead as if every Ukrainian were killed, for it will have lost that part of it which has kept and developed its culture, its beliefs, its common ideas, which have guided it and given it a soul, which, in short, made it a nation...This is not simply a case of mass murder. It is a case of genocide, of the destruction, not of individuals only, but of a culture and a nation.”

Timothy Snyder, Professor of History at Yale University, asserts that in 1933 “Joseph Stalin was deliberately starving Ukraine” through a campaign of requisitions that began Europe’s era of mass killing. He argues the Soviets themselves ensured that the term genocide, contrary to Lemkin’s intentions, excluded political and economic groups. Thus the Ukrainian famine can be presented as somehow less genocidal because it targeted a class, kulaks, as well as a nation.

168 In addition to the philosophical arguments used to warn of the danger of an anti-Semitic tribal-racist explanation for revolution, murder and genocide, let it be remembered that Dr David Duke is a man of influence. He is a former Louisiana State Representative, a man who has run for political office, and run a campaign to be President of the United States. He has his own publishing house for the distribution of his own books, and an army of followers who assist him in producing his professionally made videos. He has also rubbed shoulders with influential people such as Solzhenitsyn, whose complex and subtle work appears to be misunderstood as anti-Semitic, as well as others such as Aleksandr Dugin (see below) an advisor to President Putin, whose dangerous philosophical views on neo-Eurasianism will be the subject of a forthcoming article in the future.

Appendix I

The Protocols of Zion-a wicked hoax

Key to the notion of Jewish Supremacism is the validity or otherwise of “The Learned Elders of the Protocols of Zion”; a book which Dr Duke has recently launched as an illustrated volume. Its believers claim it maps out the truth of a Jewish Conspiracy for global domination, passed down, it is attested, as a plan by Jewish Zionists through the generations. The recorded facts concerning how the volume arose are as follows. In 1884 the daughter of a Russian general, Justine Glinka, was endeavouring to serve her country in Paris by obtaining political information, which she communicated to General Orgevskii in St. Petersburg. For this purpose she employed a Jew, Joseph Schorst, member of the Mizraim Lodge in Paris. One day Schorst offered to obtain for her a document of great importance to Russia, on the payment of 2,500 francs. This sum on being received from St. Petersburg was paid and the document subsequently handed to Glinka. She forwarded the French original, accompanied by a Russian

translation, to Orgevskii, who in turn handed it to his chief, General Cherevin, for transmission to the Tsar. But Cherevin, under obligation to wealthy Jews, refused to transmit it, merely filing it in the archives. Meanwhile, there appeared in Paris certain books on Russian court life which displeased the Tsar, who ordered his secret police to discover their authorship. This was falsely attributed, perhaps with malicious intent, to Mlle. Glinka, and on her return to Russia she was banished to her estate in Orel. To the Marechal de Noblesse of this district, Alexis Sukhotin, Mlle. Glinka gave a copy of the Protocols. Sukhotin showed the document to two friends, Stepanov and Nilus: the former had it printed and circulated privately in 1897; the second, Professor Sergius A. Nilus, published it for the first time in Tsarskoe-Tselo (Russia) in 1901, in a book entitled “The Great Within the Small”. Then, about the same time, a friend of Nilus, G. Butmi, also brought it out and a copy was deposited in the British Museum on August 10, 1906. Meantime, through Jewish members of the Russian police, minutes of the proceedings of the Basle congress in 1897 had been obtained and these were found to correspond with the Protocols. In January 1917, Nilus had prepared a second edition, revised and documented, for publication. But before it could be put on the market, the revolution of March 1917 had taken place, and Kerenskii, who had succeeded to power, ordered the whole edition of Nilus's book to be destroyed. In 1924, Prof. Nilus was arrested by the Cheka in Kiev, imprisoned, and tortured; he was told it was claimed, by the Jewish president of the court, that this treatment was meted out to him for “having done them incalculable harm in publishing the Protocols”. Released for a few months, he was again led before the GPU (Cheka), this time in Moscow and confined. Freed in February 1926, he died in exile in the district of Vladimir on January 13, 1929. A few copies of Nilus's second edition were saved and sent to other countries where they were published: in Germany, by Gottfreid zum Beek (1919); in England, by The Britons (1920); in France, by Mgr. Jouin in La Revue Internationale des Societes Secretes, and by Urbain Gohier in La Vieille France; in the United States, by Small, Maynard & Co. (Boston 1920), and by The Beckwith Co. (New York 1921). Later, editions appeared in Italian, Russian, Arabic, and even in Japanese. Such is the simple story of how these Protocols reached Russia and thence came into general circulation.

Mr. Stepanov's deposition relative to it is here given as corroboration.

“In 1895, my neighbour in the district of Toula, Major (retired) Alexis Sukhotin, gave me a manuscript copy of the Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion. He told me that a lady of his acquaintance, whose name he did not mention, residing in Paris, had found it at the house of a friend, a Jew. Before leaving Paris, she had secretly translated it and had brought this one copy to Russia and given it to Sukhotin.”

“At first I mimeographed this translation, but finding it difficult to read, I resolved to have it printed, making no mention of the date, town, or printer's name. In this I was helped by Arcadii Ippolitovich Kelepovskii, who at that time was chief of the household of Grand Duke Sergius. He gave the document to be printed by the district printing press. This took place in 1897. Sergius Nilus inserted these Protocols in his work and added his own commentary.”

Signed PHILIP PETROVICH STEPANOV. Formerly Procurator of the Synod of Moscow, Chamberlain, Privy Councillor, and (in 1897) Chief of the Moscow Kursk Railway in the town of Orel. April 17, 1927. Witnessed by PRINCE DIMITRI GALITZIN. President of the Russian Colony of Emigrants at Stari Fontag. Those that claim the “Protocols” to be a forgery purport it to be originally produced in Russia between 1897 and 1903, possibly by Pyotr Ivanovich Rachkovsky, head of the Paris office of the Russian Secret Police, and unknown others. Source material for the forgery consisted jointly of “Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu”, an 1864 political satire by Maurice Joly, and a chapter from “Biarritz” a novel by the antisemitic German novelist Hermann Goedsche, which had been translated into Russian in 1872. Another major source for the Protocols was thought to be “Der Judenstaat” by Theodor Herzl although, paradoxically, early Russian editions of the “Protocols” assert that they did not come from a Zionist organisation. The text, which nowhere advocates for Zionism, resembles a parody of Herzl’s ideas.The four most popular authentications of the “Protocols”, include Ivan Fraser's “Proofs of an Ancient Conspiracy”, Henry Makow's “Protocol Forgery Arguments Are Flawed”, Paquita de Shishmareff's “Waters Flowing Eastward” and Peter Myers “Protocols of Zion Toolkit”. Peter Myers goes into enormous detail on the technical aspects of the “forgery” argument, explaining the nuances of the arguments as well as demonstrating that only one-sixth of the book by word count can in fact be linked to any earlier document. The other five sixths, including the most egregiously offensive predictions regarding the Russian Revolution and other then-in-the-future events, are purportedly original, as is the financial programme. Conspiracy theorists suggest this plan in outward form matches current affairs in respect to the private ownership of all the major Central Banks worldwide. If you read the Ivan Fraser’s article, the Henry Makow article, the book “Waters Flowing Eastward” by Paquita de Shishmareff and Father Dennis Fahey, and the extensive works by Peter Myers, the conclusion if accepted would be that the Protocols of Zion are genuine and part of a stream of Masonic, Jewish Supremacist and Luciferian writing. “The Jewish Century”, by Yuri Slezkine, and David Duke’s “Illustrated Protocols” support this view in accepting the underlying principles are true, even if the book itself maybe a forgery. Duke is quite open about the dangers of Jewish supremacism and the intent of the Zio-globalists to rule the world.

But the truth is this is no more Jewish than corrupt banking practise is. Karl Wittfogel's Oriental Despotism shows temple religions involving a priest/banker/military dictatorship, particularly in the Mideast, have existed since before the dawn of history. In this respect, subversion has a history and a life of its own that is not limited to creed race or colour. Even accepting the idea of a conspiracy in the upper echelons of financial and political administration, or indeed influencing others from behind the scenes, the notion of specifically Jewish cabal is a nonsense in any case, as the elite are in effect no longer Jewish, at least by religion in the nature of their strategy in any case. If they were they would be in direct contradiction with the Ten Commandments, the real pillar of the Hebrew religion. Believers in the theory claim they have therefore a false “Jewish” genetic heritage that overrides religious leaning, but this is really of no importance to forming a “Jewish” ideology bereft of faith practise. The empirical evidence is inconclusive in any case, and both Good and Evil are equal opportunity employers. Manipulating a religion in order to use its creed for political purposes is common too, and neither Christianity, Islam, nor any religion are immune to such corruption. If accepted, the Protocols are a World Domination plan for those who identify themselves somehow with the militant, Talmudic strains of Judaism, but one can find such domination plans in other forms too. This is particularly so when they are written for other audiences such as the National Socialists and their utopia of a Third Reich. The hidden inspiration, when all said and done, are the twin gods of Fear and Prejudice, which prey on the psychological weakness of the target audience. Gods such as these have found extremely effective executors within specific target groups. The Protocols themselves acknowledge that their plan hinges on their successful manipulation of existing powerful people and institutions and that only when the host political organ has been destroyed will they reveal themselves and openly impose their absolute power. How they will successfully impose this power amidst the chaos and outrage of the majority of the World’s populace is unclear.

A vast amount of circumstantial evidence has given rise to a growing number of conspiracy theorists. The belief being that the Protocols are simply one of many documents to betray an agenda of world domination. An agenda which remains unchanged; stretching back through time to its first incarnation as the Book of Deuteronomy—the Second Law as given to Moses by Yahweh. The fact that the Protocols appear to fit world events has given rise to the view that the world’s politicians have orchestrated public and secretive manoeuvres to bring the world to the brink of a New World Order under a One World Government in line with the ultimate objectives claimed in the book.

That such an agenda could have arisen in the 19th century, contemporary with unfolding political events: the Bolshevik Revolution, two World Wars and Zionism is possible, some theorists claim, whilst others seek to prove that the agenda stretches back to many of the events which unfolded all the way back to the 7th Century BC. The reason, they claim, is due to remarkably similar documents being in existence which have been said to have been written by the Levitical priests who ruled the people of Jerusalem.

Critics of the “Protocols” sometimes denounce it as a “Catholic” conspiracy that sought to blame Jews, but this is countered with the claim that that would be tantamount to calling Deuteronomy one too, and many other biblical books which predate the formation of the Roman Church by many centuries. Others further speculate that there is ample proof to show that the Catholic Church has played an enormously useful role in the implementation of the ancient conspiracy itself by acting as a carrier for Judaic ideas, and that it is a vehicle for infiltration by Marranos, Jewish popes and Illumined Freemasons (such as the P2 lodge). Even accepting the Protocols are what they say they are, a fact highly improbable, it would be fallacious to claim that any supposed subversive agenda is purely orchestrated and executed solely by Jews today. Even the most cursory glance through the pages of history supports the fact that people of all races and creeds have played major roles in the attempt at global domination or even more precisely globalisation —as much so under the banner of Christianity and Islam as in the name of the far less self-seeking cause of Judaism. Many agents in any case must have acted unknowingly, and the majority of the world’s Jews have had no knowledge of, or have given no support to strategies which they have inadvertently been associated with simply by being Jewish. In fact, the largest opposition to Zionism in the formative years of this century came from Western Jews and native Palestinian Torah aligned Jews

themselves. However, since the Second World War and the Holocaust, it has even become somewhat of a faux pas and considered anti-Semitic for even Jews to be acknowledge as declaring opposition to Zionism and Israel due to the progression of political correctness.

It has already been stated that the Protocols bear remarkable likeness to a book called “Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu” (also known as the “Geneva Dialogues”), published anonymously in Brussels in 1865. However, the passages quoted as being plagiarised from the “Geneva Dialogues” for the “Protocols” are remarkably similar to those in an earlier book published in 1850, called, similarly, “Machiavelli, Montesquieu and Rousseau” by Jacob Venedy. The later might have been plagiarised from the earlier work of Venedy, who was a Jew and (as was Trotsky) a Freemason. He was a revolutionary and also a close associate of the Jew Karl Marx (real name Mordecai,) and Maurice Joly, the reputed true author of the Geneva Dialogues. Marx’ father Heinrich, whose original name was Hirschel ha-Levi, was the son of a rabbi and the descendant of Talmudic scholars for many generations but converted to Lutheranism.

The Protocols were initially published in the Russian newspaper “Snamia” in 1903 and are believed to have been also published in 1902/1903 in the newspaper “Moskowskija Wiedomosti”. This publication suggests they may have been a plot to discredit Jews generally and or those in positions of power.

Despite a copy of the book written by Professor Sergyei Nilus (an official at the Department of Foreign Relations at Moscow) being registered in the British Museum on August 10th, 1906, they were otherwise unknown outside of Russia until after the Bolshevik Revolution when Russian emigrants took copies to North America and Germany. In Bolshevik Russia, however they carried the death sentence for anyone found to be in possession of them.

The Protocols gained widespread recognition upon their translation into English in 1920. They soon became notorious in Britain. Esteemed newspapers such as “The Times” and “The Morning Post” were responsible in 1921 for their translation. The story was covered in numerous articles, much to the chagrin of world Jewry, who immediately began to deny their authenticity. They not only denied that the Protocols were a Jewish plot, but also that there was any plot whatsoever. The latter was however clearly not accepted by many educated men and women of the time.

An example can be given of Lord Northcliffe, who in 1920 was the owner of several newspapers, as well as being joint proprietor of “The Times”. Through his influence an article called “The Jewish Peril, a Disturbing Pamphlet, Call for Enquiry” was published. This article on the Protocols called for a proper investigation into the documents. In February 1922, he set about a fervently anti-Zionist mission, writing a series of articles about what he claimed was really going on in Palestine.

On August 14, 1922 Northcliffe died of ulcerative endocarditis. He had been confronted on a train to Evian-les-Bains in June by the editor of “The Times”, Mr Wickham Steed, with a doctor who had certified Northcliffe mad. On the strength of this he was barred from entering the offices of the newspaper by a police guard, and his communications were ordered to be ignored by the staff. All of this despite showing no outward signs of madness to those who later commented on his appearance or state of mind. However, he had stated that he believed his life was in danger and that he was being poisoned. This whole story was suppressed until the publication of "The Official History of the Times", thirty years later in 1952. Thus, the conspiracy theorists claim one man who had enough power and will to challenge the Protocols and Zionism on an international stage to an audience of millions, who was committed to explaining to the world the true agenda, had been removed.

The popularising of conspiracy theorists today has led to a growing number of believers disputing the view that the Protocols are a proven fraud. That they are a fraud legally is based upon a very specific court case. Numerous unsuccessful attempts had been made to have the Protocols denounced as a forgery up until the case in 1933, but no legal action was taken until then in this respect. A number of legal cases contesting their authenticity have largely been proven to have upheld the opinion that they are indeed a forgery.

Appendix II

Kevin MacDonald’s biogenetic group evolutionary theory

Dr MacDonald sees conflicts of interest between ethnic groups as part of the natural world. The key difference between conflicts between Jews and non-Jews stems from the fact that for over a century, Jews have formed an elite in various European societies. But this is, he claims, “an elite with a peculiar profile”. For Jews are:

“deeply ethnocentric and adept at ethnic networking; wealthy and intelligent, aggressive in pursuit of their interests, prone to media ownership and the production of culture, and hostile to the traditional peoples and cultures of the societies in which they form an elite.”169

Jews have wielded power that is vastly disproportionate to their numbers, he claims, so that anti-Jewish attitudes and behaviour naturally arise when Jewish tribal interests conflict with their own.

In this theory, the various themes of modern anti-Semitism can be characterised as arising in response to a Jewish tribe, a cabal or “hostile elite”, whose attitudes and behaviour are in conflict with the interests of others. In this, however, little is made of mutual cooperation or productive striving for a common interest or goal. Dr MacDonald, as is the case with Dr Duke, focuses only on a history of supposed and presumed attempted economic domination in many parts of Eastern and Central Europe prior to World War II, punctuated by Jewish expulsions across the continent; cultural subversion by Jews in the media and intellectual life; the displacement of native populations via mass migration; dual loyalty because of Jewish sympathies with foreign Jews, especially Israel since 1948; and the history of Jews as a “hostile elite” in the Soviet Union, which significantly he believes evolved into the most murderous regime in European history due to their presence.

169 Interview with Kevin MacDonald, 23 April 2005 as cited in “Professor Kevin MacDonald’s Critique of Judaism”, Journal of Church and State p.779-806; for full citations of Dr MacDonald’s positions please refer to this essay.

A brief overview of Dr MacDonald’s work

Professor MacDonald’s work is extensive. 170 The first book in his trilogy, “A People that Shall Dwell Alone: An Evolutionary Theory of Judaism” posits that Judaism can be viewed as an evolutionary strategy, which features such characteristics as endogamy, ethnic exclusivity, and in-group altruism. According to MacDonald, Judaism is a highly adaptable strategy, which has enabled the religion to endure in numerous alien environments through history. In his view, the strategy has been largely successful, despite periodic reversals of fortune as a result of anti-Semitic expulsions and the Jewish diaspora.

MacDonald notes, Jews have retained a remarkable degree of genetic cohesion. They have achieved this though extensive kinship ties amongst themselves in the host nations, whilst remaining relatively segregated from the indigenous of the host nation. From an evolutionary perspective, Jews are adept at this and have successfully resisted the pressure to assimilate despite being an alien minority. He fails, however, to acknowledge sufficiently that this lack of assimilation itself curtails their ability to determine or effect societies to any great extent. Whilst lack of assimilation has enabled a degree of integrity regarding their own racial and cultural values, their minority status too presents limits on their influence and power as a minority.

MacDonald identifies the theme of separateness permeating the Old Testament as a factor in their ability to be competitive. The religion supported the ethos of a nomadic people being a “representation of the continuation of the kinship group”. This notion of lineage placed less emphasis on artefacts and a prohibition on icons, and presented God as a conceptualised Patriarchal figure for the Jewish family: an “endogamous, unitary ethnic group—the holy seed of Israel.”

The religion sustains tribal solidarity during periods of group failure, and manifests as an increase in "religious fundamentalism, mysticism,

170 His published books in evolutionary psychology include: Kevin B. MacDonald, ed., Sociobiological Perspectives on Human Development (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1988); Kevin B. MacDonald, Social and Personality Development: An Evolutionary Synthesis (New York: Plenum, 1988); Kevin B. MacDonald, ed.. Parent-child Play: Descriptions and Implications (Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1993); and Burgess and MacDonald, Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Development. His articles are similarly extensive.

and messianism" among its members. This was a common Jewish response to occupation in the Roman era and during its self-proclaimed continuing history of persecution subsequently. Non assimilation too is considered an imperative here for MacDonald, because sexual relations with outsiders were highly discouraged and, unlike the universalism and proselytising concerns of Christianity or of Islam, Jews are unwelcoming of outside converts. Generally, whilst acknowledging the possibility of conversion in theory (and it does occur) he tends to view it as discouraged in practice.

MacDonald finds a high degree of social and political egalitarianism in Judaism. Group altruism amongst Jews only is strongly encouraged. The Talmud enforces class harmony among them and a strong sense of collective economic responsibility. Yet this does not sit happily with the furtherance of a Jewish supremacist thesis. If other majority groups are disenfranchised by the Jews, the effect could be economically disastrous for all.

Various social norms and mores favour group altruism enshrined in a religious ideology and enforced by controls within the Jewish community. To facilitate its furtherance more widespread altruism would necessarily need to be encouraged. For MacDonald however altruism is only ever of concern in respect to helping the group and not others. This inward looking competitiveness is rather a selfish concern that ultimately would be self-defeating for minorities and would hamper particular individuals achieving great positions of power.

MacDonald claims eugenic practices have endowed Jews with superior intelligence, and consequently this has enabled Jews to be successful in competition with others. Talmudic regulations too encouraged high birth rates and the wise were encouraged to have many children. 171 In traditional societies however there was a correlation between fertility and wealth for all groups, Jews and non-Jews alike. Macdonald wants to identify a specifically Jewish work ethic as the cause because it linked economic success to literacy and business acumen primarily and this ethos led to a confluence of wealth, intelligence, and high fertility in Jewish communities, which in turn had effects on their intelligence. He fails to accept this work ethic could also ensure the same success and intelligence for other ethnicities. He also fails to consider the impairing

171 See “A People that Shall Dwell Alone: An Evolutionary Theory of Judaism” (Westport, Ct.: Praeger, 1994) p. 36, p.203-212. Also p. 46-, 47-48, 41, 143, 154.

influence of ethnocentrism that a “Jews only” approach might exert on intellectual capabilities over generations.

MacDonald notes that Jewish efforts to maintain exclusivity have exacerbated periodic anti-Semitic reactions. In his “Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism” he asserts that these reactions were mass movements by Gentile groups in response to displacement by competitive Jews. Ethnic separatism also tends to lead to resource competition, exacerbating inter-group tension grounded in a genuine conflict of interests.

MacDonald takes issue with traditional theories of anti-Semitism, which trace the cause to peculiar traits in Western civilisation; such as Christian theology, or the particular social class of Jew in a capitalist society, or pathological child-parent relations, or sexual repression.172 He points out that anti-Semitism has appeared in non-Western societies as well. Further, anti-Semitic stereotypes and conspiracy theories demonstrate a remarkable similarity cross-culturally.

Rejecting conventional theories, MacDonald believes psychological research on social identity theory provides an adequate explanation for anti-Semitic uprisings.173 Essentially, he argues, Jewish ethnocentrism, especially in the context of economic or other forms of competition, has produced a heightened sense of group identity in the various Gentile populations as a defensive mechanism. Consequently, anti-Semitism develops largely as a reaction to successful Jewish group evolutionary strategies.

Since the end of Middle Ages the West was an individualistic society, whereas the Middle East can be characterised as comprising of various subgroups that emphasise the collective, rather than the individual. A value system also characteristic in Communist Russia. In a society composed of various competing groups, Jews, as a group, were not able to attain the same levels of pre-eminence as in the West, because self-conscious Islamic groups, for whom ethnicity and religion were

172 Ibid., 93-96. Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (Westport, Ct.: Praeger, 1998), 8.

MacDonald, Separation and. Its Discontents, 28.

173 Ibid., 27-88. 21. Ibid., 28.

requirements for entry, blocked them from advancing. Since Jews could not attain positions of power in the Middle East, anti-Semitic reaction rarely reached an extreme level of hostility.

One of MacDonald's central ideas is that Jews have had a marked advantage over the host demos in the West because they pursued a collectivist strategy, which is more effective than individual strivings. Individual striving characteristic of the West have been due to the relative lack of ethnocentric identity. However, MacDonald believes that this pattern eventually engenders a severe backlash anyway; for in order to resist this process of displacement and marginalisation, host societies have reacted by developing their own collectivist affinities and "evolutionary group strategies" as a defence mechanism.

MacDonald links this tendency to current research on social identity processes in psychology. He contends that these strategies tend to mimic Judaism because they encourage endogamy, group altruism, and ethnocentrism. MacDonald cites various examples of such movements that have punctuated Western history including medieval feudalism, the Spanish Inquisition, and National Socialism.

Anti-Semitism first appeared in the West with the Christian Church claims MacDonald. By the third century, Judaism had become a powerful competitor. The Church sought to counter this dominance and anti-Semitism was given official license. One justification was Jews were accused of deicide and thus they were eventually barred from influential professions and government service. Moreover, they incurred legal and civil liabilities. Evidence suggests that the government was often reluctant to implement such measures, but succumbed to public and ecclesiastical pressures anyway.174

In later centuries anti-Semitism experienced a revival during the medieval period, when the Church again worked vigorously to exclude Jews from economic and political influence. This reached its zenith in the thirteenth century. Anti-Semitic measures were preceded by a period in which Jews had attained a peak in economic and cultural prosperity and were expanding in numbers. This suggests that resource competition triggered the reaction claims MacDonald. As Christianity became more universal, this renewed anti-Semitism reflected the emergence of a highly collectivist and exclusionary medieval society.

174 MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents, 108.

Anti-Semitism figured prominently in the Spanish Inquisition, which MacDonald sees as resulting from resource competition with the so-called “Conversos”. These converted to Christianity beginning in 1391. They rapidly became an elite class in Spanish society, while remaining a cohesive, endogamous community widely believed to be insincere in their Christian beliefs. A major function of the Inquisition was to scrutinise the genetic ancestry of individuals suspected of not being of authentic Spanish blood. These measures were codified in a body of law (limpieza) which protected pure Spanish blood and sought to uncover efforts to conceal their ethnic background. In that sense, the racism, which developed during this epoch, was again reactive in nature.

MacDonald sees the Inquisition as basically a response to earlier failed attempts to enforce racial and group assimilation. He notes that the limpieza laws did not apply to those who had voluntarily converted prior to the year 1391, but to those who converted after that date on the suspicion that they were crypto-Jews who continued as an endogamous minority of dubious orthodoxy. The culmination of anti-Semitic reaction led to expulsion in 1492. Therefore, MacDonald concludes, the Inquisition was racist only in a retroactive sense, inasmuch as it was concerned with punishing the racialism of the Jews (ibid p.124-125).

According to MacDonald, National Socialism was undoubtedly the most serious challenge that Jews have ever faced. He sees the racial nationalism and cohesive collectivism of the National Socialist movement as a radical departure from the Western tradition of universalism and individualism. Furthermore, he observes a strong element of resource competition that contributed to the development of German anti-Semitism. A common theme in the anti-Semitic literature during and leading up to that period was that Jews were eclipsing Germans in a racial struggle. This theme had its most persuasive expression in Houston Stewart Chamberlain's “Foundations of the Nineteenth Century”, which would significantly influence Hitler’s world view.

Hitler believed Jews posed an existential threat to Aryans. This, despite his belief in Aryan racial superiority. He believed that Jews threatened the German nation through subversion and the promotion of racial admixture. This was not in keeping with Jewish practise of endogamy however.

In several characteristics MacDonald sees German National Socialism as reflective of Judaism. Like early Judaism, National Socialism was concerned about eugenics. There was also a high level of group altruism

and self-sacrifice. For example, recurring themes in the Hitler Youth advocated an extreme racial nationalism, group altruism, and perpetuated hostility and aggression towards out-groups reflective of Jewish psychology. 175 Ideas of the national “tribe” exemplified this. An egalitarian ethos suffused National Socialist propaganda. There was much emphasis on fertility, as German women were encouraged to bear many children.

As expounded in Mein Kampf, Hitler could be viewed as seeing both Judaism and National Socialism as competitive group evolutionary strategies. Moreover, German National Socialism, took a long view of history, and saw the Aryan race in similar terms to the Jewish view. A view of the people locked in a struggle for racial survival and pre-eminence.

The purpose of Jewish Intellectual groups

As a minority, MacDonald argues, Jews have often developed and promoted intellectual movements to further their group interests and combat anti-Semitism. The Culture of' Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, notes that there has been considerable Jewish hostility to traditional Western culture, which has manifested itself in various intellectual movements as a strategy. Those mentioned specifically are Freudian psychology, the Frankfurt School, and Boasian anthropology. These have sought to undermine the European-derived civilisation of America and replace it with a society more congenial to Jews. As MacDonald sees it, since the Enlightenment, Jews have figured prominently in adversarial cultural movements against the religious, moral, aesthetic, and behavioural norms of Gentile society.

MacDonald, unlike Duke, categorically rejects an overarching conspiracy as given in “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion”. He concedes that Judaism does not constitute a unified movement. He points out too that not all segments of the Jewish community, Jewish social scientists and intellectuals, have been involved in these various movements. Nevertheless, he does claim the basic tendency of Jewish activism has been to manipulate their environment in a manner that

175 Ibid. p. 133.

serves their own interests. A central theme is that the leaders of these movements saw their involvement as furthering Jewish interests, particularly in respect to the eradication of anti-Semitism. This case could however be claimed of any ethnic group that feels itself under an existential threat and does not necessarily have to be Jew specific.

MacDonald claims Franz Boas and his cultural relativist school of anthropology succeeding more than any in removing biological conceptions of race and racial differences from the social sciences. It did this by successfully challenging the ability of Darwinian evolutionary theory to provide an adequate theory of cultural differences.176 The consequence of the school’s popular acceptance meant effectively that by the beginning of the 1930s American racialist scholars, such as Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard’s works were effectively disregarded.

MacDonald cites evidence that Boas strongly identified himself as a Jew and saw his work as combating anti-Semitism and discrediting theories propounding an elevated status to European civilisation. MacDonald argues Boas achieved this by relying upon several prominent Gentile scholars to conceal the broadly Jewish character of the school. Margaret Mead being chief amongst them.177 In this he fails to consider the necessity to do this due to unfair prejudice against Jews specifically in academic circles. It was a tactic utilised too by Freud at the start of his attempt to receive academic recognition and acceptance. However, it need not necessarily be indicative of devious aims for achieving Jewish supremacism, as much as a concern to ensure racial prejudice did not hamstring objective assessment of theories, otherwise disregarded out of hand.

Currently Jews he claims are still at the forefront of discrediting more recent attempts to biologise the social sciences. He argues that this pattern continues, as evinced by Stephen Gould's “The Mismeasure of Man”, which he characterises as a highly politicised critique of evolutionary approaches to human behaviour and hereditary views on IQ.178

176 MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, p.25.

177 Ibid., p.27.

178 Ibid., p.31-36.

Next, MacDonald examines the influence of Jews on the political left, focusing mainly on whether leftist Jews can continue to identify as Jews and whether they see radical politics as compatible with Jewish interests. Despite claims of universalism, MacDonald contends that historically Jews in these movements often retained a strong Jewish identity. What is more, Jewish support for leftist causes ebbed and flowed dependent on whether they furthered Jewish interests or not.

Historically Jewish support for Communism is indicative of this pattern of shifting allegiances. He notes that Jews figured very prominently among the Bolsheviks during the revolution. The fact that the Tsarist regime was recognised as anti-Semitic was an important motivating force for Jewish involvement in left wing politics during and prior to that period. He further asserts that the Jewish element constituted a necessary component without which the movement would not have succeeded.

MacDonald notes that opposition to the Tsarist government and support for Bolshevism during the early post-revolutionary period spanned the entire Jewish community, including prominent capitalists, such as Jacob Schiff, who provided financial support for anti-Tsarist revolutionaries. However, once Stalin turned on the Jews, their fortunes changed. Removed from leading positions in government, the military, and the media, Jews would consequently go on to form the backbone of the dissident movement in the Soviet Union.179

In the long run, however, MacDonald does not see universalistic ideologies such as Communism as a viable Jewish strategy for countering anti-Semitism. The authoritarianism of highly collectivist social and economic structures in the style of socialism and communism encourages the institutionalisation of anti-Semitism to a high degree if Jewish predominance comes to be viewed negatively. 180

MacDonald argues that Jews fare much better in societies characterised by individualism and fragmentation. Therefore, it is unsurprising that they seek to strengthen measures to achieve these features. Thus, for example, Jewish neo-conservatives have been critical of corporate, statist ideologies as a direct consequence of the recognition that they have resulted in state-sponsored anti-Semitism.181

179

MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, p.98. 180 Ibid., p.100 181 Ibid. p.101

The psychoanalytic movement, founded by Sigmund Freud, comes under MacDonald's scrutiny as well. Freud, who strongly identified as a Jew, was deeply concerned with anti-Semitism and at times critical of the Gentile society in which he lived. Freud regarded anti-Semitism as a psychopathology stemming from the sexual repression encouraged in a largely Christian Gentile society. MacDonald finds that psychoanalysis had a deleterious influence on Gentile society in that it undermined institutions surrounding marriage and sex—influences that can lead to low-investment parenting. 182 These consequences, however, have been particularly pernicious to Gentiles, MacDonald argues, because Jews as a highly intelligent, upwardly mobile group, have more internal controls on their behaviour and are therefore less prone to the negative effects of stemming the erosion of traditional Western controls on sexuality. 183

But this presupposes a rather devious motive in Freud’s concern, as a Jew, to seek sexual liberation as a “cure” only for Gentile ills. Nor does it seem particularly productive, or reasonable, that Jews alone should be viewed as rejecting such a method to cure their own ills because they apparently have more self-control.

The Frankfurt School of Social Research comes under intense criticism, which he accuses of deliberately seeking to “pathologise” Gentile group allegiances. The Frankfurt School originated in Germany, shortly after Hitler's ascent to power in 1933, and left for America after the National Socialist regime moved against it. Many of its researchers relocated to the University of Califomia and other elite American universities and then began to explain how the phenomenon of fascism was able to take hold in psychoanalytical terms. Most notable in this regard was “The Authoritarian Personality”, written under the direction of T. W. Adomo and published by the American Jewish Committee. Intrinsic to the theory was the psychoanalytic idea that disturbed parent-child relations originated from the suppression of human sexuality: the principal factor leading to authoritarianism. 184

The Authoritarian Personality, MacDonald points out, recognised that anti-Semitism was often associated with Gentile movements for national cohesion. A key theme was that Gentile participation in cohesive groups

182 Ibid. p.135.

183 Ibid. p.149-150.

184. Ibid. p.178.

with high levels of conformity was symptomatic of pathology. However, MacDonald points out that this touchstone was not applied to Jews, for whom group cohesion and affinity were ignored.

Gentile collectivist tendencies are thought to ultimately lead to anti-Semitic mass movements, such as German National Socialism. According to MacDonald, such an expression of Gentile group solidarity is often delegitimised as “right wing extremism”, as evidenced by, for example, Seymour Martin Lipset and Earl Raab's study on the topic.185 A self-conscious Gentile pursuit of group interests receives treatment as “irrational” and indicative of “psychopathology”.

As an alternative MacDonald asserts the Frankfurt School sought to promote a radical individualism to Gentiles. He cites previous research suggesting that historically, the incidence of anti-Semitism is less likely to manifest in individualist, heterogeneous societies, as opposed to cohesive, homogeneous societies. However this does not sit happily with the Alternative Hippy counter culture movement it often sought to engender and served as a mentor for in the West Coast scene of the 60s. This whilst encouraging the individual to “turn on, tune in drop out” yet fostered a stronger sense of collective identity for the white, primarily middle class, disaffected young.

Jewish interest groups sought to make American society more heterogeneous by promoting a liberal “open borders” immigration policy he claims. He provides evidence to demonstrate that the major Jewish organisations (e.g., the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Congress, and the American Jewish Committee) have promoted, since the 60s, an immigration policy that would allow for a more diverse pool of immigrants, and lead eventually to a more racially and ethnically diverse population. This policy would not have been at odds with the counter culture movement the Frankfurt School influenced.

MacDonald claims, Jews have advocated similar pro-immigration efforts in Western Europe, Canada, and Australia. The objective being the same as in America: to make the countries more ethnically and racially heterogeneous, thus diminishing the likelihood of the emergence of cohesive anti-Semitic mass movements. 186 Although MacDonald conceded that other entities, such as ethnic and business groups, have also sought to shape immigration policy, he maintains the most 185 The Politics of Unreason: Right Wing Extremism in America, 1790-1970

186 MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, p.294-97.

important influence in the period leading up to the sea change in policy inaugurated by the 1965 immigration law was Jewish, even though the majority of the population opposed mass immigration.

Multiculturalism, MacDonald asserts, serves as a safety valve against anti-Semitism, insofar as it makes it more difficult for the development of unified, cohesive groups of Gentiles to collectively oppose Judaism. It is no coincidence that the most significant anti-Semitic movements have emerged in societies characterised by religious and ethnic homogeneity. Therefore, ethnically and religiously pluralistic societies are more likely to satisfy Jewish interests.187

A key theme of “The Culture of Critique” is that Jews have worked in concert with other minority interests to foster a multicultural society and in doing so, create a more congenial environment in which it is less likely that a homogeneous Gentile group will be arrayed against the Jews as an outgroup. However, MacDonald believes that a multicultural society is unsustainable. He asserts the European-derived peoples have a unique genetic disposition that allows only them to sustain certain Western institutions and practices such as individualism, universalism, pluralism, respect for minority rights, and republican forms of government. Once the European derived population diminishes below a certain critical mass, therefore, ordered society would devolve into a free for all “every group for itself” scenario suggestive of social and cultural chaos. MacDonald depicts a bleak future for the West, which leads to oblivion for the European-derived population or a period of quasi-medievalism where the European-derived population develops a collectivist orientation in order to preserve itself as a cultural and ethnic entity.188

In “Understanding Jewish Influence: A Study in Ethnic Activism”, MacDonald identifies four background traits for Jews:

ethnocentrism,

intelligence,

psychological intensity,

aggressiveness.

187 "The Numbers Game; Ethnic Conflict in the Contemporary World," Population and Environment 21 (2005): p.413-25.

188 MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, p.310-22.

These traits have enabled Jews to organise and combine to exert a powerful transformative effect on the societies in which they reside.189

MacDonald traces the genesis of Jewish ethnocentrism to their Middle Eastern origins. Jews and other Middle Eastern cultures evolved under conditions that favoured the formation of large groups dominated by males. Essentially, these groups were extended families that practiced endogamy and marriage between uncles and nieces. These characteristics were the opposite of the cultural tendencies found in the West, which favoured individualism rather than group identity.

The heightened ethnocentrism is tied to a very long sense of persecution throughout history, which engenders a strong sense of group grievance against European and Christian civilisation. High intelligence, MacDonald maintains, has given Jews a marked advantage in their affairs with Gentiles. He cites previous research that suggest that Jews, as a group, exhibit a significantly higher average IQ than the population at large. It would then seem to follow that Jews would be more successful and influential.

In support, MacDonald cites data indicating that although Jews constitute only about 3 percent of the American population, they account for 45 percent of the people on the Forbes richest 400 Americans. Furthermore, 20 percent of the professors at leading universities are Jewish, and 40 percent of the partners of the leading New York and Washington, D.G. law firms are also Jewish.

MacDonald sees Zionism as an illustration of Jewish ethnocentric activism. He finds it the most important example of Jewish extremism in the contemporary world. The most extreme elements within the Jewish community ultimately give direction to the community as a whole.

Although Zionism originally emerged as a radical minority movement among only very committed segments of the Jewish population, it eventually spread and became mainstream within the Jewish community. The influence of it on the larger Jewish community actually unsettled the community insofar as it instilled fear that chauvinism could lead to charges of dual loyalty. By 1945 a poll found it was favoured by 80.5 percent and only 10.5 percent opposed the creation of Israel.

189 Understanding Jewish Influence: A Study in Ethnic Activism ( 2004), p.9.

In recent years, the neoconservative movement has been in the forefront of the effort to support Zionist interests MacDonald claims. He asserts that the neo-conservative movement can be characterised as fundamentally a Jewish intellectual and political movement that should not even be classified as conservatism at all. Indeed he finds it is more representative of leftist Jewish concerns.190

He characterises the movement as a network of professional and family networks centred on Jewish publicists and organisers that draw upon and recruit non-Jews in order to harness “the wealth and power of the United States" in support of Israelis. One consequence of its solid political support for Zionism in the Jewish community is that the United States has over the years become increasingly involved in the Middle East, often supporting the hard-line policies of the Likud Party. Furthermore, he accuses Jewish neo-conservative activists as the principal force in fomenting the most recent war in Iraq. 191

The main contribution of Leo Strauss's philosophy, according to MacDonald, was to establish a strategy for Jewish survival in the Diaspora.192 His influence on the neoconservatives too was marked and his advocacy of the importance of an aristocratic rule of kings, who

190 The movement emerged from a group of originally leftist intellectuals including Max Shachtman, an early admirer of Leon Trotsky, who would go on to become a Gold Warrior and a social democrat in the late 1940s. MacDonald points out also that the chief "guru" of the neo-conservative movement, Leo Strauss, believed that individualist. Western societies were best suited to meet Jewish needs.

191 Kevin MacDonald, "The Conservatism of Fools: A Response to John Derbyshire." 192 Strauss asserted that "the crisis of the West consists in the West's having become uncertain of its purpose." His solution was a restoration of the vital ideas and faith that in the past had sustained the moral purpose of the West. Classical Greek political philosophy and the Judeo-Christian heritage are the essentials of the Great Tradition in Strauss's work. He argues the American "Founding Fathers" were correct in their understanding of the classics and their principles of justice. For Strauss, political community is defined by convictions about justice and happiness rather than by sovereignty and force. He repudiated the philosophy of John Locke as a bridge to 20th-century historicism and nihilism, and defended liberal democracy as closer to the spirit of the classics than other modern regimes. For Strauss, the American awareness of evil in human nature, and hence the need for morality, was a beneficial outgrowth of the premodern Western tradition. O'Neill (2009) notes that Strauss wrote little about American topics but his students wrote a great deal, and that Strauss's influence caused his students to reject historicism and positivism. Instead they promoted a so-called Aristotelian perspective on America that produced a qualified defense of its liberal constitutionalism.

would pay lip service to traditional religious and political beliefs of the masses, while at the same time, not believing them was embraced

Notable Jewish figures in the neoconservative movement include Nathan Glazer, Sidney Hook, Stephen Bryen, Charles Krauthammer, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, Douglas Feith, Abram Shulsky, Michael Ledeen, Bernard Lewis, Daniel Pipes. The non-Jewish figures such as Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld disguise the essentially Jewish character of the movement.193

MacDonald accuses the neo-conservatives of applying a double standard in that they extol multiculturalism in the West, while insisting upon ethnic exclusivity in Israel. He blames the neo-conservatives for encouraging along with the political left, a massive drive to facilitate non-European immigration into the Western world for Jewish advantage.

MacDonald explains, the European peoples have travelled an evolutionary trajectory resulting in a unique genetic profile that has greatly influenced Western civilisation. Among the most notable differences between the West and other cultures are marital practices, social isolation, and individualism. Whereas the West has a long tradition of monogamy, other cultures have a long tradition of polygamy. Monogamy was due to environment exerting an effect on behaviour. Due to the harsh conditions of the Ice Age it was nearly impossible for males to control additional females and their offspring. These conditions persisted for a significant time and the population eventually would develop tendencies towards monogamy even after the conditions that gave rise to it have ceased. This is a nonsense however as it fails to explain why Jews themselves who hailed from environments encouraging polygamy practise monogamy.

MacDonald postulates, Europeans have been less subject between-group natural selection processes than Jews and other Middle Eastern ethnic groups have experienced. Drawing upon the research of Fritz Lenz, MacDonald posits that the harsh environment of the Ice Age engendered a tendency towards social isolation among the various Nordic peoples.194 Consequently Northern Europeans have not developed to the same degree the collectivist mechanisms for group competition. They also tend to require a much higher level of group conflict to trigger their 193 Ibid. p.69. 194 Fritz Lenz, "The Inheritance of Intellectual Gifts," in E. Baur, E. Fischer, and F. Lenz, Human Heredity, trans. E. Paul & C. Paul (New York Macmillan, 1931), 657, in MacDonald, "What Makes Western Culture Unique?," 22.

expression. Environmental factors of this nature however could be argued just as contrarily to lead not to social isolation but engender a tendency to form groups in order to achieve and protect individual interests in harsh environments. An individual has less chance of survival alone and more chance in a group.

Individualism, MacDonald posits, is a unique trait to the West. What is more, the tradition of American individualism militates against the formation of an effective mass movement arrayed against Jews, inasmuch as people from individualist cultures tend to have a more favourable view of strangers and are less likely to hold negative views on out-groups. Consequently, MacDonald believes that individualist societies are ideal environments for collectivist, group-oriented strategies, such as Judaism.

As MacDonald sees it, both Jewish organisations and individual Jews have worked on a number of fronts to wage a culture war against the European-derived population of the West:

“Jewish organisations in America have been a principal force—in my view the main force—for erecting a state dedicated to suppressing ethnic identification among Europeans, for encouraging massive multi-ethnic immigration into the U.S., and for erecting a legal system and cultural ideology that is obsessively sensitive to the complaints and interests of ethnic minorities: the culture of the Holocaust.”

A criticism of MacDonald’s work is that he fails to adequately emphasise Jewish exclusivity as exacerbating alienation and resentment, prompting (as the case is sometimes made today by some Muslims) an antagonism to the indigenous of the host nation. MacDonald also tends to ascribe too much influence to Jews, rather than Liberal Protestants in shaping the liberal post-war orientation of American society. In this, he tends to want to argue that the extent of Jewish influence on society is both extensive and powerful, but conversely that they yet are able to remain segregated and apart in spite of requiring assimilation to control and influence a given culture or society.

One example of this is Professor MacDonald’s exaggeration of the impact of Jewish interests on United States' immigration policy. MacDonald has sought to counters this criticism by claiming that the Jewish intellectual and political movements discussed in his books were a necessary condition for the transformation of America. He argues that the

collective influence of various "Jewish" intellectual movements such as the Frankfurt School, Boasian anthropology, psychoanalysis, neo-conservatism, etc were great driving forces for this social and cultural change. But less clear when he does cite this as a determining influence of Jewish influence is whether it is necessarily a benefit to the Jewish community itself. For example seeking or encouraging such an influx of immigration in order to encourage deracination of the host people might lessen their collective identity and give Jews more of an upper hand. In respect to Europe however it is far from clear that the inclusion of hordes of migrants even more antagonistic to Jewish values, the case with the current largely Muslim influx, is necessarily a boon or an advantage for Jews.

“In A People That Shall Dwell Alone”, MacDonald's insistence on explaining so many aspects of Judaism based on a conscious evolutionary strategy is overly deterministic. He fails to view the decline of the West to a malaise inherent in Western civilisation generally, but only to Jews. In this the characteristic of the malaise could well be excessive Liberalism and a subversion of the true morality of Individualism to a dangerous Collectivism. Whilst the origins of this appear to be identified by MacDonald as originating in the Jewish intellectual schools already mentioned Steven Pinker finds MacDonald's theories:

“collectively add up to a consistently invidious portrayal of Jews, couched in value-laden, disparaging language.”195

Dr MacDonald has no qualms either in admitting that his work is essentially an intellectual defense that:

“if believed by non-Jews, would cause them to attempt to lessen Jewish power and thereby further their own interests…”

Because of this he freely admits that “…my work could be said to provide intellectual legitimacy to anti-Jewish attitudes and behaviour.”

He is, therefore, freely admitting that his work incites anti-Semitic attitudes. He defends this however by claiming that this isn't really any different from claiming that:

“Zionist theories provide intellectual legitimacy to the dispossession of the Palestinians, or that psychoanalysis or the Frankfurt School provide

195 Lipstadt, History on Trial, p.154

intellectual legitimacy to anti-Western attitudes. At the end of the day, what counts is whether indeed my writings are intellectually defensible.”

This however presupposes that, for example, the Frankfurt School is not a movement for liberalising culture and values in a positive and constructive way, freeing individuals from repressive authority figures that inhibit learning, but rests on an interpretation that the Frankfurt School has deconstructed and subverted traditional values, or modified them in a manner than has harmed current culture and intellectual norms and perspectives.

It is clear too that there is not necessarily a broad consensus generally on whether Liberalism as a political and social force for change is the corrupting influence that Dr MacDonald largely assumes it is as a conservative of the old school. What is clear in this is that it not only Jews who would share the view that Liberalism or “Progressivism” as it is now termed is a force for good. The whole of the Left would be inclined to this view. Nor is it the case that Jews who might share his own more paleo conservative traditional persuasion would necessarily abandon their views in favour of adherence or loyalties to a more ethnocentric interest he by and large presupposes is characterised by the Left. Indeed if ethnocentric interests are a primary imperative as he claims they might even feel they are best served by stability and a tendency to conserve the status quo.