|December 20th, 2011||#41|
The Epitome of Evil
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Jews and Communism according to Louis Budenz
Jews and Communism according to Louis Budenz
One of the major defectors from the Communist Party USA was the former editor of the ‘Daily Worker’ and Politburo member Louis Budenz; of Hungarian and Irish origin, who; like Whittaker Chambers, ‘defected’ after the ‘defeat of fascism’. He was; like many members of the CPs across the world at the time, originally drawn into communism as a way to defeat ‘the evils of Fascism’ in what we call the ‘Popular Front’ epoch of 1934/36 to 1939. Budenz; with Whittaker Chambers and Elizabeth Bentley, was a star witness on the organisation and attitude of the Communist Party USA as well as its underground organisation (the secret apparat) and the illicit funding that it received from the USSR through the medium of the Comintern to enable its attempted conquest of North America.
Budenz was something of a celebrity in his own lifetime and published four books on the basis of his communist experiences. He has; however, suffered from a hail of what can only be called abuse from left-leaning; or outright Marxist, academics who have questioned his testimony repeatedly and even simply dismissed him as a ‘lying reactionary’. The basis of this charge is largely because Budenz; like Chambers and former Marxist intellectuals like James Burnham, switched from a Marxist milieu to a conservative one, but what those who argue the ‘absurdity’ of the testimony; which has now been shown to be correct by archival documentation from the Comintern archives themselves, forget is that at this time the GRU (Soviet Military Intelligence); as well as the GPU, NKGB and SMERSH, still killed perceived or real high-profile traitors to their cause. A good example is Walter Krivitsky who was betrayed by Soviet mole Kim Philby in 1945 and the GRU simply smashed their way into his hotel room and killed him. Another is Leon Trotsky who the NKVD went to great trouble to kill and in whose killing Budenz indirectly assisted as a facilitator.
Critics of the ex-Communist witnesses also tend to forget that both Chambers and Budenz came from highly religious backgrounds; Catholic in these particular cases, and both of them confess; perhaps with too much hindsight, to having had longings for their faith during their time as Communists. Indeed much as their Christian faith made them susceptible; and paved the way for them, to become Communists: it was that same religious urge that actually; if their testimony is to be taken as read, got them out again. Indeed Budenz makes clear that he was influenced in his choice of socialism by Catholic intellectuals such as Hilaire Belloc: who argued for a form of Socialism; partly derived from Papal Bulls and the economic ideas of Saint Thomas Aquinas, known as Distributism.
Whether or not one is a Christian: this is interesting as it indicates; perhaps uncomfortably for some, that Christianity has a tendency to pave the way for Communism in at least some of its believer’s minds (‘Liberation Theology’ is another good example of it). As Christianity is a philosophy built on the idea of communalism and pacifism (well at least in most of its forms), which has lent itself to the tradition of Christian Socialism but perhaps more relevantly: Christianity in any variant is a complete belief system that must influence the choices made in any secular/terrestrial context, because if it doesn’t then how can one say that one actually believes in the Christian God?
That; when taken to its logical conclusion, means that Christianity in general is a form of weltanschauung; or philosophy of life, and if one strips away the belief in the Christian God then one can easily be left with not dissimilar; and highly emotive, assumptions to those made as the basis for socialism and communism. In essence Marxism simply offers an alternative; albeit secular, religion: although this has long been disputed by Marxists: most recently by Cohen. No prizes for guessing that yet another member of the tribe turns up as an academic Communist apologist.
This was the intellectual journey that both Budenz and Chambers document, which allowed them to become Communist high-flyers, but at the same time also prevented them from becoming hard-core materialists and thus also became a bit like Diogenes and his lamp in their minds. I have already covered Chambers’ innumerable mentions of the hugely disproportionate number of jews involved in Communist subversive activity in the United States, but Budenz is another man who; while not anti-Semitic or against jews in any way, shape or form, does in fact indirectly do a very good job of documenting their influence and power in the Communist Party USA.
I will adopt the same format that I used with my article on Chambers and simply list the jewish individuals Budenz mentions and then give the point he makes about them with the necessary reference. I also hasten to note that those I have listed below I have been able to find confirmatory evidence of having been jewish and I have left out any whom I can find no additional evidence; aside from my suspicion, of having been so.
Soviet agent in the US Treasury Department (Budenz, ‘Techniques’, p. 281)
Communist leader (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 101)
In charge of ‘national groups’; i.e. ‘civil rights’, pro-negro and pro-jewish, propaganda and organisation (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 205)
Leader of the Communist Party USA in New York State (Budenz, ‘Men’, p. 173)
Chief Editor of the Communist Party USA’s Yiddish newspaper: ‘Daily Freiheit’ (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 56)
Sol Auerbach (better known as James Allen)
Comintern representative in the Philippines (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 56)
Foreign Affairs editor of the Sunday edition of the ‘Daily Worker’ (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 307; ‘Cry’, p. 56)
Conducted espionage against the US military (Budenz, ‘Story’., p. 311)
Rudy Baker (nee Rudolph Blum)
Writer for the ‘New Masses’ (Budenz, ‘Men’, p. 18)
Carried out espionage activities against US and Canadian governments (Budenz, ‘Men’, p. 18)
Communist Hollywood Film Script Writer (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 23)
Soviet agent in US Office of War Information (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 23; ‘Techniques’, p. 285)
Writer for the ‘Daily Worker’ (Budenz, ‘Men’, p. 219; ‘Techniques’, pp. 33-34)
Long-time communist leader and representative of the Comintern in North America (Budenz, ‘Men’, pp. 18; 78)
Chief Theoretician of the Communist Party USA (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 76; ‘Techniques’, p. 49)
Former Professor at John Hopkins University (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 162)
Communist leader in Washington D.C. (Budenz, ‘Men’, pp. 105; 253) and Maryland areas (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 162)
Soviet agent inside the United States’ atomic program (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 17)
Communist Party USA’s legal advisor and lawyer (Budenz, ‘Men’, pp. 44; 78)
Facilitated the Comintern’s funding of the Communist Party USA (Budenz, ‘Men’, p. 108)
Head of the GRU (Soviet Military Intelligence) in North America (till 1938) (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 61)
Writer for the ‘Daily Worker’ (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 84)
In charge of distributing Communist propaganda to negroes; and inciting them against the government, in the US (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 84)
Sam Carr (nee Schmil Kogan)
Long-time member of the National Committee of the Communist Party of Canada (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 280)
Morris Childs (nee Moishe Chilovsky)
Managed Communist Party USA’s funding from the Comintern (Budenz, ‘Men’, p. 86)
Worked as a Soviet espionage agent in North and Central America (Budenz, ‘Men’, pp. 86-87)
Joe Clark (nee Joseph Cohen)
Professor at Brooklyn College (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 161)
Writer for the ‘Daily Worker’ and ‘New Masses’ (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 161)
Soviet agent in the US Department of Justice (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 72
Wife of Communist leader: Max Eastman (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 60)
Edited the Communist ‘Masses’ magazine (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 60)
Edited the Communist ‘Masses’ magazine (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 60)
(former leader of the German Communist Party [the KPD])
Representative of the Comintern in the United States (Budenz, ‘Story’, pp. 240-241)
Joseph Fields (nee Joseph Felshin)
Staff writer for ‘The Communist’ (Budenz, ‘Men’, p. 219)
Wrote for the ‘Daily Worker’ (Budenz, ‘Men’, p. 219)
Leading communist functionary until 1928 (Budenz, ‘Story’, pp. 102-103; ‘Men’ p. 12
Advised against helping striking and by then desperate miners (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 93)
Later became a leading exponent of ‘anti-Communism’ (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 188; ‘Cry’, p. 117; ‘Techniques’, p. 310)
Wrote for and was employed by left-wing magazine: ‘The Nation’ (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 61)
Member of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 61)
Founded the communist magazine: ‘Labor Age’ (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 61)
Head of the International Fur and Leather Goods Workers Union. (Budenz, ‘Men’, p. 190; ‘Techniques’, p. 193)
Actively conspired to manipulate the American Federation of Labor while pretending not to be a Communist. (Budenz, ‘Men’, pp. 190; 202; ‘Cry’, pp. 75-76; ‘Techniques’, p. 188)
Jacob Gollos (nee Yakov Naumovich Reizen)
Chairman of the Communist Party USA’s Control Commission (Budenz, ‘Men’, pp. 39; 78; ‘Cry’, p. 66)
Headed the Communist holiday company: ‘World Tourists’ (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 238; ‘Men’, p. 55)
Was a Soviet espionage agent (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 238; ‘Techniques’, p. 123)
Soviet agent in the Whitehouse (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 68)
Worked with the pro-Communist Institute of Pacific Relations (Budenz, ‘Techniques’, p. 284)
Managed the financial support given to the Communist Party USA by the Soviet Union (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 132)
Pro-Communist writer associated with the ‘Daily Worker’ (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 46; ‘Techniques’, p. 228)
Soviet espionage agent in China (Budenz, ‘Men’, pp. 53; 278; ‘Techniques’, p. 281)
Used US government documents; given to him by Soviet agents, to help the Chinese Communist Party. (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 35; ‘Techniques’, p. 286)
Important figure in the pro-Communist Institute for Pacific Relations (Budenz, ‘Men’, pp. 264-265; ‘Cry’, pp. 45; 50; 59; 63)
Communist author. (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 99)
Soviet espionage and underground network courier (Budenz, ‘Men’, pp. 42; 74; 253)
Former member of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade (Budenz, ‘Men’, p. 81)
British Communist author (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 100)
Confident of Karl Radek; a leading jewish Bolshevik, who told him of his opposition to Stalin and support of Trotsky. (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 138)
In charge of Communist propaganda amongst Slavic groups in the United States (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 237)
Washington D.C. and a foreign correspondent of the ‘Daily Worker’ (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 230; ‘Men’; p. 269)
Daniel de Leon
Set up and ran communist and socialist trade unions to deliberately try and rival the American Federation of Labor (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 44)
Claimed everyone who disagreed with him was a ‘scallywag’ and a ‘scavenger’ (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 66)
Writer for the Communist Party USA’s Yiddish newspaper: ‘Daily Freiheit’. (Budenz, ‘Men’, p. 70)
General Secretary of the Communist Party USA (until 1928) (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 88)
Soviet espionage agent in North America (Budenz, ‘Men’, p. 98)
Trained female Communists to seduce US military officers to learn military secrets (Budenz, ‘Men’, p. 130; ‘Techniques’, p. 116)
High-Ranking Officer in the Abraham Lincoln Brigade (Budenz, ‘Men’, p. 124)
Steve Nelson (nee Steve Mesarosh)
Soviet espionage agent in North America (Budenz, ‘Men’, p. 34; ‘Cry’, p. 17)
High-Ranking Officer in the Abraham Lincoln Brigade (Budenz, ‘Men’, pp. 36; 124)
Helped the Chinese and German Communist parties (Budenz, ‘Men’, p. 37)
Communist leader (Budenz, ‘Men’, p. 42)
Author of ‘Why Communism?’ (Budenz, ‘Men’, p. 42; ‘Techniques’, p. 22)
Representative of the Comintern in the United States (Budenz, ‘Story’, pp. 138-139; ‘Men’, p. 78)
(former minister in the Bela Kuhn regime)
Representative of the Comintern in the United States (till 1938) (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 240; ‘Techniques’, p. 26)
Conducted espionage activities against the US Government (Budenz, ‘Techniques’, p. 26)
Abraham Lincoln Polonsky
Communist Hollywood Film and Radio Script Writer (Budenz, ‘Cry’, pp. 23-24)
Soviet agent in Office of Strategic Services (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p.24)
Julia Stuart Poyntz
High-Ranking Communist Party USA Leader (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 263)
Assassinated by the GRU (Soviet Military Intelligence) in 1938 for preparing to break away from the Communist Party USA (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 263; ‘Cry’, p. 130)
General Secretary of the Communist Party of Hungary (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 211)
Communist leader in Washington state (Budenz, ‘Men’, p. 105)
Stole US Military documents for the Soviet Union (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 10)
Communist Party USA Lawyer (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 82)
Writer for the ‘Daily Worker’ (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 303)
Nathan Gregory Silvermaster
Soviet spy in the US government (Budenz, ‘Men’, pp. 105-106)
Jacob ‘Jack’ Stachel
Communist leader and representative to the Comintern (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 127; ‘Men’, p. 143; ‘Techniques’, p. 120)
Took his orders from Joseph Peters, Alexander Bittelman and Joseph Pogany. (Budenz, ‘Story’, pp. 188-189; 245; 251; 274; 335; ‘Men’, pp. 18; 40; 51; 267; 269)
Endorsed lying to serve the Communist cause (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 216)
Foreign Affairs editor of the ‘Daily Worker’ (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 278; ‘Men’, p. 154)
Communist Party USA’s Labor Commissar (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 84)
Long-time member of the Communist Party USA’s Central Committee (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 230; ‘Men’, pp. 78; 219; ‘Techniques’, p. 119)
Joseph Woodrow Weinberg
Soviet espionage agent inside the United States’ atomic program (Budenz, ‘Cry’, p. 17)
Robert William Weiner
Treasurer of the Communist Party USA (Budenz, ‘Story’, p. 226; ‘Men’, p. 78)
In charge of a large private communist slush fund. (Budenz, ‘Men, pp. 107-108)
Communist union leader (Budenz, ‘Men’, pp. 96; 197)
Secretary of the Young Communist League (Budenz, ‘Men’, p. 46)
Harry Dexter White (nee Weiss)
Soviet agent in the US Treasury Department (Budenz, ‘Techniques’, p. 281)
Louis Budenz, 1947, ‘This is My Story’, 1st Edition, McGraw-Hill: New York (‘Story')
Louis Budenz, 1948, ‘Men without Faces: The Communist Conspiracy in the U.S.A.’, 1st Edition, Harper: New York (‘Men’)
Louis Budenz, 1952, ‘The Cry is Peace’, 1st Edition, Henry Regnery: Chicago (‘Cry’)
Louis Budenz, 1954, ‘The Techniques of Communism’, 1st Edition, Henry Regnery: Chicago (‘Techniques’)
This was originally posted at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...-to-louis.html
Last edited by Karl Radl; December 20th, 2011 at 03:38 PM.
|December 21st, 2011||#42|
The Epitome of Evil
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Richard Krebs, Soviet Intelligence and the Jews
Richard Krebs, Soviet Intelligence and the Jews
Richard Julius Hermann Krebs; better known by his pseudonym Jan Valtin, was a German Comintern and Soviet espionage agent who later defected to the West. He is an unusual man precisely because he was thoroughly dedicated Communist activist; who had attended the Lenin School in Moscow, and; for the cause he dedicated himself to, freely admitted that he had murdered and helped murder opponents of that cause. He is generally overlooked even in the academic literature because he published his autobiography; ‘Out of the Night’, (1) in 1941 during a time when the world was preoccupied with the early stages of the Second World War so Krebs’ story was forgotten as it wasn’t then ‘en vogue’. There is the odd mention of him in the academic literature as well as a recent German language biography of him. (2)
Valtin is another ex-Communist who has been abused as a ‘lying reactionary’ by left-leaning and outright Marxist academics, but he is also much harder than usual to discredit as being one (as unlike Louis Budenz, Whittaker Chambers and Elizabeth Bentley he never became a conservative figure nor did he ‘get religion’) particularly as he has strong anti-fascist credentials and his Dutch Communist wife; nicknamed Firelei, was allegedly killed by the SS in 1938/9 (although neither myself or Waldenfels have been able to find any proof of this). (3) Valtin was; like Budenz, Chambers and Bentley, in contact with very senior figures in the Comintern and global communist cause, in which he dealt with messengers from such senior (jewish) Bolsheviks as Karl Radek. (4)
Indeed Valtin’s description; from a position of knowledge, of Radek is rather insightful as he calls him ‘the Comintern’s most clever – and most cynical – propagandist’ who was the effective overlord of the KPD and the Comintern’s Western Secretariat (based in Germany) during the 1920s before the rise of Stalin. (5) Radek was; in spite of his egalitarian rhetoric about the ‘workers of the world uniting’, very conscious of his jewishness and of the jewishness of other high-ranking Bolsheviks and at the 1927 Comintern Congress in Moscow he made his opposition to Stalin on the basis of the latter’s lack of jewishness by presenting a simple riddle:
‘What is the difference between Moses and Stalin?
Moses took the Jews out of Egypt; Stalin takes them out of the Communist Party.’ (6)
It thus little wonder that Radek was purged by Stalin in the late 1930s, but as Conquest has correctly noted: this has little to do with Radek having been jewish and everything to do with Stalin’s general paranoia (7) and mafia-style of government that Birstein has recently stylized it as. (8) As Lindemann notes it is probably merely coincidental that many leading Bolsheviks purged by Stalin were jewish (9) as so many of the Bolshevik leadership at this point were jewish: (10) so it is little wonder that Stalin targeted jewish Bolshevik opponents (as it was hard not to) and then later several batches of more prominent jews given his obsessive need to see Trotskyite conspiracies everywhere undermining his power. (11)
Valtin; like both Chambers and Budenz, inadvertently reveals the reality of the massive jewish involvement in the upper echelons of the Comintern cadre and Soviet intelligence fraternity. Valtin names Hugo Marx as a major Soviet intelligence asset and one of Stalin’s gang of bank robbers in the ‘good old days’ of the pre-revolutionary Tsarist period of Stalin’s life. (12) It is not surprising that Marx was jewish and; as Mosse termed him, ‘representative of the articulate Jewish party membership’. (13)
Knowing of Marx’s jewishness makes it all the more interesting when Valtin recounts that he was ordered by Marx to give up command of his unit of approximately thirty hardy German Communist seamen to a ‘Levantine merchant’ called ‘Meyer’. (14) Of course; ‘Levantine merchant’, is a polite way of saying that ‘Meyer’ (Valtin makes clear he knew this was a pseudonym) was a jewish Communist who; as Valtin tells us, was recruiting working men for espionage work on behalf of the Comintern and Soviet intelligence. (15)
‘Meyer’s’ real name was in fact John Bornas and he; as far as I can ascertain, was jewish. After Meyer set up various safe houses for Communist agents in Hamburg, New York and Buenos Ares and charged Communist seamen for the privilege of using them. He was ordered to the Soviet Union by the GPU, refused and was deliberately exposed; along with ten other Communists who worked closely with him, to the German police (who rightly arrested and imprisoned him for espionage). (16) The reason that Bornas didn’t go back to the ‘Worker’s Paradise’ was; of course, that this was a euphemism for being executed in Communist circles at this time. (17)
A more senior jewish communist; and agent of the Comintern, was Felix Neumann who commanded the Hamburg ‘Red Hundreds’; a play on words on the anti-Semitic Tsarist ‘Black Hundreds’, which was the KPD’s nascent version of the Cheka. This evolved into what was called the ‘T-Units’; literally ‘Terror Units’, which was part of the secret apparat of the KPD and was to form the basis of the future Cheka. (18) In the meantime its role was to police German Communists and during the various Communist uprisings in Hamburg and Munich: to execute ‘class traitors’, ‘bourgeois’, ‘reactionaries’ and ‘counter-revolutionaries’ (in spite of a very recent attempt to play down the KPD death squad’s murderous activities in these revolts). (19) We should also note that like its German counterpart: jews played a key role in early Soviet secret police and repressive activities as even eminent jewish historians have had to reluctantly admit. (20)
That is not to say that Valtin does not make mistakes as he suggests that Belgian Soviet intelligence agent; Edgar Andree, had ‘slightly Jewish features’ (21) when he was; in fact, not jewish (rather the son of an Belgian iterant manual labourer and his wife).
Neumann however did not last in the vicious world of Soviet state-sponsored espionage and was captured and interrogated by the German police. Neumann broke under intensive questioning; remember he had just been trying to overthrow the state at the behest of the GPU and had at least personally murdered one man in cold blood, (22) and started leaking information to the police having obviously decided that his best bet at saving his life was to turn police informer. His fellow jewish Bolsheviks were understandably angry at this turn of events and an attempt of Neumann’s life failed. However not easily deterred the GPU successfully set one of its young rising Bolshevik stars; Heinz Neumann, to arrange the murder of the now marked jewish Bolshevik Felix Neumann. (23)
Heinz Neumann; scion of a wealthy jewish grain-dealing family from Berlin, (24) was a major figure in the history of International Communism having earned the nickname of the ‘Butcher of Canton’ for his role as a Soviet advisor to the Chinese Communist Party between 1924 and 1927 as well as in the KPD being one of its chief theoreticians. (25) Indeed Neumann was later the editor of the KPD’s main newspaper; ‘Die Rote Fahne’, and a close associate of Stalin, but was executed in 1937 as part of the latter’s famous purges (which particularly ravaged non-Russian Comintern cadre like Neumann).
One of the more interesting tit-bits that demonstrates Neumann’s utter ruthlessness is that when he was sent by the KPD to Moscow in 1923 with one Carl Kindermann whom he denounced the later as a ‘fascist spy’ because Kindermann; a homosexual, had propositioned him sexually. (26) We also know that Neumann was; like many male jews, fairly obsessed with bedding gentile girls: in Neumann’s case he liked his shiksa’s tall, blonde-haired and blue-eyed. (27) Not exactly the most pleasant person in the world now: was he?
I should note as an aside that Valtin himself was propositioned by a homosexual; pretending to be a Protestant Pastor, when he was working as a Soviet intelligence asset in California and Valtin promptly fled and caught the next train out of San Bernardino. (28)
Valtin also tells us that the KPD was under the direct control of the famous jewish Bolshevik Zinoviev in 1923 and that he could order them to revolt if he so wished it (while he stayed safe and sound in Moscow). (29) We then discover that yet another ‘Levantine merchant’; i.e. a jewish capitalist, was working for Soviet intelligence in Hamburg and had knowingly sold the Soviet Union at least one ship to aid it. (30) Such capitalist co-operation; jewish and non-jewish, may surprise some, but it wasn’t just the exception in this period but the rule (as the USSR was after all a large potential market) (31) and the perfidious ‘righteous gentile’ Raoul Wallenberg was a prominent example of this kind of ‘cooperation’ (although it didn’t stop him being killed by SMERSH after World War II). (32)
Valtin moves swiftly on to another major figure in Soviet intelligence in this period; Michael Avatin, a Latvian GPU operative who worked primarily in Europe and the United States specialising in sniffing out and exposing anti-Communist agents. Atavin’s girlfriend was a jewess from Warsaw: Malka Stifter. (33) The budding Stalinist couple had met while attending the Lenin School for Foreign Cadre in Moscow and Stifter was very young: Valtin puts her at under nineteen and from what I’ve been able to work out she was more like seventeen at the time. (34)
We are then told that Stifter worked as a Soviet espionage agent; specialising in subverting the military and police, in the Baltic States, Yugoslavia and her native Poland. Valtin credits Stifter; perhaps too generously, with being the principle ‘hidden hand’ behind the Polish military mutinies in Skiernivice, Lodz and Nova-Vileiko: whence she was arrested and interrogated by the Polish police. Wanting to break the Communist infiltration of and influence in their military: the Polish government authorised the use of extreme methods; including torture, to break Stifter who eventually threw in the proverbial towel and gave up a whole slew of Communist agents who were then exposed, driven out of the country, imprisoned or executed by the Polish police. Stifter was placed; in spite of her betrayal of her fellow Communists, on the rolls of the Communist martyrs. (35)
Valtin mentions that at least one of the Lenin School lecturers; Rosa Speculant, was jewish and later like Stifter was captured by the Polish police but unfortunately escaped the hangman’s noose. Speculant lectured on how to disseminate propaganda and in reward for her services a grateful USSR named a children’s home in Novorossisk after her. (36)
Valtin then mentions seeing a thirty-five page report he had made on the chances of inciting a race-based uprising in Hawaii on the desk of the jewish head of the Profintern: Solomon Lozovsky. (37) Lozovsky was a major figure in the Soviet Union till Stalin had him killed for cooperating with Zionists and showing jewish nationalist sentiments. (38)
Among his many of posts was the control of the Profintern (the Soviet international trade unionist network) from 1921 to 1937 (an unusually long tenure in the USSR) and the Soviet Information Bureau (to influence world opinion in favour of the USSR during and after World War II) as well as being a member of the powerful Central Committee of the Communist Party, the Supreme Soviet and a Deputy Foreign Minister. Lozovsky is usually ignored by critics of jews and it is worth mentioning that he is actually one of best case studies of jewish power in the USSR and that his jewish nephew was George Mink: a major figure in the Communist Party USA. (39) Mink; according to Valtin, like Heinz Neumann was a jew with a particular passion for bedding gentile women and tried to rape an attractive Danish maid in Copenhagen. (40)
Valtin next mentions a young German Communist named Hans Sorgers; who was an editor for an unspecified KPD periodical or publishing house, who was caught by the German secret police because he had become infatuated with a Communist jewess. Who after being picked up as potential Communist agent blurted out; under questioning, as much information as she possibly could to save her own skin regardless of her misguided lover’s life and her own professed beliefs. (41)
The next stop on Valtin’s whistle-stop tour of the jewish elements of the Comintern and Soviet intelligence apparatus is Paris where he is directed to the apartment of a jewish architect called Roger Walter Ginsburg. Whose spacious and luxuriant apartment on the fashionable Rue de Seine was the centre of much Soviet intelligence activity in both France and Western Europe. (42)
Ginsburg provided such services to Soviet intelligence as: acting as a dead drop location, communications hub, banker and passport forger. His wife; Doris Ginsburg, also translated Comintern and Soviet intelligence directives and material for this intelligence network running out of their apartment: she also acted as an impromptu interpreter. (43)
One of the Soviet agents; whose dispatches were sent through Roger Ginsburg, was a Jewish police superintendent in Tel Aviv: who was busy helping Arabs get to Moscow so they could be trained as Soviet intelligence assets to fight against ‘Anglo-French Imperialism’ in the Middle East. (44)
Around the time that Valtin met his wife-to-be; Firelei, he assisted a jewish Comintern asset named Hirsch who was to go to Galicia; a major centre of jewish culture no less, and help organise the ‘class conscious’ jews against the Poles in the name of the ‘world revolution’. Hirsch was however quickly caught by the Polish police and promptly hung for high treason. (45)
There ends the litany of jewish Bolsheviks that Krebs mentions in his ‘Out of the Night’; aside from some mentions of the infamous Bela Kuhn (but I judge that no introduction is necessary to his murderous regime and subsequent activities), which is very informative in telling us just how many jews got involved in working for ‘world revolution’ with the Comintern and Soviet intelligence. One wonders how some can continue to claim there was no significant jewish representation in international communism or among the Bolsheviks?
(1) Jan Valtin, 1941, ‘Out of the Night’, 1st Edition, Alliance: New York
(2) Ernst von Waldenfels, 2002, ‘Der Spion der aus Deutschland Kam: Das Geheime Leben des Seemanns Richard Krebs’, 1st Edition, Aufbau Verlag: Berlin
(3) For example of the comparative leniency of the Third Reich towards Communist prisoners see the remarkable booklet Reinhard Rurup (Ed.), 1997, ‘Topography of Terror: Gestapo, SS and Reichssicherheitshauptamt on the “Prinz-Albrecht-Terrain”: A Documentation’, 6th Edition, Verlag Willmuth Arenhovel: Berlin, which manages to indirectly inform us of this; to modern readers, startling fact (in spite of the clunky and badly translated English title).
(4) Valtin, Op. Cit., p. 41
(6) Albert Lindemann, 1997, ‘Esau’s Tears: Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews’, 1st Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York, p. 452
(7) Robert Conquest, 1968, ‘The Great Terror: Stalin’s Purge of the Thirties’, 1st Edition, MacMillan: New York, p. 76
(8) Vadim Birstein, 2011, ‘SMERSH: Stalin’s Secret Weapon. Soviet Military Counterintelligence in WWII’, 1st Edition, Biteback: London, p. 25
(9) Lindemann, Op. Cit., p. 453
(10) Orlando Figes, 1997, ‘A People’s Tragedy: The Russian Revolution 1891-1924’, 1st Edition, Pimlico: London, p. 696
(11) Duncan Hallas, 1984, ‘Trotsky’s Marxism’, 2nd Edition, Bookmarks: Chicago, p. 5
(12) Valtin, Op. Cit., pp. 45; 110
(13) George Mosse, 1971, ‘German Socialists and the Jewish Question in the Weimar Republic’, Leo Baeck Institute Year Book, Vol. 16, No. 1, p. 143
(14) Valtin, Op. Cit., p. 47
(16) Ibid, p. 48
(17) Birstein, Op. Cit., p. 37
(18) Valtin, Op. Cit., p. 57
(19) David Olusoga, Casper Erichsen, 2011, ‘The Kaiser’s Holocaust: Germany’s Forgotten Genocide’, 2nd Edition, Faber and Faber: London, pp. 282-287
(20) Salo Baron, 1964, ‘The Russian Jew’, 1st Edition, MacMillan: New York, p. 203
(21) Valtin, Op. Cit., p. 58
(22) Ibid, p. 66
(23) Ibid, p. 67
(25) Ibid.; Adolf Ehrt, 1990, , ‘Communism in Germany: The Communist Conspiracy on the Eve of the 1933 National Revolution’, 1st Edition, Noontide Press: Costa Mesa, p. 20
(26) Valtin, Op. Cit., pp. 67-68
(27) Ibid, pp. 140; 353
(28) Ibid, p. 98
(29) Ibid, pp. 83; 182
(30) Ibid, pp. 96-97
(31) Sean McMeekin, 2003, ‘The Red Millionaire: A Political Biography of Willi Muenzenberg, Moscow’s Secret Propaganda Tsar in the West’, 1st Edition, Yale University Press: New Haven, p. 122
(32) Birstein, Op. Cit., pp. 29-30
(33) Valtin, Op. Cit. p. 111
(35) Ibid, p. 116
(36) Ibid, p. 138
(37) Ibid, pp. 119-120; 203-205
(38) Joshua Rubenstein, Vladimir Naumov, (Eds.), Laura Esther Wolfson (Trans.), 2005, ‘Stalin’s Secret Pogrom: The Inquisition of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee’, 2nd Edition, Yale University Press: New Haven, pp. 385-386
(39) Valtin, Op. Cit., pp. 309-310; Whittaker Chambers, 1952, ‘Witness’, 1st Edition, Random House: New York, pp. 302-303
(40) Valtin, Op. Cit., p. 312
(41) Ibid, p. 143
(42) Ibid, pp. 185-186; 470-471
(43) Ibid, pp. 186-187; 484
(44) Ibid, p. 189
(45) Ibid, p. 210
This was originally posted at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...gence-and.html
|March 15th, 2012||#43|
The Epitome of Evil
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
The Socialist History Society lionises Benny Rothman
The Socialist History Society lionises Benny Rothman
I have made more than a few comments on the Socialist History Society's newsletters over the past few years, but what has never ceased to amaze me about the newsletter; as well as their academic journal 'Socialist History', is the amount of jews who get mentioned.
The newsletter for March 2012 is no exception to the rule with a front page article on 'The Mass Trespass of Kinder Scout', which at first seems relatively innocuous in that it tells the; heavily exaggerated, story of how left-wing activists 'changed the law' on property and the ability of walkers to 'ramble'. (1)
Rambling to those unfamiliar with the term is a form of cross country hiking that is fairly unique to the British Isles and involves going off the beaten track of footpaths and bridleways in the countryside. In this particular instance the 'ramblers' of a sort decided to challenge the existing law on rights of way in regards to privately-owned land that was not fenced off or under special cultivation (i.e. mapped access land): they made their way up to Kinder Scout which is a hilltop in the Peak District (which was privately owned). They predictably got in a fight with the gamekeepers on the land: one of whom was injured by a slightly boozed up Bolshevik.
Where this all gets more relevant and interesting for our purposes is when we realise that the man who organised the 'mass trespass' was two principle things: a jew and a communist. That man was Benny Rothman; a Romanian jew, who was an open member of the Communist Party of Great Britain and very active in its subversive activities in the trade unions as well as in the Communist front called the 'British Workers' Sports Federation'.
Rothman was; in this more politically sane era, gaoled for four months for his premeditated political stunt and particularly so as he had lead his red ramblers up to Kinder Scout singing the 'Internationale' and the 'Red Flag': the musical favourites of every budding communist windbag. Mike Squires predictably tries to imply that it was a bourgeois conspiracy against Rothman, but this is just so much nonsense as all it boils down to is that Rothman broke the law and was treated; as a political subversive, very leniently by the judge.
However after his release Rothman continued to be a communist and was so for the remember of his life. He is just another example of the remarkably jewish construction of the Communist Party of Great Britain and also the enduring fascinating with jews that Marxists of all stripes seem to have.
(1) Mike Squires, 2012, 'The Mass Trespass of Kinder Scout', Socialist History Society Newsletter, Vol. 1, No. 1 (New Series), pp. 1-3
This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...-lionises.html
|March 15th, 2012||#44|
The Epitome of Evil
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Stalin, SMERSH and the Jews
Stalin, SMERSH and the Jews
The name 'SMERSH' is well-known in the West as is what the acronym stands for: 'Death to Spies'. (1) However in spite of its name being widely-known very few people in the Anglophone world know much about Stalin's shadowy counter-espionage and state security organisation made famous by Ian Fleming in his James Bond novels. We are fortunate therefore that a Russian jewish scholar; Vadim Birstein, has recently published an excellent English language history of SMERSH. (2)
Birstein is somewhat of an anomaly in that he is both jewish and; happily, intellectually honest in his work on his subject matter. I may disagree with Birstein about the extent of jewish involvement with SMERSH but never-the-less Birstein admits it was significant even if not as widespread as I would argue that it was. One of the principle themes of Birstein's book is his laudable opposition to current; heavily jewish, 'spookocracy' that governs Russia and in particular its systematic attempts to re-write and re-cast Soviet history; particularly that associated with Stalin's reign, in a positive light and ignore/minimize the massacres he and his; often jewish, minions committed in the name of Marxism-Leninism through 'official' and associated FSB (the modern successor to the famous KGB) historians.
Indeed Birstein rightly points out that works actually celebrating Beria; Stalin's longest serving head of state security and architect of some Stalin's worst excesses, have now appeared and do not mention that Beria himself was a paedophile (he liked having little girls abducted and brought to him so that he could rape them [the body was then disposed of and the family either bought off or sent into the Gulag system]) or the fact that he was responsible for mass killings on a truly gargantuan scale. Beria; in spite of many claims to the contrary, was not himself jewish (he was actually Georgian) but a significant number of his most trusted subordinates were.
Another man who Russia's 'spookocracy' has sought to rehabilitate is SMERSH's wartime head and; like Beria, a major architect of mass genocide although in this case centred on Axis countries and Russian prisoners of war and civilians in formerly German-administered areas of the then Soviet Union: Viktor Abakumov.
Abakumov's long-time jewish deputy Solomon Milshtein (3) (and later head of the 3rd Directorate of the NKGB [successor to the NKVD]) (4) is recorded by Birstein to have helped organise SMERSH killings (most famously at Katyn) and also took charge of censoring letters home from the Red Army soldiers at the front in order to 'keep up civilian morale'. (5)
In practice this meant that if you wrote anything SMERSH deemed not to be positive about the war or anything 'useful to the enemy' (i.e. roughly where you were) then you would be arrested by SMERSH officers and tried by a special military tribunal and often then executed or put into the Gulag system. This was the very same process that Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn describes himself being caught up in in his famous book: 'The Gulag Archipelago'. (6)
Indeed the scale of murders and killings undertaken by SMERSH was truly phenomenal as Birstein records in that between 1941 and 1945 SMERSH's field tribunals alone sentenced at least 164,678 'traitors to the motherland' for similar offences to Solzhenitsyn's famous arrest and detention: 'spreading anti-Soviet propaganda'. Of that number at least twenty were Generals in the Red Army. (7) When one reads Birstein's account of the condition detainees were held in it is little surprise how badly it has affected the lives of those who went through the 'system' and the apparent urge to talk about what happened to them. Indeed Solzhenitsyn is perhaps understating the conditions he and and his fellow inmates endured for fear they would not be believed!
It is little wonder Solzhenitsyn and other survivors of the Gulag system have such animus for their; often jewish, former Soviet masters; such as the jewish apologist for Stalin's slave labour program Aron Solt and jewish NKVD Camp Commandant Naftaly Frenkel, as I have pointed out elsewhere. (8)
Throughout Birstein's work we find consistent and damning documentation of the significant and vitally important jewish role in the early Soviet Union and in spite of Birstein's general rejection of the thesis: his superb understanding of the internal dynamics of Stalin's reign beautifully illustrates the absurd attempts; most recently and notably championed by jewish historian Benjamin Pinkus, to divorce jewry from its actions in support of Lenin and Stalin. (9)
Birstein's memorable characterisation of Stalin's rule as being that of a 'mafia boss' who periodically eliminates those who 'know too much' makes Stalin's apparent alleged 'turn' against Soviet jewry and its diaspora comprehensible.
To explain: the standard jewish/philo-Semitic hypothesis regarding Stalin is that he 'started out' with 'anti-jewish prejudices' and for this they can only provide circumstantial inferences derived from Stalin's time as Commissar for Nationalities under Lenin and articles that he wrote before and during that time (he was a natural for the post being a Georgian and one of Lenin's right-hand men in the pre-war socialist underground in Russia). This coupled with Stalin's anger at his son over his; Yakov's, engagement to the jewess Yulia Meltzer is taken as 'proof' of Stalin's alleged 'latent anti-jewish sentiment', which then; so the story goes, found its ultimate expression in the purges against the 'rootless cosmopolitans' and the Doctor's Plot. (10)
This simple linear storyline of how 'evil Stalin' deceived and then started murdering the jews (nobody denies jews were frequently both left-wing and pro-Soviet at this time politically right across Europe and North America) seems reasonable doesn't it?
Well put it into context a moment: Stalin had from the get-go been killing and imprisoning anybody who he was suspicious about; as remember in Stalin's thought process he was leading Russia to a great socialist future (thus opposition in any form was to Stalin ipso facto counter-revolutionary and/or reactionary), irrespective of whether they were jewish or not.
Several excellent examples are afforded by Birstein: the most notable of which are Abakumov; (the head of SMERSH) who was removed for no other discernible reason that he knew a lot of Stalin's dirty laundry and had thus himself become a security threat to Stalin, and Pavel Rychagov; (the head of the Air Force Directorate and Deputy Defense Commissar in 1941) who had blurted out a criticism of Stalin's lack of provision of suitable aircraft for Red Air Force pilots to train on [i.e. ones that weren't as he put it 'flying coffins'] and therefore had to be removed because he had openly questioned Stalin. (11)
Another example is afforded by a recent biography of the Communist Party of Great Britain's most famous chief industrial organiser and sometime informal ambassador to the Warsaw Pact countries: Bert Ramelson (nee Baruch Rachmilevitch). (12)
Now Ramelson being typical of the circumcised Communists of the time (13) was a Russian jew although he; like his fellow high-ranking jewish Bolshevik Raisa Browder, (14) went in the opposite direction (from Russia to the West) from the more famous early jewish emigrants who; in spite of claims it is a myth, really did emigrate back to Russia in droves. (15)
Three of Ramelson's sisters were Bolsheviks and the fourth was a Social Revolutionary (16): however the most successful of them was Rosa Rachmilevitch who 'converted' Ramelson (17) and even took him to see their fellow jewish Bolshevik; Trotsky, speak in public about the revolution and alleged introduction of socialism into Russia. It was the Bolshevik's overt jewishness and opposition to anti-Semitism that; according to Ramelson himself, affected his own conversion to the cause of international socialism. (18)
Rosa was in many respects a typical early jewish Bolshevik protégée: an early member of the Komsomol (the Communist Party of the Soviet Union's youth wing) who married and became pregnant by a Red Army army officer (whether he was also jewish is unstated although this is quite possible even plausible): who Seifert and Sibley assure us wanted 'to rid her country of poverty, illiteracy and anti-Semitism' with 'a pistol in her belt'. (19) Indeed Rosa progressed far under Lenin's regime and was made a Professor of Economics at Sverdlov University (20), but under Stalin's rule her husband was executed as part of the purges and she herself was placed in the Gulag system for a decade: presumably on the charge of being a 'Left Deviationist' better known as 'Trotskyites'. (21)
I would add; as a brief aside, that Rosa strongly reminds me of Haydee Tamara Bunke; Che Guevara's jewish lover and communist intelligence asset (just whose is a matter of some dispute), who her jilted Afro-Cuban lover Ulises Estrada describes in not dissimilar terms in his hagiographic account of her life and times. (22)
What happened to Rosa and her; presumably Leninist, husband is exactly what happened to Abakumov and Rychagov, but rather than being viewed as significant individual threats to Stalin's vision of socialism: Rosa and her husband were viewed as members of a significant group threat to that same vision of socialism. In that Rosa was a Trotskyite; or at least in sympathy with the ideas propounded by Trotksy's 'Fourth Internationale', from what I can discern so therefore to Stalin she was quite literally a subversive and a counter-revolutionary by dint of belonging to an opposing Marxist ideological group.
This means in effect that Stalin wasn't targeting Rosa; or any other jew, just because they were jewish or that he had some form of 'latent anti-Semitism' which made him pick on jews in particular (in fact he didn't). What Stalin was targeting was those he perceived as being opposed and therefore probably subversive (as Stalin is well-known to have been utterly paranoid at the best of times) to his vision of Russia's (and the world's) socialist future.
When Stalin rejected Yulia Meltzer as his son's bride-to-be: he did so more than likely not because she was jewish (which was merely incidental) but because Yakov hadn't told him about it before doing the deed and therefore seeking his approval 'after the fact'. Stalin liked to be in control at all times and Yakov's action clearly took some of that control away: leading not unpredictably to Stalin's violent response and subsequent strident dislike of Yakov.
As with Stalin's later purges against 'rootless cosmopolitans': the fact that many of these writers and intellectuals were jewish is largely incidental precisely because jews still made up a large percentage of the Soviet intelligentsia. So it would be rather odd if the jews were not badly hit: as they were in the purges of the late 1930s by Stalin's removal of any and all those he perceived opposition to his ideas in.
However few proponents of the 'Stalin was an anti-Semite' claim note that one of the reasons that Stalin was more likely to go after the significant jewish segment of the Soviet intelligentsia was that during the Second World War: they had (encouraged by Stalin ironically enough) developed very close contacts with American and European jewry as well as with international Zionist organisations. (23) This; as with returning Soviet prisoners of war, lead by the logic of Soviet jewish intellectuals having been 'exposed' to a significant amount of non-Soviet influences to these same jewish intellectuals being viewed by Stalin as potential threats to his vision of Russia's socialist future.
Thus the simple linear presentation of the 'anti-Semitic Stalin' persecuting the jews in some sinister preconceived master plan is as much of a contrived defensive jewish nonsense as the claim that Karl Marx was an 'anti-Semite'; on the basis of his early essay 'The Jewish Question', as was frequently alleged during the second great American anti-Communist epoch of the late 1940s to the 1960s (24) and which is complete and utter drivel. (25)
The beauty of Birstein's characterisation of Stalin's rule as a 'mafia boss' type scenario is that it at a stroke removes all the preconceptions about 'victimisation' that necessarily come into play when we are dealing with one of the greatest mass murderers in history. It at a stroke removes the jewish ability to plead their case as 'Stalin's eternal victims' and places them instead in the defendants dock on three separate issues:
A) Playing a prominent role in the Bolshevik Revolution and the power struggles that allowed Stalin to come to power in the first place.
B) Aiding and abetting Stalin's various ethnic cleansing campaigns, genocidal operations and his mass purges of the Soviet citizenry as well as foreign communists and cadre both abroad and in the USSR itself. (26)
C) Causing; by their own infatuation with jewishness and Zionist projects as solutions to their identity crisis, Stalin's paranoid eye to fall on them causing mass suffering to themselves, those who investigated them on Stalin's behalf (who were later prosecuted during Nikita Khrushchev's time in office) and those who were caught up in the mass purges that they helped initiate by their own thoughtless and irresponsible actions.
Birstein certainly would not see it quite like this: however that is the necessary consequence of his excellent characterisation regardless of how he may or may not like to spin it.
Another point that Birstein makes especially well is in relation to Vasilii Ulrikh; long-time chairman of the Soviet Military Collegium, which was part of the Soviet Supreme Court under Stalin and who was basically an engineer with no legal training whose wife; Anna Kassel, had worked closely with Lenin in his private office and had aggressively promoted her husband's career through her contact with both Lenin and Stalin. Ulrikh supervised literally thousands of extra-judicial executions of Tsarist officers in the Crimea during 1922 alone and during the Great Terror of the 1930s Ulrikh personally sentenced 25,355 people to death and sent 11,651 into the Gulag system. Ulrikh; perhaps on Stalin's insistence, also carried out at least one of his executions himself when he shot Yan Berzin; former head of the Red Army's Intelligence Directorate, on the 28th July 1938. (27)
Birstein also gratifying endorses the 'Icebreaker' hypothesis of the beginning of hostilities between the Third Reich and the Soviet Union when he tells us that 'though Hitler had planned the invasion of the Soviet Union for some time, his fears of a Soviet military build-up were not unfounded.' (28) Birstein also frequently supports revisionist analyses of the origin of the World War II and has little truck with the usual quasi-apologia of the 'unprepared Stalin' that has been decisively debunked (yet again) by John Mosier (29) although Birstein himself cites Joachim Hoffmann's deconstruction of the Stalinist victim myth. (30)
I would further point out that Birstein adroitly agrees with Mosier's argument that had not the United States; at the behest of the many later discovered jewish Comintern/GRU [Soviet Military Intelligence] agents (Harry Dexter White probably being the most important in this particular respect), ploughed hundreds of thousands of tonnes of military and economic aid into the USSR during 1941 and 1942: the USSR would have simply imploded with the advent of Operation Typhoon (the German assault on Moscow). There we enter the realm of alternative history, but it is never-the-less utterly damning that the United States actually saved a country that was explicitly dedicated to destroying it at the behest of later discovered; largely jewish, traitors.
Other points of interest Birstein discusses are other prominent Soviet jews such as Semyon Krivoshein (a Soviet tank commander) who was a favourite of Stalin's and a hero of Soviet propaganda. (31) One may wonder with good reason whether Krivoshein had actually done anything particularly brave or whether he was just the 'right man, in the right place at the right time' or in modern corporate parlance: his face fitted.
Another was David Ortenberg: the jewish editor-in-chief of the official Red Army newspaper 'Krasnaya Zvezda' in 1941. Ortenberg exhorted Soviet soldiers to murder any one who disagreed with Stalin and particularly anyone who happened to be German (as they were the 'German fascist scoundrels'). (32) Much as the notorious Soviet jewish propagadist Ilya Ehrenberg was to do later, which culminated in vast numbers of war crimes and the famous mass rape of Europe by the Red Army and its significantly jewish officer and commissar corps. (33)
Yet another example; but a rank and file one in this instance, is Yeleazer Meletinsky who was a GRU officer attached to 56th Army and who was arrested and accused of espionage fundamentally because he could speak German and had a Russian-German phrase book. (34) The SMERSH officers questioning him weren't interested in whether he was jewish or whether he was actually guilty of espionage: they were 'hunting traitors' and they had to meet their quota. If they didn't meet their quota on the same logic that I elucidated above they would be judged to be impeding Stalin's vision of a socialist Russia and thus be 'counter-revolutionaries' and/or 'reactionaries' themselves.
It is therefore little surprising that; as Birstein notes, 'the level of hidden anti-Semitism was very high among Russian privates' of the Red Army. (35) The reason is the proverbial elephant in the room of the early Soviet Union: the amount of high-ranking Bolsheviks who were jews.(36)
Thus explaining why Birstein notes that this anti-Semitism was 'vague' (37) as to be specific the Russian private in the Red Army would lay himself open to be charged and probably shot by the NKVD or SMERSH as a 'counter-revolutionary', 'spreading anti-Soviet propaganda' (as German propaganda leaflets frequently used such charges) and/or 'espionage agent' (as only those expressing 'reactionary' views could possibly be German 'White Guard' spies).
All in all Birstein's work on SMERSH is an excellent one and one that deserves to grace the library of any serious anti-Communist or anti-jewish individual as it provides you with a wealth of information; intentionally or not, about the extent of jewish power in the USSR as well all the reasons you will ever need to argue that Marxism is about as intellectually truthful as a back-peddling Rabbi.
(1) Smert' Shpiona
(2) Vadim Birstein, 2011, 'SMERSH: Stalin's Secret Weapon. Soviet Military Counterintelligence in WWII', 1st Edition, Biteback: London
(3) Ibid, p. 98
(4) Ibid, p. 180
(5) Ibid, pp. 94; 120
(6) Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, 2003, 'The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956: An Experiment in Literary Investigation', 2nd Edition, The Harvill Press: London
(7) Birstein, Op. Cit., p. 124
(8) Solzhenitsyn, Op. Cit., pp. 205-208
(9) Benjamin Pinkus, 1984, 'The Soviet Government and the Jews 1948-1967: A Documented Study', 1st Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York
(10) See Gennadi Kostyrchenko, 1995, 'Out of the Red Shadows: Anti-Semitism in Stalin's Russia', 1st Edition, Prometheus: New York for a clear statement of this thesis.
(11) Birstein, Op. Cit, p. 84
(12) Roger Seifert, Tom Sibley, 2012, 'Revolutionary Communist at Work: A Political Biography of Bert Ramelson', 1st Edition, Lawrence & Wishart: London, p. 23
(13) Compare to Robert Service's notes on Maxim Litvinov and the jewish Bolshevik diaspora in Britain and America in Robert Service, 2011, 'Spies and Commissars: Bolshevik Russia and the West', 1st Edition, MacMillan: London, pp. 13-14; 82-87
(14) Harvey Klehr, John Earl Haynes, Fridrikh Igorevich Firsov, 1994, 'The Secret World of American Communism', 1st Edition, Yale University Press: New Haven, pp. 243-245
(15) Service, Op. Cit., p. 49
(16) Social Revolutionaries were a competing and more unorthodox form of Marxism to that propounded by Lenin (leader of the Bolsheviks) and Martov (the jewish leader of the Mensheviks). The SR's difference with the Social Democratic Party (which Bolsheviks and Mensheviks were differing factions of) was in their identification of the revolutionary class. Lenin and Martov agreed with Marx and Engels in holding the industrial workers [the 'urban proletariat'] to be the most 'class conscious' and thus the principal class agent in revolutionary change: the SR's disagreed and held (in keeping with liberal religious discourse (a-la Tolstoy) and home-grown Russian socialist thought) that the rural communes and peasantry were that class. At its most basic the SR's saw themselves as championing peasants rights and interests, while the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks saw themselves as championing industrial workers rights.
(17) Seifert, Sibley, Op. Cit., p. 26
(18) Ibid, p. 27
(19) Ibid, p. 24
(20) Ibid, p. 25
(21) Ibid, p. 338
(22) Ulises Estrada, 2005, 'Tania: Undercover with Che Guevara in Bolivia', 1st Edition, Ocean Press: Melbourne, pp. 32-33
(23) Joshua Rubenstein, Vladimir Naumov, 2005, 'Stalin's Secret Progrom: The Postwar Inquisition of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee', 2nd Edition, Yale University Press: New Haven, pp. 7-40
(24) Zygmund Dobbs, 1949, 'Karl Marx: Father of Modern Anti-Semitism' in Isaac Don Levine (Ed.), 1976, 'Plain Talk: An Anthology from the leading Anti-Communist Magazine of the 40s', 1st Edition, Arlington House: New York, pp. 400-404
(25) Jerry Z. Muller, 2010, 'Capitalism and the Jews', 1st Edition, Princeton University Press: Princeton, pp. 34-45
(26) On this see William Chase, 2001, 'Enemies Within the Gates?: The Comintern and the Stalinist Repression, 1934-1939', 1st Edition, Yale University Press: New Haven
(27) Birstein, Op. Cit., pp. 64-65
(28) Ibid, p. 85
(29) John Mosier, 2010, 'Deathride: Hitler versus Stalin: The Eastern Front, 1941-1945', 1st Edition, Simon & Schuster: New York
(30) Joachim Hoffmann, 2001, 'Stalin's War of Extermination 1941-1945: Planning, Realization and Documentation', 1st Edition, Theses & Dissertations Press: Capshaw
(31) Birstein, Op. Cit., p. 75
(32) Ibid, pp. 106-107
(33) Hoffmann, Op. Cit., pp. 228-242
(34) Birstein, Op. Cit., p. 117
(35) Ibid, p. 119
(36) Orlando Figes, 1997, 'A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution 1891-1924', 1st Edition, Pimlico: London, p. 696
(37) Birstein, Op. Cit., p. 120
This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...-and-jews.html
|March 19th, 2012||#45|
The Epitome of Evil
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Revolutionary Jew at Work (Part I)
Revolutionary Jew at Work
A Review of Roger Seifert, Tom Sibley, 2012, ‘Revolutionary Communist at Work: A Political Biography of Bert Ramelson’, 1st Edition, Lawrence & Wishart: London
Baruch Rachmilevitch; aka ‘Bert Ramelson’, isn’t a name well known outside the very specific area of the study of post-war British Communism and even then one has to know something of the unionist side of the British left to have some knowledge of Ramelson. This new biography; by one jewish academic (Roger Seifert) and a Trade Union researcher (Tom Sibley), is thus to be welcomed precisely because it sheds a lot of useful light on the kind of man of Ramelson was.
The work is obviously well researched with plenty of citations of source literature and discussions of academic views and controversies. However the book comes across; somewhat unintentionally I think, as being hagiographic as throughout the whole book not a bad word is said about Ramelson and; in fact, I am pushed to recall a single instance where Seifert and Sibley show any sort of criticality towards their subject.
Obviously this doesn’t bode well for the intellectual balance of the work and nor does the fact that Sibley; by his own admission, lacks emotional distance from his subject and writes from his heart not his head. This is best demonstrated in that the criticisms that Seifert and Sibley offer of those; on the ‘right’ and ‘ultra-left’, (1) are always to Ramelson’s favour and generally defend him from any reproach or blame. They treat Ramelson in the tradition of Marxist mythologizing that Lenin so pioneered in his sketches of Marx, his wife Jenny and Engels among others.
Indeed both Seifert and Sibley appear to subscribe to a Marxist-Leninist world-view and as fellow travellers to Ramelson seem to disagree with the demand made by the modern ultra-Leftist; Slavoj Zizek, that all Marxists be ‘ruthlessly critical’.
This lack of criticality is perhaps most bemusingly shown in the appalling lack of general knowledge and numerous misstatements the authors make such as wild statements claiming that Franco would been defeated if he hadn’t been backed by Hitler and Mussolini, which is a ‘what if’ scenario that is only a figment of an author’s imagination rather than the ‘hard reality’ endorsed by Seifert and Sibley's own alleged historical materialism.
They also proceed to claim that the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact of 1939 was ‘defensive in nature’ for the USSR (actually it was meant to give Stalin a free hand in expanding ‘the revolution’ to smaller states giving him time to prepare before launching an invasion of Western Europe) (2) and then have the literal chutzpah to claim that while the pact was defensive: it was brought about because Britain and France wouldn’t endorse an ‘anti-fascist’ alliance. (2) Meaning; in effect, that in their view the USSR was the only consistent ‘anti-fascist’ power when in reality the USSR was interested only in promoting a conflict in Western Europe to weaken it for invasion.
The authors fail to provide any necessary context to their claims and blandly cite one academic; of strong leftist sympathies, as being ‘proof’ of their contention. This is poor and the authors; both with PhDs, are surely aware of it, but does not stop them doing it.
Getting away from the laughable lunacy that these two wannabe Bolsheviks propound in their attempts to place Ramelson in his early historical context: I think a summary and short analysis of Ramelson’s involvement with communism; as a jew, is in order.
Ramelson was born in the Ukrainian town of Cherkassy; near Kiev, to a Torah Scholar (Seifert and Sibley are ignorant of the correct terminology but there we go) and his wife. His mother; as was not uncommon among the orthodox and ultra-orthodox, was the main earner of the household with his father being dedicated to the study and elucidation of the Oral Torah. Seifert and Sibley assert; without necessary qualification, that the family was given charitable gifts by the local jewish community: the necessary qualification being that this was part of the tradition of the Talmid Chacham (Torah Scholars) whereby it was; and is, considered a Mitzvah to support the study of Torah by materially supporting ‘scholars of the law’ so they can devote themselves wholly to their studies.
The authors claim that it was Ramelson’s mother who struggled against poverty and the ilk, but in reality Torah Scholars would never go hungry while there were observant jews around as they could turn up at any house and be welcomed to a meal: particularly if on Shabbos or a festival day. (4)
Of course: Ramelson's father would be expected to provide free tuition and guide religious discussion and rulings per the normal exchange between sponsoring family/community and the Talmid Chacham and his family similar to the deeply personal but incredibly detailed description given by Glückel of Hameln of this same phenomenon several centuries earlier. (5)
This portrayal of the 'starving Ramelson's' is typical of both Marxist claims about Russia before 1917 and also jewish claims about the condition of jews in the Russian Empire before the February Revolution of that same year. Such a portrait is just so much nonsense as there was plenty of food: however it was unscrupulously hoarded and sold at high prices by the heavily jewish 'middle class' whom I would rather expect Seifert and Sibley would rail against for being a 'product of capitalism'. (6)
That however would not be accurate as it is taking the effect as the cause and then building an intellectual Disneyland on top of it. The idea that 'capitalism' causes most; if not all of the world's problems, is a fundamental denial of evolutionary theory, which tells us that any organism will always compete; as an individual and often as a part of a group, for the best reproductive situation for itself.
Therefore if one is competing for the best reproductive situation then it does not fundamentally matter which economic system you institute: the evolutionary nature of human beings as organisms like any other will assert itself and they will only modify their behaviour to best compete for reproductive position within the confines of that system. So rather than having a jewish 'capitalist' on the top: you end up having a jewish 'socialist leader' at the top. Both have competed against others for that position; which leaves them in an excellent reproductive situation, and they continue to be competed against by those with the urge to get to the top themselves.
It is true that 'capitalism' will always exploit the less able, but socialism will always do exactly the same thing: for the simple reason that one does not get to a position of any influence or power without having competed for it and it isn't about the 'best man winning' as both capitalists and socialists frequently aver in their jargon-laden polemics and apologetics. Rather it is about the 'most ruthless man winning': the more ruthless you are in putting yourself forward and getting the best perceived 'results' to back up your personal propaganda the more likely you are going to be promoted to the power and influence you desire.
Life is war: nothing more, nothing less.
When Hayek famously quipped that socialism was and is the 'revolt of the losers' in a capitalist society : he only got it half right as capitalism is by direct contrast the 'revolt of the losers' in a socialist society. In both cases what is constant is not the economic, philosophical or social ideology, but rather the simple animality of man: the change is merely in the contours of the 'survival of the fittest' not in removing that competition and struggle.
As such the jewish capitalist who held the grain back for profit was no better or less 'just' than the jewish socialist who held the grain back for 'the industrial workers' as was later done as part of Lenin's 'war communism' policy during the Russian civil war. Ramelson however; like many jews of the period, perceived this rather differently and he saw 'anti-Semitism' being behind his family's perceived poor economic position.
To give some idea of how absurd and self-serving Ramelson's fundamental reasoning was we can point out that Ramelson's mother actually owned and ran a corner-shop: probably specialising in kosher food for the jewish community. Now in spite of the fact she had a lot of children to look after (and remember this was a time when having 5-8 children was normal); which Seifert and Sibley make much of (without that vital context), the fact she owned property and wasn't having to search for work (common among the Russian agricultural population if they weren't attached to a specific piece of land) or having to perform additional back-breaking piece work to make ends meet (like Joseph Goebbels family had to do at about the same time) (7) tells us that at the very least she was better off than a lot of people around her and across Europe at the time.
That is; of course, with a husband whose position allowed her and her family to have access to free meals and to be first in line for any hand-outs from the local jewish community. Hardly the poor starving jews of Seifert and Sibley are they?
This is further alluded to; however unintentionally, by Seifert and Sibley when they quote Ramelson as saying that after his elder brother died in a swimming accident: he was 'spoiled rotten' by his mother and numerous sisters. That is hardly the behaviour of a starving mother with a large family to feed now is it?
Now if we bear this stable economic position in mind within the other context of the popular; not state-sponsored as frequently claimed, (8) anti-jewish incidents such as the Kishinev pogrom of 1903 (9) and the famous Beilis ritual murder trial between 1911-1913. (10) Then it is hardly surprising that the Ramelsons felt threatened as jews in one of the most anti-jewish areas of the Russian Empire: the Ukraine.
This feeling of insecurity left the Ramelsons with four paths open to them: they could choose between segregation, emigration, nationalism and/or assimilation.
Segregation was the traditional mode of life for jews in Eastern Europe and simply involved using the jewish ghettos; and the Pale of Settlement generally, as a place to sit out of the stormy winds of anti-jewish sentiment until the Messiah turned up and the jews would rule the world in Yahweh's name.
Emigration was where jews decided that they did not want to be restricted in their 'upward mobility' and sought to leave to Western Europe, Latin America or North America to 'find a better life'.
Nationalism; better known as Zionism, was where jews agreed with the teachings of Theodore Herzl and his numerous Zionist ideologues of many different stripes: effectively meaning that they believed that they were a 'race apart' irrespective of Judaism and thus had a 'national right to self-determination' in the form of a new state, which would either be Palestine or somewhere else in the world if Palestine was not obtainable.
Assimilation was where jews either converted to Christianity and sought to 'russify' themselves or they became socialists/anarchists and rejected a separate identity en toto: thus seeking to submerge themselves in humanity as being no different from the rest of it.
All these positions are largely interchangeable and can be combined with each other in varying degrees as indeed was the case in Russia; and the world in general, at the time. Ramelson's family typify this in that Ramelson's father chose segregation and emigration for the family. While Ramelson's uncle chose emigration and assimilation and Ramelson's sisters chose assimilation. Ramelson himself chose assimilation, emigration and nationalism.
We can thus see that what was driving Ramelson and his family to make the decisions they did was not their economic position, but rather the fact that they were jewish and needed to make up their mind about what to do about it in an increasingly hostile environment.
Ramelson appears to have chosen the assimilationist path in part because his sister; Rosa, was a fervent Bolshevik, was very active in the Komsomol (the Bolshevik youth section), became pregnant by and married a Red Army officer (that he himself was jewish is quite possible as Seifert and Sibley mention no disapproval from Ramelson's highly religious family) and became a 'Professor of Economics' at Sverdlov University (she didn't even have a degree). Ramelson remembered her in the following terms; that beautifully describe her actual motivation, as 'a young woman with a pistol in her waistband determined to rid her country of poverty, illiteracy and anti-Semitism'.
While Rosa was bent on eliminating anti-Semitism as well as poverty (which jews frequently believed massively effected them) and illiteracy (which jews frequently believed and still often believe is the cause of anti-jewish sentiment [i.e. 'ignorance of the jews']): her father heartily approved and allowed her to bring non-jewish factory workers to their home so they could show them 'real jews' and how lovely and charming the self-chosen can be when they want something.
Indeed Seifert and Sibley tell us that Ramelson's father heartily approved of Bolshevism for its 'combating anti-Semitism and poverty' in spite of its 'secular nature': this might not sound surprising for many, but in truth it is quite a shocking indication of how jews are utterly egoistical creatures. We can elucidate this by pointing out very simply that to a Torah Scholar Judaism and religion are the be all and end all of his existence in theory: he cares for nothing else as he is strictly to confine himself to understanding and spreading his understanding of the Oral Torah.
So for a jew to be an altruistic creature then Ramelson's father should have immediately sacrificed his own personal interests to defend jews against Bolshevism (i.e. it was a threat against Judaism being militantly atheistic and thus to the jewish religious system of Kehilla/Kahals and Tzaddiks of which Ramelson's father was part) or he should have joined the Bolsheviks (in order to gain best position for the jews after the fighting was over).
The former is actually the more likely of the two eventualities given that; as I have said, Bolshevism was militantly atheistic and it would be difficult not to recognise that even within the time from of the provisional government of Count Lvov and the jew Alexander Kerensky to the Bolshevik revolution in 1917.
Instead Ramelson's father actually supported Bolshevism; without joining the party or actively fighting for it, while still being a highly religious jew, which is odd precisely because of Bolshevism's obvious atheistic nature and the fact that there were more Judaism-friendly alternatives with just as much chance of victory in the civil war: the Cadets (Liberals), the Social Revolutionaries (Russian peasant socialists), the Greens (non-aligned peasants and anarchists), the local nationalists (e.g. the Ukrainian Rada and its supporters) and the less radical monarchists (i.e. those not associated with the famous 'Black Hundreds'). (11)
Each party/group would have served Ramelson's father a lot better as an alternative for jewish people generally: however Ramelson's father chose to support the Bolsheviks presumably on the logic that they were the strongest opponents of anti-Semitism and poverty which were Ramelson's and his father's chief social concerns (i.e. their own perceived personal situation).
Indeed we see another reason for an egoistic explanation of Ramelson and his father's behaviour in the fact that; according to Seifert and Sibley, Cherkassy was Bolshevik territory and hence it would be most personally beneficial to Ramelson's father to support the Bolsheviks at that point in time, while not formally committing and opening himself up to possible reprisals by opposing groups later on.
It is interesting to note that while their father dallied slightly on the sidelines: Ramelson and his sisters became ardent Bolsheviks with the exception of one; the 'black sheep' so-to-speak, who sided with the Social Revolutionaries. From what Seifert and Sibley annunciate it is quite clear that all of Ramelson's sisters; like him, retained their Bolshevik convictions all their lives.
Ramelson's sister Rosa was later sidelined by Stalin and her (possibly jewish) husband executed during the purges of the late 1930s (for being Trotskyites from what I can discern from what source literature I have had a chance to look at) by the NKVD. She herself was placed within the famous gulag system for a decade as a counter-revolutionary in Stalinist logic.
Indeed it was Ramelson's sister Rosa who 'converted' him by; during a short three week sojourn in Moscow, taking him to see Leon Trotsky harangue the crowds trying to whip up some kind of 'revolutionary' rent-a-mob. That contact left an indelible impression on Ramelson in addition to the mobs of jews attacking Russian policemen in ghettos; probably the reasoning that they were 'Amalek', as shown by the fact that before he left for 'capitalist Canada' in 1922 he did a bit of pro-Bolshevik agitation among his fellow ghetto-dwellers at his leaving party.
(1) This bit of Marxist jargon tends to confuse many people, but when Marxists refer to ‘the right’ they are referring to those who have less radical views on the ownership of the 'means of production' (often contracted to simply ‘property’) and when they refer to ‘the left’ they are referring to those who have more radical views than they do on this subject. Hence the assertion that there are ‘right Marxists’ (e.g. Bukharin) and ‘left Marxists’ (e.g. Trotsky) in relation to Lenin’s Marxism.
(2) On this point see Joachim Hoffmann, 2001, ‘Stalin’s War of Extermination 1941-1945: Planning, Realization and Documentation’, 1st Edition, Theses & Dissertations Press: Capshaw and Ernst Topitsch, 1987, 'Stalin's War: A Radical New Theory of the Origins of the Second World War', 1st Edition, St. Martin's Press: New York.
(3) Worley gives a similar view and calls its theoretical justification ‘crude Marxism’ (Matthew Worley, 2009, ‘The Soviet Union and Bolshevism Abroad’, p. 207 in Nicholas Atkin, Michael Biddiss, 2009, ‘Themes in Modern European History’, 1st Edition, Routledge: New York) but in fact this is actually orthodox Leninism applied to real politik (i.e. wait till your opponents weaken each other and then take power with your strength).
(4) Abraham Joshua Heschel, 1990, 'The Eastern European Era in Jewish History', pp. 5-9 in Deborah Dash Moore, 1990, 'Eastern European Jews in Two Worlds: Studies from the YIVO Annual', 1st Edition, Northwestern University Press: Evanston
(5) Marvin Lowenthal, 1932, 'The Memoirs of Glückel of Hameln', 1st Edition, Harper: New York, p. 54
(6) Jerry Muller, 2010, 'Capitalism and the Jews', 1st Edition, Princeton University Press: Princeton, pp. 18-20; 74-75
(7) Karl Georg Reuth, 1993, 'Goebbels', 1st Edition, Constable: London, p. 10
(8) See John Doyle Klier, 2011, 'Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881-1882', 1st Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York for the most recent debunk of the 'anti-Semitic Russian state conspiracy' argument still trotted out by some Israeli and jewish writers.
(9) See John Doyle Klier, Shlomo Lambroza (Eds.), 1992, 'Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History', 1st Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York for a detailed discussion of this general phenomenon as well as a detailed discussion of Kishinev.
(10) I am in the process of researching and writing a book about the Beilis ritual murder trial of 1911-1913, but for general reference Alexander Tager's, 1935, 'The Decay of Czarism: The Beilis Trial', 1st Edition, Jewish Publication Society of America: Philadelphia, is by the far the most complete; if heavily skewed towards the 'Beilis was innocent' camp, account as it is one of the few accounts in a select field that actually uses the trial records and the original source literature.
(11) Still one of the most readable and educational of the many intellectual offerings concerning this period of Russian history in the English language is William Henry Chamberlain's, 1987, , 'The Russian Revolution', 2 Vols, Princeton University Press: Princeton.
This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...w-at-work.html
|March 20th, 2012||#46|
The Epitome of Evil
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Haydee Tamara Bunke Bider: Jewish Communist Revolutionary
Haydee Tamara Bunke Bider: Jewish Communist Revolutionary
Haydee Tamara Bunke Bider isn't a name well-known to many people even those of the left-wing and/or Marxist persuasion, but she is an important and much ignored communist figure in her own right. The reason for this ignorance is largely because she has been completely eclipsed by her last lover: Ernesto 'Che' Guevara.
Che; of course, is very well known and perhaps more recognizable in his visage than by his actual ideas (1) to the point where he has become an actual deity of sorts in Cuba and South America (2) as well as being considered worthy to have Friedrich Engels (the by enlarge actual creator of 'Marxism') compared to him in a recent Marxist biography. (3)
Bunke was a key officer; under her guerrilla alias of 'Tania', in Che's failed revolt in Bolivia: her job was to act as a direct link between Che's guerrilla foco, the urban cadres and the Bolivian Communist Party under Mario Monje. (4) Indeed it was her mistake in leaving documents in a jeep before fleeing to see Che that was the direct cause of the escalation of the problems that Che's bunch of guerrilla bandits (5); or what Che would call his 'foco' per his not very original 'theory' of 'guerrilla warfare', (6) were having to deal with: although most of the actual problems themselves were due to the 'legendary guerrilla's' own lack of knowledge about the basics of military action and guerrilla warfare in particular. (7)
There is only one significant (8) English language 'biography' extant at present and that is by her former negro lover: Ulises Estrada. (9) While the work; like much of that surrounding Che himself, is essentially an intellectually-thin hagiography it does offer up a lot of valuable detail about Bunke's early life in Argentina and East Germany as well as her involvement with Cuban intelligence (of which Estrada was a part) (10) under Manuel Pineiro. (11)
Tania was born in 1937 to Erich and Nadia Bunke: two former active KPD members who had fought against the NSDAP during its rise to power before 1933. Nadia was of Russian jewish origin: although Erich was a simple German workman. (12) When it became clear that the Third Reich was going to last; as up to till 1934 the standard SPD and KPD belief and line had been that 'Hitler won't last and we'll be next', the Bunke's fled to Argentina in 1935 and settled in Buenos Ares where Tania was born.
Like Che (13) the young Tania was 'active in anti-fascist organisations' with her parents during the Second World War and after. (14) She was also; like Che, (15) highly bookish but yet very physically active: (16) however unlike Che she appears to have; at an early age, displayed heterodox Marxist characteristics which probably stemmed from her time at the Humboldt University in Berlin in the 1950s where she studied philosophy after she and her parents had returned to the Stalinist German Democratic Republic in 1952 (when Tania was 14). (17)
Indeed Tania's intellectual heterodoxy appears to first obviously manifest itself in her volunteering for assignments as a German to Spanish translator with Latin America communist delegations to the GDR. This lead from her having joined the Free German Youth (the official Communist youth organisation) and then unspecified 'cultural' and 'political' organisations soon thereafter (18) suggesting that Tania; being intellectually quite able, was quickly going through the traditional evolutionary gears of Marxist thought at this time: from the traditional Marxism-Leninism of Stalin to a form of more revolutionary Marxism-Leninism as championed by Trotsky and Mao.
Had Tania been more orthodox she would have simply been an academic proponent or an avid helper to the established revolutions; as don't forget that Marxism declares that the revolution is inevitable and Leninism only adds that a vanguard party (i.e. a cadre of disciplined and centrally organised professional revolutionaries) needs to be created but identifies that vanguard party as the 'industrial proletariat', (19) however she; possibly carried away by the myth of revolution, chose to leave all the possibilities open to a passionate intellectual communist behind the Iron Curtain and 'spread the revolution' elsewhere.
A key event in this development appears to be Tania's meeting with the Cuban guerillas of Fidel Castro in July 1959 when she met Orlando Borrego and Antonio Nunez Jimenez in Berlin and then met; and translated for, Che when he visited the GDR in December of that year. (20) Tania had apparently kept in close touch with had been going with the 'guerrillas of the Sierra Maestra' since the beginning of the Granma expedition and after meeting the participants in that 'revolutionary struggle' (21) she appears to have become even more infatuated with the revolutionary myths of 'Red October' and the 'inevitable triumph of Communism'.
In 1961 this egoistic infatuation with 'revolutionary ideals' lead to Tania not being content; as is quite common among jews (a-la a need for 'upward agility'), to be a mere cog or helper in the 'world revolution' but rather to be a central part and defining agent of it. Thus Tania decided to set off for Cuba to assist in 'consolidating the revolution' there with a probable view to spreading that revolution to the rest of Latin America. Tania managed; possibly because she was so ardent a Communist but also possibly because she was in likelihood an obvious Trotskyite radical (either in fact or in the making) , to get the necessary visas from the government of the GDR and the new Cuban revolutionary government. (22)
This radicalism on Tania's part is why I would argue James' thesis of Tania being a GDR or Soviet intelligence asset in Cuba (23) is not only unlikely but implausible: as it suggests that the either government's intelligence agencies would have gone against policy and operated opposition or likely to turn agents to mollify and/or deal with their fellow radicals such as Che Guevara and Raul Castro. We also have the formal declaration from the former KGB that Tania was no such asset, (24) which more less completes the rejection of James' thesis on evidential grounds as well as the logical grounds that Butterworth suggests (25) although Fontova still adheres to it. (26)
Once in Cuba Tania's radicalism was free of the constraints of the Stalinism of the GDR and threw herself into work as an official Cuban translator and a key organizer of an international student conference held in Havana in 1961. However this activity wasn't enough for Tania and she stuck to Che (currently preoccupied with his second wife Aleida March) like a magnet. As Che wasn't going anywhere at that time; as he was still in Fidel Castro's good books, Tania tried to volunteer with Carlos Fonseca to go and fight with him as a Nicaraguan guerilla. When this failed Tania ended up settling to do a degree in journalism at the University of Havana. (27)
Estrada insists that Tania's 'personal conduct' was 'unimpeachable', but this is rhetorical hot air as it is clear that Tania was on the well-trodden path of ultra-leftism in her personal and intellectual dissatisfaction with the realities of Marxism and its proponents. She identified with the idea of revolution, but she did not like what she saw in revolutions as each revolution in turn she found was in some way inadequate: hence Tania's gravitation towards revolutionary third world struggle and student fraternities which were sprouting the ideas of the 'New Left' and; what has been called, 'radical sociology' which argued for and believed in the idea that the American and European working class movements were a dead-end and that instead focusing on radicalised students and third world populations was the best way to create international revolution (in effect by inciting and guiding race war against the West from within the West itself).
One can easily see this tendency expressed in Tania's thought as she is constantly looking for some way to make the revolution of her dreams happen and as such she begins to radicalise her entire being (a-la Jean-Paul Sartre's 'new man') by trying to inspire revolution by revolutionary writing (her degree in journalism), revolutionary struggle (seeking to become a guerrilla and then becoming a Cuban intelligence agent) and then race-mixing with Estrada himself. (28) In many respects Tania fulfills the stereotype of the ultra-leftist in that she was highly-intelligent, highly-opinionated and highly-religious (in the sense of needing a clearly defined ideological system to understand the world). (29)
However Tania was only ever a passenger to that view and in spite of attempts by Estrada to white-wash her it is quite clear that Tania had about as much place on a physical battlefield; in spite of all her training and intelligence, (30) as an amoeba has being on a Nobel Prize Committee: as she simply lacked the common sense that is required for intelligence work (a characteristic she shared with Che). (31)
I would opine that at this time: it would surprise me if Tania had not been sleeping around a fair bit among the 'revolutionaries' that she idolised and in spite of Estrada's repeated denials of 'anyone other than him'. I think it is fairly clear that Tania was a proverbial Emma Goldman and spent a good part of her time bedding her fellow 'revolutionaries' although in Tania's case I tend to think this is more due to her intense admiration for them, which appears to have rubbed off a little on Estrada hence her interest in him as a 'Cuban revolutionary intelligence officer' (evidently a fairly ineffective one who has since been put out to pasture). (32)
We can see this in some of the things that Estrada quotes Tania as stating like:
'Her voice full of emotion, Tamara answered that she would be faithful to these principles whatever the price. From this point on, this would be the main goal of her life. She added that she had never expected to experience an occasion like this, and even less to have Che talk directly to her and trust her. She finished by saying, “I will never betray this trust while I am still alive and breathing.”' (33)
That is hardly the kind of balanced and nuanced statement one would expect according to Estrada's portrayal of Tania. Indeed it nicely shows that Tania was essentially an intellectual teenager besotted with the idea of 'world revolution' and concomitantly the 'revolutionaries' who 'made it happen'.
If one combines this obvious extrapolation with Che's known proclivity a serial womanizer (34) who tended to get women pregnant and then run off from any responsibility to them usually citing 'revolutionary activities' as his reason when he was bored with them: (35) then it is not hard to see that a young woman who was infatuated with Che would have been both an easy and a willing target for Che's sexual affections and attentions.
Indeed we know she got very emotional around Che (36) and that she slept with other men (37): we also know more poignantly that Che expressed an unusual (and probably sexual) interest in her. (38) We also know that she all but fled to see Che in the jungles of Bolivia when she was supposed to be organising the urban cadre and liaising between them and the guerrilla foco. (39)
It is more than probable that this otherwise inexplicable; or rather hard to explain satisfactorily, (40) lapse was due both to Tania's hero-worship of Che (hence need to be with the 'heroic guerrilla' that she dreamed of) and their probable romantic/sexual relationship. Indeed Che kept her very close to him and out of harms way for most of her jungle tenure (41) before she was killed in ambush. Che; of course, being something of a coward and a hypochondriac begged to be spared as he was a 'very important and valuable' prisoner (42) before being killed by the Bolivian Rangers against the direct orders of the CIA (who wanted him alive). (43)
It is fairly universally agreed that Tania's amateurish mistake in Bolivia was the start of the end for Che Guevara (44) and his rag-tag band of 'guerrillas' most of whom were either former members of the University of La Paz's philosophy department or former high-ranking Cuban communists who had fallen into disfavour and wanted to get out of Cuba without leaving in a body bag. However it is; as I have said, very hard to explain Tania's behaviour within a non-sexual/romantic framework as she had been trained in how to behave as an intelligence asset and promptly didn't on her first mission out with her idol.
Tania was a failure; like her namesake the failed Soviet partisan Koja Kosmodemjanskaja, (45) but much like her was turned into a myth to suit the needs of the far left. However her failure is instructive for us as it turns our minds towards the study of the involvement of jews in supporting and sustaining Castro's Cuba: particularly in its earliest days.
I haven't looked into the subject in any detail yet; preoccupied as I am researching and writing on several other topics that command more immediate attention and intellectual interest, but I have; in my research on Che Guevara, found at least two key figures in the history of Cuban Communism who are without doubt jewish.
They are firstly Herbert Matthews; the eminent New York Times journalist who consistently apologised for Castro and claimed he was merely an 'agrarian reformer' not a Communist, who was; in fact jewish. (46)
Secondly we have Enrique Oltuski Osacki; a Polish jew, who was one of Casto's key commanders in the
26th of July Movement , one of the three of Castro's original ministerial appointees in 1959, was Che's Director of Planning in the Ministry of Industry, then a central figure in the planning of the Cuban economy and is today Vice Minister of Fishing in Castro's government. (47)
Interesting: n'est-ce pas?
(1) Fernando Garcia, Oscar Sola (Eds.), 2000, 'Che: Images of a Revolutionary', 1st Edition, Pluto Press: Sterling, pp. 198-207; Olivier Besancenot, Michael Lowy, James Membrez (Trans.), 2009, 'Che Guevara: His Revolutionary Legacy', 1st Edition, Monthly Review Press: New York, p. 7
(2) Sergio Sinay, 1997, 'Che for Beginners', 1st Edition, Writers and Reader: London, p. 1; Garcia and Sola, Op. Cit., p. 205; Cindy Forster, 2010, '"Not in All of America Can There Be Found a Country as Democratic as This One": Che and Revolution in Guatemala', pp. 230-231 in Paulo Drinot (Ed.), 2010, 'Che's Travels: The Making of a Revolutionary in 1950s Latin America', 1st Edition, Duke University Press: Durham.
(3) John Green, 2009, 'Engels: A Revolutionary Life', 1st Edition, Artery: London, p. 9
(4) Che Guevara, 2009, 'The Bolivian Diary', 1st Edition, Harper: New York, p. 58
(5) Manuel Pineiro, Mary Todd (Trans.), 2001, 'Che Guevara and the Latin American Revolutionary Movements', 1st Edition, Ocean: Melbourne, p. 69
(6) This is largely a copy of Mao's writings on the subject, which we know that Che had read and was; during his tenure in office in Castro's Cuba, to partially idolise.
(7) For example the locale in Bolivia that they selected was a relatively rich area with little dissent and unrest with the government and they did not bring anybody who could speak the local language fluently. See Ann Zulawski, 2010, 'The National Revolution and Bolivia in the 1950s: What did Che See?', pp. 195-198 in Drinot, Op. Cit.
(8) There is an early one with very little useful information and hagiographic to the point of provoking intellectual vomiting in Marta Rojas, Mirta Rodriguez Calderon, 1971, 'Tania: The Unforgettable Guerilla', 1st Edition, Random House: New York. A far more critical and highly controversial biography is the German language; Jose Friedl Zapata, 1997, 'Tania: die Frau, die Che Guevara liebte', 1st Edition, Aufbau Verlag: Berlin, that has yet; to my knowledge, to be translated into English that argues at length; as I do (although using different sources), that Bunke was one of Che's many lovers. This has been claimed to be 'discredited', but it can be clearly demonstrated on the strength of what we do know that it is not only probable but very likely and Nadia Bunke's court injunction primarily covers; in relation to Tania's Bolivian life with Che, the unprovable assertion that Tania was pregnant with Che's child when she was killed not whether she and Che were likely lovers.
(9) Ulises Estrada, 2005, 'Tania: Undercover with Che Guevara in Bolivia', 1st Edition, Ocean: Melbourne
(10) Ibid, p. 2
(11) Who has himself written hagiographically on Che and his Marxism in Manuel Pineiro, Op. Cit. He also contradicts Che's theory of 'guerilla warfare' on pp. 16-17.
(12) Estrada, Op. Cit., p. 140
(13) Ernesto Guevara Lynch, Lucia Alvarez de Toledo (Trans.), 2007, 'The Young Che: Memories of Che Guevara', 1st Edition, Vintage: London, pp. 129-132; Jon Lee Anderson, 1997, 'Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life', 1st Edition, Bantam: London, pp. 22-24
(14) Estrada, Op. Cit., pp. 32; 141
(15) Anderson, Op. Cit., pp. 19-21; Daniel James, 2001, , 'Che Guevara: A Biography', 1st Edition, Cooper Square Press: New York, pp. 35-38
(16) Estrada, Op. Cit., p. 141
(17) Ibid, p. 24
(18) Ibid, p. 23
(19) Robert Service offers easily the most readable of the many introductions to Lenin's myth and modifications of Marx's thought in Robert Service, 2000, 'Lenin: A Biography', 1st Edition, MacMillan: London. For the best place to understand Marx and his ideas within their contextual environment the Israeli author Shlomo Barer's massive 1204 page 'The Doctors of Revolution' (2000, 1st Edition, Thames & Hudson: London) is a readable and intellectually through guide.
(20) Estrada, Op. Cit., p. 23
(21) Which had a racial angle to in that Batista was a mulatto while the revolutionary leaders; including Che, were largely from rich local aristocracy. For the background to this see Hugh Thomas, 2010, 'Cuba: A History', 2nd Edition, Penguin: London, pp. 751-764.
(22) Estrada, Op. Cit., pp. 23-24
(23) James, Op. Cit., pp. 237-241
(24) Estrada, Op. Cit., p. 271
(25) James, Op. Cit., pp. viii-ix
(26) Humberto Fontova, 2008, 'Exposing the Real Che Guevara and the Useful Idiots who Idolize Him', 2nd Edition, Sentinel: New York, p. 183
(27) Estrada, Op. Cit., p. 24
(28) Ibid, p. 59
(29) Ibid, pp. 33; 74-75
(30) Ibid, pp. 34-42
(31) Pineiro, Op. Cit., p. 69
(32) Estrada, Op. Cit., p. 54
(33) Ibid, p. 29
(34) Fontova, Op. Cit., p. 186; James, Op. Cit., pp. 54-62
(35) Patience A. Schell, 2010, 'Beauty and Bounty in Che's Chile', pp. 54-61 in Drinot, Op. Cit.
(36) Estrada, Op. Cit., pp. 52-53
(37) Ibid, p. 86
(38) Ibid, pp. 100-105
(39) Estrada predictably white-washes it by the use of pure rhetoric, but fails abysmally (see Ibid, p. 106)
(40) James, Op. Cit., p. viii
(41) Che Guevara, 2009, 'The Bolivian Diary', 1st Edition, Harper: New York, p. 131; Garcia and Sola, Op. Cit., p. 176
(42) Marcos Bravo, 2004, 'La Otra Cara del Che', 1st Edition, Editorial Solar: Bogota, pp. 467-499
(43) Richard Harris, 2007, 'Death of a Revolutionary: Che Guevara's Last Mission', 3rd Edition, W. W. Norton: New York, p. 223
(44) Ibid, pp. 96-97
(45) Estrada, Op. Cit., p. 27
(46) Anthony DePalma, 2006, 'The Man Who Invented Fidel: Castro, Cuba and Herbert L. Matthews of the New York Times', 1st Edition, Public Affairs: New York, p. 262
(47) Helen Yaffe, 2009, 'Che Guevara: The Economics of Revolution', 1st Edition, Palgrave MacMillan: New York, p. 286
This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...er-jewish.html
|March 29th, 2012||#47|
The Epitome of Evil
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Dr. Fred Schwarz's Kosher Anti-Communism
Dr. Fred Schwarz's Kosher Anti-Communism
Fred Schwarz is a name well-known to those who lived through the days of; what appeared to be, the anti-Communist riposte of the 1950s and 1960s with the rise of numerous patriotic anti-Communist organisations. One of the better known of these was the Christian anti-Communist Crusade run by an Australian physician; Dr. Frederick Schwarz, as can evinced by their being mentioned in one of the most important and widely read anti-Communist handbooks of that area: Anthony Bouscaren's 'Guide to Anti-Communist Action'. (1)
We should note that you should not confuse the Christian Nationalist Crusade; often done by individuals and groups historically and currently, with the Christian Nationalist Crusade: the former is the more intellectually-sound anti-jewish anti-communist outfit run by the late Reverend Gerald Smith (2) while the latter is Dr. Fred Schwarz's rather kosher outfit. Now when I say kosher I am not merely using it in the rhetorical sense, but the literal one as well as isn't widely known Fred Schwarz was actually the son of a jewish convert to Christianity.
To quote Schwarz:
'May I tell you a little of the history of the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade and myself. My father was born of Jewish parents in Austria. He left home when he was 12 years of age and migrated to Australia via England. He chose to become a Christian when he was about 20 years of age. He met and married my mother, Phoebe Smith, who was an English girl and a worker in the Methodist Church.' (3)
This is an extract from a letter that Schwarz sent to several hundred rabbis and synagogues in New York City in 1963: (4) he is not shy about admitting and boasting about his jewishness to suit him. Of particular interest is his desire in to use that jewishness in funding drives as the letter this was attached to was to serve a dual purpose: to raise funds and nullify some the hostile press that Schwarz was getting from liberal media and perhaps somewhat oddly the Anti Defamation League of B'nai Brith. (5) One can particularly wryly enjoy Schwarz's remark that for a league that opposing defamation it does an awful lot of defaming itself. (6)
The reason for this assault is ironically the fact that Schwarz was stepping on the ADL's patch and the ADL was keen to boot its new and more dynamic competitor out the way by calling their fellow member of the tribe an 'anti-Semite'. (7) The reason for this perception was three fold:
1) Schwarz had begun in a short time to rake in some $1.25 million dollars per annum by 1961. (8) Remember that compared to today books could be bought for a one or two dollars and often for a few a cents if subsidized. So we get quite some idea of just how much money Schwarz was making. If Schwarz was discredited then the ADL could tap some of this funding into its own coffers.
2) Schwarz's anti-communism lectures, seminars and courses (everyone paid at least a dollar for a ticket of course) were direct competition to the ADL's own anti-communist watchdog program, which it was marketing as an important part of the 'crusade for freedom'. (9) We must remember that the Israel Lobby was not very powerful at this point in its history and had only just begun to try to fight its way onto the special interest group playing field.
3) Schwarz marketed his anti-communist campaign very widely and gained a lot of support for being an effective speaker as well as having; unlike many students of Marxism before or since, a good basic understanding of Hegelian dialectics. The ADL had very little in the way of speakers to match Schwarz and was unable to take its message outside of its primarily jewish audience.
It is interesting to note that even in spite of the ADL bringing its not insignificant resources to bear on defaming Schwarz the latter still managed to take some $1 million dollars in 1962. (10) It just goes to show you can take on the ADL and win even if it seems far more monolithic now than it would have done in 1961/1962.
In spite of the ADL's typical aggressive defamation of anybody it perceives to be a threat or competition: Schwarz continued to have quite the soft spot for the ADL and declared that 'non-jews could join the ADL', which is a half-truth. As we know of non-jews who have served as honorary members of the ADL's board, but non-jews; as far as I am aware, cannot be members of the ADL by virtue of it being of the B'nai Brith (originally a purely jewish Masonic sect that still exists in tandem with the ADL of today), which means 'Sons of the Covenant'. (11) The covenant being the covenant Moses made with Yahweh whereby all of Israel; meaning biological jews, would be circumcised to show their allegiance to their generally genocidal God.
Thus it isn't exactly possible to not be a member of Israel; a born jew, and be a 'son of the covenant' as even if you converted and performed the briss you would still not be considered an Israelite by any form of Judaism, but rather a convert which is a rung below Israelite and subject to all sorts of additional religious rulings about who and whom you can marry or not marry etc.
Schwarz's little 'white lie' is thus exposed for the hypocrisy at it is: made even worse by the fact that Schwarz clearly understands this as he says:
'Although my father had become a fervent Christian he remained proud of his Jewish heritage. He often reminded us that the Jews were “God's chosen people” and taught us that Christians must love the Jews.' (12)
Here Schwarz is clearly invoking the biological nature of Israel; 'God's chosen people', and saying that jewishness is not merely a religious confession, but is in fact a distinct people regardless of their religious confession. I would further point out that Schwarz here is also telling us that Christians (he means gentiles) must 'love' the jews as 'God's chosen people', which is not only not very Christian (as it denies Saint Paul's assertion that the cup of 'choseness' had passed from Israel to the gentiles) it is also an invocation of Judaism's understanding of the place of the gentile: as eternal servants of the jewish people as Noahides.
One thus finds it to be of note that even a half-jew; who probably wasn't halakhically jewish (his mother wasn't jewish and his father probably wasn't a member of Kohanim [priestly class]), Christian preacher has the gall to tell non-jews that they are to serve as jewish lackeys for all eternity. It goes to show that even if a jew changes his spots he still remains a jew.
One prominent jewish anti-Communist who did directly side with Schwarz was Eugene Lyons; the author of two anti-communist best-sellers 'Assignment in Utopia' (13) and 'The Red Decade', (14) who publicly criticised the ADL (15) with William F. Buckley (16) in the pages of 'The National Review'. That is not very surprising that Lyons openly identified as a partisan of jewish interests in the 1930s when he was openly campaigning for Stalin's socialism until he visited the USSR and realised; to his slight credit, that the 'grand experiment' was not only a sham but a murderous regime that was far more despotic than anything that had previously ruled Russia.
Lyons attacked the ADL and his former friends in the Marxist 'anti-fascist' scene (17) for their smears against Schwarz: in particular their attacks on Schwarz's finances and his personal conduct.
A synopsis of Lyons' argument for Schwarz is easy:
A) Schwarz had been audited more than once by the IRS due to accusations of misuse of the funds he collected and he was cleared every time.
B) Schwarz was an open and honest person who was kind and charitable.
On both counts we can find Schwarz wanting: in that just because Schwarz was audited by the IRS does not mean that Schwarz did not misuse the funds he was given in terms of 'fighting anti-Communism' as a lot of the funds he collected are not accounted for by Schwartz in his own memoirs even when answering this charge. He merely chalks them down to expenses and quotes the fact that one of his opponents pointed out that he did only take home $5,000 a year in salary. (18)
Now because the IRS stated that they could find nothing with Schwarz's books means that either Schwarz really was squeaky clean, Schwarz had hidden what he was doing very well (remember this is the time before today's almost histrionic book and process auditing) or Schwarz had corrupted the IRS auditors. Now I don't think the latter is particularly likely given we have no evidence to suggest it was the case, but neither do I think Schwarz was 'squeaky clean' as he officially took in a lot of money and doesn't account for how most of it was spent.
Indeed when Schwarz talks of how he set up and supported a small anti-Communist orphanage in Kerala in India, with a school converted into a 'mobile anti-Communist library', a small local anti-communist newspaper and how it costs him over $200,000 to run (!) then one's ears should prick up. (19) As India is possibly the cheapest place to run anything with low wages, low cost, low land prices and so forth then as now. The idea that a third world orphanage would cost that much money suggests something fishy in Schwarz's books and add that to the fact that the oldest trick in the book is to send money to a designated shell company/legal entity overseas where the money is then put through the books and then used to purchase bogus products/services finding its way back into the designated pockets.
Of course proving that Schwarz was doing this is difficult as the means to do so is largely gone: however that Schwarz didn't work as a medical doctor since he began work as; what his enemies styled, a 'patriot for profit'. So thus one immediately wonders where all the money came from to support all the expenses of a household plus bringing up children, paying for their university educations etc. This would be very difficult to do on $5,000 a year as Schwarz claims he collected in salary (even adjusting for inflation over the years).
The most plausible solution is rather simply that Schwarz was in fact fiddling at least some of his account books to make sure he had plenty of cash to support his family and lifestyle as he continued to speak on anti-Communist platforms throughout his life even when his big money donors and backers of the 1950s, 60s and 70s had disappeared.
The second of Lyons' points in Schwarz's defence I have already partly addressed in pointing out Schwarz's knowing 'white lie' about the ADL's jewish composition and about what constitutes a jew. One troubling fact is that Schwarz began dating his gentile wife-to-be; Lillian Morton, when she was 14 and he 22 marrying her when she was 18 and he 26. (20) This would make Schwarz in our modern understanding a paedophile and although their relationship wasn't in all likelihood consummated till after their marriage: the fact that Schwarz could find a 14 year old sexually attractive is disturbing in itself.
We can further point to the fact that Schwarz in spite of asserting himself to be a 'pathologist' of Communism; by which he meant that he sought to research and objectively understand Marxist thought and the logic behind it, evinces little of the through understanding he professes to have. This is not immediately apparent to somebody who has not studied Marxism in detail as Schwarz does have an excellent understanding of the how the Hegelian dialectic is used in Marxist thought and has actually simplified it in the most succinct way that I have ever come across as (I quote it en toto for general elucidation on the reader's part):
'Universal progress required a universal cause, and Hegel taught that this cause was a universal state of conflict. In diverse situations two forces existed in conflict or “contradiction.” One of them was progressive, while the other was reactionary. He called one the “thesis” and the other the “antithesis.” These forces inter-penetrated and formed a unity of opposites. This opposition, or “contradiction,” provided the dynamic of progress. Progress was always resisted, and took place in a specific way.
One example of dialectical progress is what happens when a man tries to overturn a huge boulder with a lever. He inserts one end of the lever under the boulder and uses all his strength in order to raise the boulder. The lever exerts a progressive force on the boulder, but the weight of the boulder exerts an opposing reactionary force on the lever. This conflict results in a period of slow movement of the boulder until a critical or nodal point is reached, at which the progressive, or lifting, force overcomes the reactionary force and the boulder topples. In dialectical language, the thesis has negated the antithesis and a new state of conflict emerges, called the “synthesis.”
In the synthesis, a new state of conflict ensures between a new thesis and a new antithesis. This lead to a succeeding stage of slow progress in a new direction until another nodal point is reached, at which slow progress is transformed into rapid, fundamental change as the new thesis emerges. This synthesis may resemble the situation that originally existed, but it is invariably in quantity and quality. This sequence is known as the “negation of the negation.” Thus progress proceeds by a series of negations that cause advances and reversals.' (21)
In spite of this superb understanding of the dialectical reasoning that underlies Marxist thought; which enabled Schwarz to give many a Marxist a rough time as few Marxists put much thought into the internal logical of their own dialectical reasoning, one notes immediately upon reading Schwarz's two books (22), listening to Schwarz's speeches and reading his pamphlets that he quotes a very limited amount of Marx and Engels' corpus.
The main work that Schwarz quotes is the last edition of 'The Communist Manifesto' (not seeming to know there were multiple versions of this document which was known in the 1960s and 1970s) largely written by Engels and then 'corrected' by Marx. One also finds many subtle references to Engel's Anti-Duhring (where Schwarz takes his understanding of dialectical materialism) and the occasional one to Marx's 'The Civil War in France' and Engels' 'The Peasant War in Germany'. However that is only a tiny part of Marx and Engels' joint corpus with the most startling lack of references to 'Das Kapital' (Marx and Engels' fundamental statement of their case), which one would expect a 'pathologist of Communism' to not only have read but have commented in detail on.
Schwarz probably read at least one volume of 'Das Kapital' (there are four) (23) but no-where does he actually quote from it or show an understanding of say Marx's theory of surplus value, which forms the basis of Marxist critique of the capitalist economic system (and thus providing the evidential rationale for introducing the dialectic into the past and future equation) as much as dialectical materialism offers the intellectual base for asserting the inevitability of a truly socialist (i.e. communal and thus communist) society. Schwarz does not seem to appreciate or understand this very basic issue with his self-description.
Schwarz however is somewhat well read in the major later commentators on Marx's writings and routinely uses Lenin as his touchstone for understanding a specific point, but again fails to comprehend that Leninism is just one form of Marxism and although important his ideas have historically been rejected by significant sections of the Communist community. Also one finds that Schwarz has a tendency to just take one simple textbook, read it and then use that to suggest he is in fact an 'expert' on Communism when all he is done is take another's work, apply his knowledge of dialectical materialism and then use it confirm what his audience wished to hear or prod a Marxist as to when the next negation of the negation will occur and what form it will take. He does precisely this with Lin Shao-Chi's Communist textbook 'How to Be a Good Communist' (24) in his 'Beating the Unbeatable Foe' for example. (25)
No-where do we see Schwarz; for example, discuss the many periodicals and their reasoning/claims (which to be frank are superb propaganda as Marxists habitually contradict each other and cannot manage; in the main, to organise a nun shoot in a nunnery without demanding an investigation as to whether it is 'objectification of women' to do so) that he claims to have collected for research and used as such in his speeches and work. (26)
One can therefore see that this 'pathologist of Communism' was in fact nothing of the kind and was if anything extremely dishonest in his self-promotion and claims to having expert knowledge of Marxism. Some of Schwarz's partisans might claim this is because I have possibly overlooked some speech or article that Schwarz gave or wrote (it is quite possible), but my retort to that is simple.
Where has Schwarz shown a detailed understanding of Marxism that didn't derive from exactly the same fallacy; as recently noted by Tristram Hunt, (27) whereby alleged students of Marx in fact derive more or less their whole understanding of Marx's ideas from reading Engels' work (most notably anti-Duhring) and not from Marx himself (ergo the debate around authorial voice in Marx and Engels' joint works)? (28)
Schwarz merely recycled what Lenin said and then; as Revilo Oliver might quip, fed it to the boobs in the certain and happy knowledge that they would swallow it whole, applaud him for telling them what they could easily work out themselves and then shower money on him for doing so.
If that isn't being an effective confidence trickster: I don't know what is.
Thus Fred Schwarz was not only a confidence trickster of a sort, but also the kind of jewish 'patriot for profit' that Robert Griffith bombastically argued characterized the whole anti-Communist riposte of the 1950s and 60s. (29)
(1) Anthony Bouscaren, 1958, 'A Guide to Anti-Communist Action', 1st Edition, Henry Regnery: Chicago, p. 234
(2) On Gerald Smith see Glen Jeansonne, 1988, 'Gerald L. K. Smith: Minister of Hate', 1st Edition, Yale University Press: New Haven.
(3) Fred Schwarz, 1996, 'Beating the Unbeatable Foe: One Man's Victory over Communism, Leviathan, and the Last Enemy', 1st Edition, Regnery: Washington D.C., p. 338
(4) Ibid, p. 337
(5) One example being in Arnold Forster, Benjamin Epstein, 1964, 'Danger on the Right', 1st Edition, Random House: New York. Forster and Epstein were both highly-placed officials at the ADL at the time of the writing and publication of this book. Also see Solomon Bernards (Ed.), 1965, 'The Radical Right and Religion', 1st Edition, Anti Defamation League of B'nai Brith: New York, which also viscerally attacks Schwarz.
(6) Schwarz, 'Beating', Op. Cit., p. 329
(7) Ibid, p. 332
(8) Ibid, p. 314
(9) Ibid, pp. 343-344
(10) Ibid, Op. Cit., p. 314
(11) On the ADL's origins see Robert Seitz Frey, Nancy Thompson, 2002, 'The Silent and the Damned: The Murder of Mary Phagan and the Lynching of Leo Frank', 1st Edition, Cooper Square Press: New York.
(12) Schwarz, 'Beating', Op. Cit., p. 324
(13) Eugene Lyons, 1937, 'Assignment in Utopia', 1st Edition, Harcourt, Brace and Co: New York
(14) Eugene Lyons, 1941, 'The Red Decade: The Stalinist Penetration of America', 1st Edition, Bobbs-Merrill: Indianapolis
(15) Eugene Lyons, 'Does Mr. Forster Plead the Fifth?', The National Review, 3rd July 1962
(16) William F. Buckley, 'The Impending Smear of Fred Schwarz', The National Review, 5th June 1962
(17) This jewish journey from Marxist anti-fascism in the 1930s and 1940s to the conservative anti-Communism in the 1950s and 1960s was very common as Haynes has pointed out in detail. John Earl Haynes, 1996, 'Red Scare or Red Menace?: American Communism and Anticommunism in the Cold War Era', 1st Edition, Ivan R. Dee: Chicago, pp. 33-36
(18) Schwarz, 'Beating', Op. Cit., p. 314
(19) Ibid, pp. 317-318
(20) I have worked out their relative ages from Schwarz's comments given in Ibid, pp. 17-20.
(21) Ibid, pp. 46-47
(22) The other is Fred Schwarz, 1961, 'You can Trust Communists (to be Communists)', 1961, Prentice-Hall: New York.
(23) One by Marx, two by Engels and one by Karl Kautsky.
(24) Liu Shao-Chi, 1952, 'How to Be a Good Communist', 1st Edition, Foreign Languages Press: Peking
(25) Schwarz, 'Beating', Op. Cit., pp. 58-60
(26) Ibid, pp. 384-385
(27) Tristram Hunt, 2009, 'Marx's General: The Revolutionary Life of Friedrich Engels', 1st Edition, Henry Holt: New York, p. 6
(28) On this issue see Manfred Steger, Terrell Carver (Eds.), 1999, 'Engels after Marx', 1st Edition, Pennsylvania State University Press: University Park for a detailed discussion.
(29) Robert Griffith, 1970, 'The Politics of Fear: Joseph R. McCarthy and the Senate', 1st Edition, University of Kentucky Press: Lexington
This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...communism.html
|April 11th, 2012||#48|
The Epitome of Evil
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Anthony Sutton's Defence of Judeo-Bolshevism: A Rebuttal
Anthony Sutton's Defence of Judeo-Bolshevism: A Rebuttal
Professor Anthony Sutton; author of 'Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution' (1) among many other works on the Soviet Union and Communism as well as one the rise of the NSDAP, is a name well-known in anti-Communist and patriotic circles. As he is still frequently cited and discussed by those who represent the intellectual challenge on the right to existing power structures: jewish and gentile. The general thrust of Sutton's work is a theme that has become something of a sub-genre of intellectual and popular anti-Communism namely the linkage of capitalism as a generally monopolistic entity with the assistance in the creation of Communist states.
What is of particular interest to us is Sutton's second appendix entitled 'The Jewish-Conspiracy Theory of the Bolshevik Revolution', which is his short five page rebuttal to those who argued on the traditional lines of Bolshevism being a jewish inspired movement. As Sutton is still widely read and cited I think it is worthwhile responding to Sutton's claims one anti-Communist to another.
Sutton begins his argument by pointing out quite rightly that there was and is an extensive literature in English, French and German arguing the thesis that the Bolshevik revolution was essentially a jewish plot and more specifically he asserts a plot by 'jewish world bankers'. (2) However even here we begin to see the shaky foundations of Sutton's counter argument in that he does not define the points that those he seeks to oppose are using and nor does he differentiate between those who argued; or continue to argue, that Bolshevism was a jewish conspiracy independent of said 'jewish world bankers' and those who interpreted the Bolshevik revolution as part of a 'jewish banker world plot'. (3)
Nor does Sutton distinguish between those who utilize the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion as an intellectual framework to understand this and those who do not (who; like Arthur Keith Chesterton, tend to reject the Protocols en toto): he simply lumps them together as believers in 'an age-old religious struggle between Christianity and the “forces of darkness.”' (4)
One can see in this quoted phraseology a very old philo-Semitic canard in the implicit assertion that those who believe in; what Nesta Webster called, the 'jewish world menace' are merely religious bigots. This particular assumptions dates back at the very least to the seventeenth century if not earlier and was a particular favourite of the late nineteenth century's philo-Semitic and later twentieth century left-wing authors.
The assumption behind the logic is very simple in that it asserts that because jews are allegedly a purely religious group (a-la Judaism) anything negative said or later written about jews in either a cultural or racial context is de facto replacement religious bigotry. This is; of course, laughable as it presumes that Judaism is a confessionally-based religion; which it is not but is rather based on a biological caste system, and that jews stop being jews when they become say Christians and that all those who attack them are therefore merely attacking religious preference under various different abstract names. It fails to take into account the fact that you do not get an 'atheist Catholic', 'Islamic Hindu' or a 'Pagan Mormon' but that you do get 'Jewish Catholics', 'Jewish Hindus' and 'Jewish Mormons' (and in significant numbers I might add).
Thus there is something very distinct and different about jews and Judaism that cannot be simply transliterated across to 'religious confession' as Sutton and his many confrères would have it. That very distinct and different something is the fact that Judaism is a biological-based religion. (5)
Thus Sutton's rebuttal is already showing distinct signs of problematic a priori reasoning: however to not seem unkind to Sutton let us ignore his rather disquieting over-generalization of his opponents.
Sutton points out correctly that one finds; in the 1920s in particular, a surprisingly diverse number of people who purported a direct link between jews and Bolshevism including many who were in positions of authority and influence at an international level. Sutton to his credit picks a good; if overused, example of this in Winston Churchill's famous 1920 article 'Zionism versus Bolshevism' in the Illustrated Sunday Herald.
Sutton rightly summarizes Churchill's argument in that Churchill; basing himself off Nesta Webster's 'Secret Societies and Subversive Movements' and her earlier work 'The French Revolution', drew a clear distinction between 'national jews' (who he styled as patriots) and 'international jews' (who he styled as being atheist revolutionaries). I disagree with Churchill's summation in the sense that I don't think you can arbitrarily assign jews to specific categories in terms of loyalty and religious conviction as we know of numerous cases where a jew was religious and not an alleged patriot, an atheist and an alleged patriot and also where jews fought against the Bolshevisation of Russia (albeit largely against other jews).
Sutton criticises Churchill for suggesting that with the exception of Lenin; who is now generally agreed to have been part-jewish, the 'majority of the leading figures of the revolution were jewish' and asserts; without qualification, that this is 'contrary to fact'. (6) However while this is a slight overstatement: it is not 'contrary to fact' as Sutton claims as jewish over-representation on the Tsentral'nyj Komitet (Central Committee) was massive for example in 1918 there were four jews out of fifteen members (five if you include Lenin) (7) (i.e. roughly thirty-three percent) and for comparison in the same committee before the October Revolution (i.e. during the Provisional Government/Kerensky epoch) we have six jews out of twenty-one members (seven if you include Lenin) (again roughly thirty-three percent). (8)
Now while we are talking about numbers of jews in the Central Committee it is important to stress that while numbers do often act as a general guide to scale of influence within an organisation: they never tell the whole story. In this case the fact there wasn't a jewish majority in the Central Committee either before or after the Bolshevik revolution is very deceptive as it doesn't take into account the unofficial power structure within the Russian Social Democratic party before, during or after this particular point in time.
One very obvious point should be raised in that most of the names that appear on the Central Committee at this time were largely transient and do not significantly figure in later Bolshevik history; either abroad or domestically, nor does this recognise that there are several major Bolshevik figures who do not appear in the Central Committee at this time. Three very obvious examples of non-included Bolsheviks are Maxim Litvinoff, Adolf Joffe and Karl Radek: all of whom were major figures in Bolshevik diplomacy and attempts to spread the 'revolution' until their deaths. (9)
Sutton doesn't mention either of these figures despite their obvious relevance to his charge of jews not being the major guiding force behind the Bolshevik revolution, which is an obvious weakness in his argument that in neglecting to mention it: he in fact endorses its destructive capacity for his counter-argument. In that if we have major Bolshevik figures who were jewish who were involved in October revolution in no small capacity who Sutton does not mention; yet obviously knows about (as Sutton was an academic specialist on Soviet Russia this would be unconscionable), and tries to ignore then it suggests that their mention is fatal to his argument. This is indirectly suggested by Radek's own later joke that Stalin was comparable to Moses in that he (Stalin) takes jews out of the Communist Party rather than out of Egypt. (10)
Further the numbers of jews in the Central Committee who were not transient figures in the history of Bolshevism speak for themselves.
In the 1917 Central Committee we have:
Lenin (¼ Jewish)
Dzerzhinsky (Non-Jewish) (11)
(Or fifty percent jewish if we exclude Lenin)
In the 1918 Central Committee we have:
Lenin (¼ Jewish)
(Or forty-three percent jewish if we exclude Lenin)
We can see by this breakdown of those who are not more transient figures in the history of Bolshevism then jews were actually a far more powerful element than at first might have appeared was the case. We may particularly note that Trotsky was; in addition to his later reputation, one of the most important Bolshevik makers and shakers at this point in history being both one of the best Social Democratic Marxist theoreticians (his major rival in this was Bukharin), ideologues and also a leader waiting in the wings having already played a central role in a nearly successful; heavily jewish, revolt against the Tsar in 1905. (12)
If we further point out that at this time Stalin was a relative non-entity in terms of influence; in spite of his later massive influence and political influence machine, (13) and that of the rest (with the exception of Lenin as their leader): Dzerzhinsky, Zionviev and Sverdlov were the strongest in terms of influence (14) then it becomes clear that what we are dealing with is in fact; if not in terms of sheer numbers, a jewish-run Russian Social Democratic Party before, during and after the October Revolution of 1917.
Thus it is not 'contrary to fact' as Sutton asserts to argue that the 'majority of leading figures were jewish' as it is clear that this was; in fact, the case as Figes confirms. (15) It is also clear from Sutton's own thesis that he understands the scale of jewish influence, but seeks in the tradition highlighted by Erich Haberer (16) to knowingly minimize it while yet mentioning its factual under-pining.
For example Sutton in his own thesis describes the leadership and power structure of the propaganda apparatus of the nascent USSR in 1918 thus: (17)
John Reed, Louise Bryant, Albert Rhys Williams, Robert Minor, Philip Price, Jacques Sadoul
(Bureau of International Revolutionary Propaganda
(People's Commissariat for Foreign Affairs)
Now in the above power structure it is immediately obvious that there is something odd in play if we recognise that the 'field operatives' of the Bureau of International Revolutionary Propaganda were non-jewish socialists, Marxists and assorted fellow travelers: however their immediate superior; Boris Reinstein, was an American jew of Russian origin who had publicly espoused socialist beliefs since the early years of the twentieth century and who also served as a bomb-maker for various anarchistic and socialist causers. (18) Reinstein's immediate superior was the famous jewish Bolshevik; and later Comintern advisor to the KPD, Karl Radek, while Radek's immediate superior was none other than the infamous arch-jewish Bolshevik Leon Trotsky himself.
It thus clear that while Sutton is keen to try and discredit the thesis of Judeo-Bolshevism: his own discussion of the pertinent facts indicates that same broad conclusion of the direct link between Communism and the jews at this point in world; and more specifically Russian, history. After all what can Sutton say to the fact that he himself describes an overtly jewish power structure without acknowledging its obviously jewish leadership pedigree and then yet asserts that the argued link between jews and Bolshevism is 'contrary to fact'.
We may further point out that at the time that Churchill wrote his 1920 article there was a very wide variety of credible eye-witness testimony (which is actually still used to this day by specialists on the subject), (19) official documentation and news reports confirming just this scenario. (20) Thus it is rather asinine for Sutton to assert that Churchill's point about jews and the Bolshevik revolution was 'contrary to fact' as according to the facts as Churchill would have understood them what he said was the lord's honest truth and off all the things Churchill was and was not: he was not either a time-traveler or telepathic. He cannot be expected to know everything that Sutton knows from the intervening sixty years worth of research!
The fact that Churchill was broadly correct factually speaking is neither here nor there in the balance of things precisely because what matters is the facts available to a person at a given time: not so much what we find out years afterwards.
Sutton also criticises Churchill's argument on the latter's contention that jewish businesses and interests were not confiscated and jewish places of worship were not attacked by the Bolsheviks. Here Sutton is on much firmer ground in that jewish businesses and interests were routinely confiscated by their fellow Bolshevik members of the tribe and also there; as I have intimated several times in the past, was a visceral war between religious and atheist jews (21) to the extent that those jews who tended to flee to the West at this early juncture were the religious; not the atheist, ones.
The atheistic jews; like the jewish anarchist theorists Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkmann as well as the former jewish defence minister and premier of the provisional government Alexander Kerensky (all of whom then promptly authored autobiographical books about how 'they could have done better' than the Bolsheviks), only began fleeing to the West when they had all but lost the 'battle of ideas' (i.e. jewish egoistic competition on the national; and then later the international, stage) with their Bolshevik kin and the victorious sect; the Bolsheviks, finally acquired the method and means to persecute deviating left-wing heretics to the victorious 'Red October'.
However once again Sutton is criticising Churchill for not having access to far later information and I would reiterate that at the time when Churchill wrote: what he stated as truisms were just that. However subsequent research has shown that they are largely incorrect: although again we do know of memoirs and cases which suggest that Churchill's position did have a partial grounding in fact. (22) Sutton does not mention any exceptions of the kind although he is likely to have known; or to have guessed, that they existed at the time of his writing this attack on the Judeo-Bolshevism thesis.
That said Sutton's claim that Bolshevism did not suit jewish interests (23) is quite absurd even at the time that he wrote it precisely because it has long been an established and undisputed fact that jews at this time were in the middle of a highly politicised split between those who advocated absolute assimilation (socialism and communism) and those who advocated jewish racial nationalism (Zionism) with all sorts of different shades of grey in-between. (24)
That Sutton does not recognise this is something of an intellectual conundrum unless we acknowledge that much of Sutton's 'problem' with the suggestion of the centrality of jews to Bolshevism and many later Communist movements is rooted in his lack of understanding of what a jew is. Sutton clearly assigns this a purely confessional religious connotation (25) however this in itself informs us that Sutton knows little about what he is writing and while he has expert knowledge of Soviet Russia: he is something of a mattoid (26) when it comes to speaking of jews as his mistake is not only elementary, but it's unsoundness destroys the credibility of his arguments against the Judeo-Bolshevism thesis as his premise for arguing against it is simply wrong.
Clearly Bolshevism; and Marxism in general, did suit jewish interests at this time as if this was not the case then the number of jewish involved as a proportion of major Marxist and Bolshevik theorists and the like should not have nearly been as high as it was. It is after all next to impossible to discuss the Bolshevik revolution and the Communist parties that affiliated to it through the Third International without discussing the highly visible roles that a considerable number of different jews played in it throughout its early years.
To paraphrase Figes: it is not that a majority of jews were Bolsheviks, but rather that so many high-ranking and influential Bolsheviks were jews that concerns us and forms the core of the Judeo-Bolshevism hypothesis.
As I have pointed out above although Sutton may seem to wish to ignore the role jews played and just treat them as individual actors in a generalized socio-political context; as he seems to, then he is pointedly and 'unscientifically' (to use his parlance) ignoring the importance of understanding each individual actor's specific socio-political context and the necessary analysis of any patterns that arise from that. Sutton's objection on this score is probably; to be fair to him, less to do with meaning to downplay jewish involvement than applying a top-down approach to history (i.e. making fact fit theory) rather than my own preferred bottom-up (micro-historical) approach to the subject which stresses the need to understand the facts before theorizing and then altering your theory to take into account all the facts (not only a select few).
Sutton goes on to point out that Churchill argues; and he again he should have mentioned Churchill's citation of Nesta Webster's work as that is what Churchill is drawing on, that the 'international jews' are (part of') 'a sinister conspiracy' against gentiles for all the (alleged) things that gentiles have done wrong to them.
Of course this is all rather third hand and the insertion of the 'gentiles being nasty to jews' point is purely Churchill's and is not drawn from Webster's original work. However Churchill; again to put his argument in its intellectual and factual context, probably drew this claim from popular accounts of the Bolshevik revolution, which not infrequently included accounts of how the jews were reaping their revenge against the Russian aristocracy and people for 'centuries of oppression'. (27)
This idea of the 'oppressed jew'; which gained so much intellectual currency largely thanks to the jewish historian Simon Dubnow's two multi-volume magnum opuses on jewish history, was at this time in the intellectual ascendant alongside the competing; although partially compatible, narrative of the jew as the 'demon behind the curtain' in world history, and as such Churchill combines the two warring positions with each other to synthesize the image of the eternally persecuted jew who has in turn; and now especially, turned on his persecutors and is reeking a terrible and bloody revenge in the former Russian Empire.
The idea that jews are an international 'sinister conspiracy' against the West is an one of ancient pedigree dating as it does from the ancient and classical worlds where jews really did conduct gigantic conspiracies more than once to try and conquer the world in the name of Yahweh (on every occasion we know about an alleged Messiah had turned up). It does in itself in specific instances have much to recommend it as a method of explaining jewish behaviour and has owed its long-lasting career to its simplicity, ability to explain major events in history without needing a detailed understanding of them and also to the utilitarian ability to use it as an intellectual 'get out of jail free card' so that it is not one's fault that one was voted out of office or failed to get elected: it was a jewish conspiracy.
That said of course there are very real conspiratorial events undertaken by jews to serve their interests; the Israel Lobbies can be partially explained as several parallel or one united partial conspiracy, the attack on Paul Findley certainly can en totu be explained as one as can the cover up of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in 1967. However the problem comes; as before intimated, in the idea of the united conspiracy across the ages which is next to impossible to cogently track and has often been the subject of wild and unreasonable conjecture as Revilo Oliver noted in his famous speech 'Conspiracy or Degeneracy?'
This problematic theory in combination with Nesta Webster's popular theory of the Bavarian Illuminati surviving and flourishing after their exposure and breaking up serves as the intellectual backdrop from what Churchill is talking about. In a strictly intellectual sense Sutton is right to criticise it: however in doing so he forgets that Churchill was not a true exponent of this theory and his attention would have been much better spent in studying Webster's work or her less famous German intellectual doppelgänger; Friedrich Wichtl, who was writing at the same time and was just as detailed in his work; if not more so, as Webster was in hers. (28)
By not offering this vital context and criticising Churchill rather than Webster or Wichtl: Sutton is essentially choosing the path of intellectual least resistance and challenging the tacit believer in a given theory rather than the theorist themselves. We can see this in the fact he engages Churchill and later Henry Wickham Steed (a British former World War One propagandist, nationalist writer and modern artist) as archetypes of their position rather than debating the main theorists of that position: it is in many respects rather like going all out to debunk your local Christian minister rather than addressing the arguments of those from whom he derives his arguments. It is an intellectual cop-out on Sutton's part and I am sure as a man of great learning in his field he understood and recognised this when he wrote his short critique of the Judeo-Bolshevism thesis.
(1) Anthony Sutton, 1981, 'Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution', 1st Edition, Veritas: Morley
(2) Ibid, p. 185
(3) As succinctly; if somewhat indirectly, pointed out by Albert Lindemann, 1988, 'Anti-Semitism: Banality or the Darker Side of Genius?', Religion, Vol. 18, pp.183-195
(4) Sutton, Op. Cit., p. 185
(5) Emmanuel Feldman, 1998, 'On Judaism: Conversations on being Jewish in Today's World', 2nd Edition, Shaar Press: New York, pp. 269-270
(6) Sutton, Op. Cit., p. 185
(7) Specifically Zionviev, Sverdlov, Sokolnikov and Trotsky. On Lenin's jewishness see Albert Lindemann, 1997, 'Esau's Tears: Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews', 1st Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York, p. 432
(8) Specifically Zionviev, Kamenev, Sverdlov, Sokolnikov, Trotsky and Uritsky.
(9) Robert Service does an excellent job of tracking their subversive activities; for those interested, in Robert Service, 2011, 'Spies and Commissars: Bolshevik Russia and the West', 1st Edition, MacMillan: London.
(10) Lindemann, 'Esau's Tears', Op. Cit., p. 452
(11) There are one or two internet talking-heads who like to claim Felix Dzerzhinsky was jewish, but this is not the case as none of his biographers mention this (he was a Polish nobleman) and no reputable authority on the period mentions this either. It seems to very much be a figment of their imagination although I don't doubt I will abused again for poking a pin in their dearly held personal belief systems. For a summary discussion of this allegation see Ibid, pp. 433-434.
(12) Ronald Segal, 1979, 'The Tragedy of Leon Trotsky: Traitor, Hero or Prophet?', 2nd Edition, Hutchinson: London, pp. 65-73
(13) Simon Sebag Montefiore, 2008, 'Young Stalin', 1st Edition, Phoenix: London, pp. 349-350
(14) Ibid, p. 358
(15) Orlando Figes, 1997, 'A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution 1891-1924', 1st Edition, Random House: New York, p. 696
(16) Erich Haberer, 2004, 'Jews and Revolution in Nineteenth Century Russia', 2nd Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York, p. xi
(17) Sutton, Op. Cit., p. 107
(18) www.buffalonews.com/spotlight/article628584.ece [Last Accessed: 10/04/2012]
(19) A large number of transcribed English language oral histories from this period of Russian history are held at the University of California's Bancroft library's Oral History Centre and are accessible to the general public on application and appointment.
(20) Some examples are Carl Ackerman, 1919, 'Trailing the Bolsheviki: Twelve Thousand Miles with the Allies in Siberia', 1st Edition, Charles Scribner's Sons: New York; Viscountess Snowden, 1920, 'Through Bolshevik Russia', 1st Edition, Cassell: London; William Daniel, n.d. (prob. 1919/1920), 'Russia: 1918: Bolshevism in Practice', 1st Edition, Self-Published: Stockport and James Houghteling Jr., 1918, 'A Diary of the Russian Revolution', 1st Edition, Dodd, Mead and Company: New York.
(21) Segal, Op. Cit., pp. 45-46
(22) For example Moses Gurwitsch, Dora Wirth (Trans.), n.d., 'The Autobiography of a Russian Jew', 1st Edition, Self-Published: Liverpool, pp. 86-87
(23) Sutton, Op. Cit., p. 186
(24) For an informative summaries see Haberer (Op. Cit.) or Lindemann ('Esau's Tears', Op. Cit.).
(25) Sutton, Op. Cit., p. 189
(26) I.e. a genius at one thing, but an idiot at another but because of the genius of his main area of expertise he is taken as a genius in other areas he wishes to comment on.
(27) For example Viscountess Snowden, Op. Cit., pp. 27-28
(28) Friedrich Wichtl, 1921, 'Weltfreimaurerei, Weltrevolution, Weltrepublik', 8th Edition, J. F. Lehmanns Verlag: Munich (The work went through eight editions in three years having been originally published in 1919.)
This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...-of-judeo.html
Last edited by Karl Radl; April 11th, 2012 at 03:07 PM.
|April 20th, 2012||#49|
The Epitome of Evil
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
This lack of placing Churchill's comments in their historical and intellectual context comes to a boil when Sutton accuses Churchill of arguing; quite correctly I might add, that 'Zionism and Bolshevism are competing for the heart of the Jewish people' while being 'preoccupied' with the role of the Jew in the Bolshevik Revolution and the existence of a 'worldwide Jewish conspiracy.' (29)
What Sutton is trying to say; in somewhat garbled fashion, here is that Churchill is not so concerned about Zionism, but rather sees Bolshevism as an international danger that must be stopped at all costs. Sutton implies this is an inconsistent view by alleging by implication that Churchill should have focused on both Zionism and Bolshevism to be consistent with his thesis about a 'worldwide Jewish conspiracy'.
However the lack of context is damning here precisely because; as Sutton should have noted when talking about the distinction between 'national' and 'international' jews Churchill draws, he tells us that Churchill is drawing only in part on Nesta Webster's 'Secret Societies and Subversive Movements' in that he; unlike Webster, believes Zionist jews to be 'national jews' (or the better class of jew in Churchill's opinion) and Bolshevik jews to be 'international jews' (or the worse kind of jew in Churchill's opinion).
The 'international jewish conspiracy' that Churchill talks about is not a Protocols of Zion type scenario where all jews are controlling the world or trying to in a mass conspiracy, but rather a smaller much more compact part of jewry that is seeking to bring about an atheistic communist world-order via the medium of Bolshevism in Russia and the; then fresh and frequently jewish lead, (30) attempted Marxist revolutions in other countries. (31)
What Churchill sees in the article is more or less what jewish academic anti-Communist Frank Meyer saw when he wrote about the centrality of dedicated cadre to the Communist international cause and how these; often jewish, individuals were trained to act and operate. (32) This argument of Churchill's is largely derived from the literature of the time (33) and is an accurate characterisation of how Marxist groups operated before, during and after the Bolshevik revolution of October 1917. (34) To wit: that Marxist parties aligned with the Third International were part of a disciplined, conspiratorial attempt to spread the Bolshevik revolution around the world.
Churchill's opposition to Bolshevism stems from three basic factors that Sutton does not mention:
A) Religion in so far as Churchill was a devout; if rather pedestrian, Christian and; like many at the time, could not sympathize with a revolution that was not only devoutly atheist but also engaged in possibly the single largest destruction of religious infrastructure since the Edict of Theodosius.
B) Class in that Churchill was an aristocratic scion of the Duke of Marlborough (also called Winston Churchill) and as such under a Bolshevik-style government he would not only lose everything he possessed as part of the hated bourgeoisie, but also quite probably his life as many French and Russian aristocrats had learned to their cost within living memory.
C) Patriotism in that Churchill; for better or for worse, was a devoutly jingoistic partisan of the British Empire and as such held fairly extreme views on how it was a force for good in the world and that it was its great burden to bring civilisation to all the corners of globe. Bolshevism directly undermined this by demanding the so-called 'emancipation' of all 'oppressed workers' and asserting that this bringing of civilisation was in reality nothing more than a conspiratorial rationalisation for the capitalistic exploitation of less advanced civilisations and peoples.
Thus Bolshevism flew in the face of everything Churchill believed and held dear.
In direct contrast Zionism did not (35) in so far as the jews had been strong partisans of Britain during the Great War and we even have some evidence to suggest that the perfidious Balfour Declaration of 1917 (which must always be seen in the hypocritical context of the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 [to carve up the Ottoman Empire between Britain and France] and British promises to the Arab rebellion under Prince Faisal and T. E. Lawrence [better known as 'Lawrence of Arabia']) was in fact a direct bribe to the jews of North America to prod President Wilson; (36) along with the assistance of the 'false-flag' Zimmerman telegram, into; what Donald Day styled as, singing 'Onward Christian Soldiers' as he sent American youth to their deaths in a war that was not their own let alone anything to do with them per se (after all the Allies were simply desperate having slaughtered a large proportion of their own men). (37)
Zionism was to Churchill a 'national movement' of the jews that if nurtured; he thought, would become a useful British client kingdom in the Middle East allowing the British Empire to have a secure base from which to dominate the region and potentially also disrupt and later attack French hegemony in Lebanon and Syria. Churchill's thought on this score was not something to be viewed as unusual among conservative politicians of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century as Joseph Chamberlain famously offered the Zionist movement the opportunity to colonise Kenya as a 'new Israel' rather than the then Ottoman province of Palestine.
This also famously nearly split the Zionist movement right down the middle as here was an offer of territory, but yet that territory wasn't the alleged jewish homeland of history. The homicidal jewish chemist Chaim Weizmann lead the opposition to the proposal, while the more imaginative and less hidebound jewish author and novelist; Israel Zangwill, lead the charge for Chamberlain's proposal. (38)
This is a historical lesson that anti-jewish activists today should remember in that jewry is no monolith and that if the jews are prone to one thing above it all: it is being argumentative. Causing jews to fight amongst themselves is a relatively easy to thing to do and the modern foe of all things jewish must utilize this historical tool to best advantage if they wish to succeed against the modern incarnation of the jewish problem.
If we thus place Churchill's support of Zionism and opposition to Bolshevism in symbiosis with each other it is clear that once again the three factors of Churchill's life come into play as a reflection of each other. With Churchill's religious views giving support to Churchill's messianic personal justification of Zionist ideas and policies (while feeding Churchill's religious opposition to Bolshevism), while Churchill's class would benefit from the success of Zionism as it would lead jews away from 'atheistic Bolshevism' and thus diminish the threat of Bolshevism; in Churchill's view, to his personal possessions, status and life. Patriotism meanwhile gave Churchill his real politik and rationalising justification for his support of Zionism (in creating a British client kingdom of jews in an unstable part of the world) while also feeding his anti-Communism by Bolshevism's well-known opposition to the 'colonial mission' of the West in civilizing the world (so-to-speak).
Sutton thus creates a false dilemma by asserting that Churchill's two views on Zionism and Bolshevism are contradictory as in the sense understood by Churchill's thought process; which is made manifestly obvious by actually reading Churchill's article, they are quite literally a case of 'good jews' fighting 'bad jews' for the soul of the jewish people and either the 'national jews' would win and all would be right with the world or the 'international jews' would win whence the world would be doomed. This; of course, once again synthesizes the two rival views of jewish history at this time with the element of the negative, grasping jew taking vengeance (the 'international jew') taken from the anti-jewish historical tradition and the put upon, exploited jew who only wants to be left alone and contribute to the world (the 'national jew').
So therefore there is simply not contradiction in Churchill's thought as Sutton's claims by implication but it is rather an apparent figment of Sutton's imagination.
Sutton then gives us a historical anecdote from the aforementioned Henry Wickham Steed; a British publicist and author, who was a long and somewhat trenchant critic of the jews until he; like so many critics of jews in the same period, got proverbial cold feed during the anti-jewish ripostes of the 1930s and publicly repudiated his views. (39)
Sutton correctly quotes Steed's earlier second set of memoirs to the effect that in March 1919 Steed happened to meet the famous Colonel Edward House who; according to Steed, (40) was disturbed over Steed's vocal and article criticism of the Bolshevik Revolution and most particularly the jewish role in it. House was at this time arguing for the opening up of economic relations with the Soviet Union (which is the partial subject of Sutton's book and a generally large gap in the scholarly literature on the Soviet Union) as a rational economic power (one is reminded of Lenin's famous aphorism [I paraphrase slightly] that the Communists will hang the Capitalists with the rope the latter sell them) while Steed was arguing; as was commonly done at the time, (41) that the Bolshevik revolution had been brought about by jewish and German interests which was now being used for the purpose of bring about a world controlled by jews.
Once again the intellectual debt of Steed to Webster's 'Secret Societies and Subversive Movements' is clear in that this precisely the argument that Webster makes where she asserts that an atheist jewish world order; facilitated by what she called 'Judeo-Masonry', would rise out of the ashes of Russia if action was not taken to check it. Steed's argument focused on the role of Jacob Schiff and Max Warburg: both famous jewish financiers happily basking in the self-fostered legends; much as did the even more famous Rothschild family, of their own power in world affairs.
It is here that Sutton decides once again to create a strawman argument by citing only two pieces of evidence for the view propounded by Steed; i.e. that jewish financiers had had a major hand in assisting the Bolsheviks in the takeover of the former Russian Empire, and Churchill none of which are cited by Churchill, Steed, Webster or Wichtl. Sutton's citation of the State Department file (42) is correct from what I can ascertain: however in his analysis of the document we see what can only be described as Sutton's irrationality when it comes to the matter of jews and Bolshevism.
Sutton claims after a rather short and dismissive paragraph about the role of jewish financier in funneling money to the Bolsheviks that 'the report ends with a barb at “International Jewry” and places the argument within the context of a Christian-Jewish conflict backed up by quotations from the Protocols of Zion.' (43)
There are three very fundamental things that are incorrect in this caricature of an argument from Sutton in that:
A) It bears no evidential weighting or bearing other than on the side of the argument the individual was on whether the author of the report entitled 'Bolshevism and Judaism' fired a 'barb' at 'International Jewry' or not. In much the same that it doesn't detract from the evidential value of a Bolshevik agent's telegrams who denounces the 'bourgeoisie' in them. We have to consider the evidence itself before we proceed to speculate on the man or woman who authored that evidence: Sutton fails to do this and thus argues ad hominem not around the evidence.
B) The idea that the report places the argument in the 'context of a Christian-Jewish conflict' is a misrepresentation precisely because every report that came out of Russia at this juncture tended to do this: precisely because those who were doing the reporting lived in a Christian frame of reference so as such the atheistic war on religion that was going on in Soviet Russia at this point; and the preponderance of jews within the Bolshevik and revolutionary ranks in general, would have never not have been interpreted in as a jewish-lead attack on Christianity as that was more or less precisely what it was. To assert otherwise is to try to and abstract the simple meaning from the evidence in order to avoid having to state it quite so bluntly as I have just done.
C) The report doesn't contain any references; direct or otherwise, to the 'Protocols of Zion' let alone any direct 'quotes' as Sutton alleges. This is a falsehood on his part and particularly odious precisely because Sutton alleges these to have been 'included' in a 1918 report when the English translation of the Protocols of Zion only occurred in 1919 and even Sutton would have had to know the texts intimately to even spot two very dissimilar translations: one allegedly authored by an English journalist lately arrived from Russia and one by a Russian in America one year earlier (bearing in mind the Protocols themselves were circulating in several different forms at this time). (44) Clearly Sutton was neither an expert on the Protocols not was Sutton being particularly honest!
Sutton dismisses the explanatory power of this document by citing another State Department file which gives a series of telegrams in late 1919 between the American Embassy in London and the State Department in Washington D.C. (45) Sutton claims that these 'disprove' the document: however he once again misrepresents their contents as the documents clearly state that the official in London had 'no proof' of the allegations of jewish transactions to Lenin, Trotsky and Bolsheviks, but that he was 're-investigating'. However in his next cable the author doesn't actually state or even imply that these reports are wrong as he merely states that it is 'unwise' to give publicity to these claims, which suggests (looking at the whole diplomatic exchange rather than two small pieces of it) that what the official in London is saying is not that the report 'Bolshevism and Judaism' is wrong; as Sutton implies, but rather that; as he sees it, there is no firm evidence to back it up he can find and thus it would be unwise to publicize (as it is clearly politically incendiary).
In Sutton's next and last piece of quoted evidence he cites another State Department document that he claims is a 'review of a translation of the Protocols of Zion' (46): however immediately we note two very fundamental things wrong with Sutton's alleged picture.
A) The State Department document is from 1913 rather than 1919 (when the Protocols was being widely and properly translated having gained evidential currency through the First World War, the Bolshevik Revolution and the aftershocks of both events) and thus according to Sutton is reviewing an at best fringe and at worst utterly obscure piece of work that for unknown reasons has been 'translated' into a foreign language (presumably English) and then has been judged for unstated reasons to be so much of interest to US Intelligence that a review of it was necessary for the intelligence files of the United States. I suspect Sutton made a typing error and meant 1919, but I cannot prove it so thus I am forced to assume he did really mean 1913.
B) The report makes no mention of the Protocols of Zion and instead talks of 'definite evidence that Bolshevism is an international movement controlled by jews', which is actually referring to the correctly perceived domination of jews in the power politics of the early Soviet Union. The notion of communications passing from jewish leaders in Europe and North America is a bad misreading of the context once again as the 'jewish leaders' mentioned are not the 'Wise Men of Zion' but rather the radical leaders of Europe and North America who were disproportionately jewish and even if they were gentile they were frequently perceived as such both by the population at large and the intelligence services. (47)
Sutton then opines that the references in the communication chain to 'letters intercepted from various groups of international Jews setting out a scheme for world domination' would potentially provide support for the 'unsubstantiated hypothesis' of Judeo-Bolshevism if the letters could be located and authenticated. (48)
Once again however Sutton's reading of the evidence is heavily skewed by his a priori argumentation in so far as Sutton does not realise that the references to these letters is simply a reference to the much ink spilled between revolutionary and general subversive organisations across Europe and North America about the Bolshevik revolution and as such is not so much evidence for a 'Protocols of Zion' type scenario, but does indirectly point out the inherent truthfulness of the Judeo-Bolshevism thesis by indirectly informing us of what we can independently verify: the revolutionary movement across Europe and North America was at this time heavily dominated and influenced by jews.
This is the simpler and less assumption-based hypothesis that Sutton does not seem to even consider as for him everything is related to the conspiratorial activity of monopolistic bankers and capitalists as evinced by Sutton's own; pseudo-Marxian, comment at the end of his attack on the Judeo-Bolshevism thesis that 'the real operators' were deliberately diverting attention onto the jews as a re-generated form of 'medieval prejudice.' (49)
As I have before stated this is a nonsensical attitude as the jews were very clearly involved in the creation, enfranchisement and sustenance of the Bolshevik revolution and to assert that rather than this being the case: it was 'controlled' by faceless 'real operators' is an appeal to mystery and as such has intellectual value as it cannot explain all that happened after one to two years of the USSR's existence.
Thus Sutton's appendix attacking the thesis of Judeo-Bolshevism can be said to not only incorrect, but actually misrepresenting evidence, lacking in vital contextual information, selectively quoting evidence and also reasoning from a conclusion reached a priori. So having thus dissected Sutton's attack on anti-Semitic anti-Communism: we can leave it on side as a debunked attempt to discredit the Judeo-Bolshevism thesis.
(29) Sutton, Op. Cit., p. 186
(30) On this see Ruth Gay,1992, 'The Jews of Germany: A Historical Portrait', 1st Edition, Yale University Press: New Haven, pp. 240-242
(31) This kind of fear is well characterised in Howard Sachar, 2002, 'Dreamland: Europeans and Jews in the Aftermath of the Great War', 1st Edition, Vintage: New York, pp. 291-296
(32) Frank Meyer, 1961, 'The Moulding of Communists: The Training of Communist Cadre', 1st Edition, Harcourt, Brace and World: New York, pp. 3-6
(33) For example see R. M. Whitney, 1924, 'Reds in America', 1st Edition, Beckwith Press: New York.
(34) David Kirby, 1998, 'The Origins of the Third International', pp. 15-26 in Tim Rees, Andrew Thorpe, 1998, 'International Communism and the Communist International 1919-1943', 1st Edition, Manchester University Press: Manchester
(35) See Martin Gilbert, 2007, 'Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship', 1st Edition, Henry Holt: New York.
(36) Sachar, Op. Cit., pp. 32-33
(37) John Mosier, 2001, 'The Myth of the Great War: A New Military History of World War One', 1st Edition, Profile: London, pp. 303-306
(38) Meri-Jane Rochelson, 1992, 'Review of Joseph H. Udelson: Dreamer of the Ghetto: The Life and Works of Israel Zangwill', AJS Review, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 120-121
(39) Margaret MacMillan, 2002, 'Paris 1919: Six Months that Changed the World', 1st Edition, Random House: New York, p. 80
(40) I cannot find any reference to this meeting in the published papers of Colonel House: however it more than likely did occur as it 'reads right' as they say.
(41) For example Donald Thompson, 1918, 'Donald Thompson in Russia', 1st Edition, The Century Co.: New York, pp. 166-167
(42) US State Department Archive Box/File 861.00/5339
(43) Sutton, Op. Cit., p. 187
(44) On this see Cesare de Michelis, 2004, 'The Non-Existent Manuscript: A Study of the Protocols of the Sages of Zion', 1st Edition, University of Nebraska Press: Lincoln.
(45) Sutton, Op. Cit., pp. 187-188
(46) Ibid, p. 188
(47) A good example is Karl Liebknecht who was probably not jewish, but never-the-less has a known possible jewish ancestor. I have covered this briefly at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...t-not-jew.html.
(48) Sutton, Op. Cit., pp. 188-189
(49) Ibid, p. 149
This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...-judeo_20.html
|April 30th, 2012||#50|
The Epitome of Evil
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Revolutionary Jew at Work (Part II)
Revolutionary Jew at Work
Upon reaching Edmonton in Canada Ramelson went to live with his uncle; a jewish immigrant who had become rich by 'trading' furs, who promptly made his brother (Ramelson's father) a 'non-executive director' of his company and paid him sizeable dividends on top of a salary. (12) This egoistic generosity (charitable philanthropy towards Russian jewish immigrants was at this time all the rage among jewish communities in the Western world) made possible Ramelson's university education in law that he was later to put to use running rings around British courts and international firms in his kosher crusade to make Marxism fit some form of reality.
That said however Ramelson's uncle and father were both caught up in the 1929 stock exchange collapse (13) and quite possibly; it is implied by Seifert and Sibley, they lost a lot of money from their financial speculation. This fits into what Muller has argued as being the strong dynamic between capitalism and anti-capitalism in jewish thought (14) as far as Ramelson's uncle and father were all for their personal advantage; and Ramelson himself was not slow to take advantage of the wealth while it was available (as Seifert and Sibley's discussion clearly implies), but yet like Ramelson supported the revolutionaries in Russia in so far as they were perceived by Ramelson's uncle and father to be better for them and also protectors of their daughters who had stayed behind and sided with the Bolsheviks as I have discussed above.
Essentially jews have two reactions to money-making: they either radically oppose it or they radically endorse it. I would concur with Muller's view that the jews are nature's capitalists (15) in that they have historically been the most individualistic of all the peoples of the earth as they have had to operate in a fundamentally very hostile environment with two strong evolutionary dynamics in play.
These two dynamics have been the fact they have been competing against gentiles who have historically competed from a position of majority group power and other jews who have competed from the perspective of an individual trying to garner as much of a finite amount of opportunity in the shortest possible time-frame in the knowledge that if he or she does not do so then another jew will just seize that opportunity.
However jews have historically also voluntarily cooperated with each other; when appropriate, to compete against gentiles in order to increase the finite amount of opportunity they have available to them. This gives rise to the theories about the clannish nature of jews in many respects as well as their often over wrought tendency to declaim loudly that they aren't clannish at all: in so far as jews do not cooperate with each other on the whole because they see it as their duty to do so; which is common among Europeans and Mongoloids, but rather because they see it in their individual interest to voluntarily cooperate with other jews for the moment and if that situation changes then a jew's loyalties can shift very quickly to keep up with their perception of the situation.
As such one could reasonably style jews as being very similar to anarchists (and many important anarchist thinkers; such as Goldman and Berkman, were jewish) because they assert the supremacy of the individual will and perception of a cause in all things, but at the same time believe that voluntary cooperation in a kind mass democracy of voting by action is how one should operate. So rather than jews talking about working with each other and deciding what is best for jews: what they are; in fact, doing is voting with their feet as to which group combination it is that they perceive to be the most advantageous one of the moment for them and their individual interests: much as how anarchist visions of mass democracy are alleged to work.
Therefore jews; like anarchists and other proponents of mass democracy, are rather open to manipulation by more gifted figures among their own kind and tend to go along with schemes and plans of other jews on much the same principle that allows anarchists to actually work together: they believe that they can advance their personal position by following an 'elected' leader and temporarily co-operating with the group around said figurehead. In time; of course, jews break off from the group and form their own sects on the same principle as they feel they are now in a position to do so and can draw followers to them in the split.
We can see this principle; of jews switching between capitalism and communism, in Ramelson's life in that in spite of his professed admiration he preferred to stay in the West rather than return to the Soviet Union. Ramelson is rather like the leftist intellectuals that Slavoj Zizek; the popular Marxist thinker, has typified as proclaiming world revolution, while taking a nice capitalist salary from a non-socialist controlled university and then claiming their heart is really in say the Soviet Union, China and/or Cuba. Paul Johnson makes a similar point if far less gracefully. (16)
This presents something of a problem for Seifert and Sibley's interpretation of Ramelson's life and career as they style him as a hard-working, passionate Communist who had the courage of his convictions yet while maintaining membership and high-ranking position in the CPGB throughout some of the most ideologically troublesome years of its existence.
The problem with that interpretation however is its hagiographic nature, which; as I have already mentioned, characterizes the whole of their work and means that to achieve this effect Seifert and Sibley have had to ignore the inconvenient truth that Ramelson was basically a Western parlour Bolshevik. A jew who enunciated that his goal was world revolution and lionized the USSR and the Soviet bloc in general, while maintaining a far more comfortable existence as a professional revolutionary bureaucrat in the West than he could possibly have had in aiding the development of revolution in say the USSR.
If Ramelson had had the courage of his convictions then; as I have similarly mentioned in my article on Haydee Tamara Bunke Bider, he would have sought to help establish an enviable form of socialism that could rival capitalism in terms of the satisfaction it gave its citizens rather than sit in a capitalist country proclaiming the necessity of revolution there.
My point here is relatively simple in so far as it is very easy to say what you are against something when you are in a country which allows you to do so, but it is another matter entirely to sacrifice yourself to help build a better future for a country that already has your preferred form of government.
This is particularly true when dealing with Marxism as it; as an ideology, declaims loudly about the future that it can offer should it be implemented, but its intellectuals and activists don't actually tell you how they could implement their ideas as practical policy (as opposed to generalised abstractions and pie-in-the-sky) and how those ideas would necessarily create the future they envision. No: it is much easier to tell everyone why the current system is so bad and to pontificate that one has a supremely brilliant alternative that one has never tried out but yet you just somehow know will work. (17)
Hardly 'scientific socialism' now: is it?
So if we understand this we can see that what Ramelson is essentially doing was not trying to 'build a better future for the workers of the world', but rather Ramelson was simply trying to sell his ideas to everyone else: much like a capitalist tries to sell his products so was Ramelson trying to sell his services. This is the essential truth behind Muller's dichotomy of extremes in the capitalist and anti-capitalist jew, but what Muller does not note is that the issue is not so much about ideology but rather one of attitude.
In both instances the jew concerned is principally trying to sell an economic idea and/or intellectual system to principally non-jewish consumers, which is necessarily the same thing as a jewish salesman selling subscriptions to the Jerusalem Post or a jewish charity trying to entice the wealthy philanthropist to 'purchase a plate' at a charitable function.
As such Ramelson no longer appears as being quite the hard-working, dedicated and altruistic Communist functionary that Seifert and Sibley portray, but rather when we highlight their mention of Ramelson's extraordinary faculty to disagree with other Communists and champion his own course. We actually begin to see the portrait of the stereotypical Rabbi emerge, but instead of competing with other Rabbis in terms of popular following and citations of his halakhic interpretations and frum ('pious') lifestyle: Ramelson is competing with other Communists for a popular following and citations of his Marxist interpretation and proletarian lifestyle.
This is most easily observed in Ramelson's conflicts with other members of the CPGB over his industrial tactics in the 1960s and 1970s as well as the fact that he worked hard to understand Keynesian economics; as Seifert and Sibley rightly affirm this was and is a rare thing among Marxists, (18) was in part to allow him to maintain and hone an edge over his Communist opponents who he could then criticise for not having read; let alone understood, the guiding economic theorist of Britain at the time.
Indeed Ramelson's tactics of loud mouth political brinkmanship with his opponents that Seifert and Sibley describe is in fact symptomatic of the concept of 'chutzpah' in jewish culture as well as the the imperious 'I am chosen therefore I am right' attitude that so frequently afflicts jews as both individuals and as a group.
When we compare this to Ramelson's tactics with organised and unorganised workers who he was seeking to convert to the Marxist cause; as remember that Marxism is less an intellectual philosophy and more of a political religion (19) although some proponents try to claim this obscures 'context' (20) this is a meaningless sophism (it doesn't clarify how or why this obscurification occurs it merely asserts that it does), then we see a profound change in the Ramelson that Seifert and Sibley describe as he is always wanting to help, always kind and always trying to be everyone's best friend. This is also symptomatic of the kindred tactic to chutzpah; 'schmoozing', in jewish culture: where instead of brow-beating people (chutzpah) one tries to ingratiate oneself with them via the use of proverbial 'honeyed words' (schmoozing).
Seifert and Sibley try to blend these two tactics together without their jewish cultural context; and we should remember that even they admit that Ramelson stayed very conscious of his jewishness all of his life, to make Ramelson into the Leninist ideal much as described of Lenin himself in official Soviet publications. (21)
In so far as Ramelson is always the advocate of the right Marxist line, is loved and adored by the industrial proletariat and whose legacy is then betrayed by false Communists. The only significant substitutions in Seifert and Sibley's account compared to the official Soviet version of Lenin's history and legacy is that the replacement of the 'neo-Gramscians' (i.e. Eurocommunist and/or Frankfurt School proponents) in Ramelson's time for the ultra-leftists of Lenin's epoch.
As such we can see that to understand Ramelson we have to place him in his jewish context as otherwise we are examining the man without those things that made him who he was. Ironically then Seifert and Sibley are wandering around in an abstract mind-maze of their own devising in terms of their hagiographic interpretation of the facts of Ramelson's life, but as stated if one removes the interpretative framework the authors use then it is quite possible to get to the good scholarly bedrock that underlies the work as a whole.
If we thus rebuild our picture of Ramelson's life on the factual bedrock rather than rooting it in what we wish to see (i.e. Seifert and Sibley interpretation): then it is clear that we come to an appreciation that Ramelson was little different from his fellow members of the tribe who took the opposite side in the intellectual cold war. He; like them, was just trying to sell everyone around him his version of Marxism and as such gain for himself the highest position possible: much as his uncle sold furs, Ramelson sold ideas.
It just goes to show that jewish capitalists and jewish communists are first, last and always the same thing: salesmen.
(12) According to Andrew Heinze, 1990, 'Adapting to Abundance: Jewish Immigrants, Mass Consumption, and the Search for American Identity', 1st Edition, Columbia University Press: New York, pp. 37-48 such success was not uncommon in part because of the ruthlessness of jewish entrepreneurs in exploiting gentiles and jews a-like backing up Muller's (Op. Cit., pp. 94-97) argument as well as John Glad's suggestion (John Glad, 2007, 'Recent Books on Jewish Eugenics: A Triple Review', The Mankind Quarterly, Vol. 48, No. 2, p. 216) that Judaism has acted as social positive eugenic pressure to breed for raw intellectual ability, ruthlessness and racial purity.
(13) On jewish involvement in this see Liaquat Ahamed, 2010, 'Lords of Finance: 1929, The Great Depression, and the Bankers Who Broke the World', 1st Edition, Windmill: London, pp. 386-388
(14) Muller, Op. Cit., p. 1
(15) Ibid, pp. 110-111; the jewish economist Milton Friedman also argues a similar proposition in Milton Friedman, 'Capitalism and the Jews', Encounter, June 1984, p. 74
(16) Paul Johnson, 1988, 'Intellectuals', 1st Edition, Weidenfeld and Nicholson: London, pp. 179-181
(17) A not dissimilar point was made by Henry de Man, 1926, 'Zur Psychologie des Sozialismus', 2nd Edition, Eugen Diederichs: Jena, pp. 65-66
(18) Another Marxist who was a member of this quite select club was John Strachey: a senior member of the CPGB till 1940 when he defected to Keynes' economic camp after attacking his ideas for a decade from a Marxist economic perspective. Strachey's 1936 'The Theory and Practice of Socialism' (1st Edition, Victor Gollancz: London) is still one of the most lucid and eloquent statements of Marxist theory (in its Leninist-Stalinist variant) that I have read, which takes pains to explain the author's precise meaning at every opportunity.
(19) Thomas Linehan, 2007, 'Communism in Britain 1920-1939: From the Cradle to the Grave', 1st Edition, Manchester University Press: Manchester, p. 102
(20) David Roberts, 2009, '“Political Religion” and the Totalitarian Departures of Inter-War Europe: On the Uses and Disadvantages of an Analytical Category', Contemporary European History, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 397-398
(21) Anon., 1970, 'Lenin: A Short Biography', 1st Edition, Novosti: Moscow, pp. 51-59
This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...w-at-work.html
|May 4th, 2012||#51|
The Epitome of Evil
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Was Stalin Jewish?
Was Stalin Jewish?
In 2009 I wrote an article addressing the subject of whether Joseph Stalin; the infamous and genocidal Soviet dictator was jewish. (1) As it is one of the most cited and read articles on Semitic Controversies I thought it was time for a detailed update on this issue. This article is meant to supersede my previous one; where I discussed the principle claims of those who argue that Stalin was of jewish origin, not as a compliment to it. It is helpful when dealing with speculative arguments; as those who argue Stalin was of jewish origin invariably use, to clarify both the claim that is being made and why it is wrong.
In order to fulfill this I below state the assertions that proponents of the 'Stalin was a Jew' hypothesis use as proof: (2)
A) Stalin's original surname; Djugashvili, means 'Son of [a] Jew' in Old Georgian.
B) Stalin's actual father was a jew named David Papisnedov: a local jewish trader.
C) Stalin's actual father was a jewish trader named Nikolai Przhevalsky who Stalin's mother was a washerwoman for.
D) Stalin; in his early years as a revolutionary, took the nickname 'Bar Kochba' emulating the jewish religious zealot whose named is associated with third jewish revolt against Rome.
The first assertion; that Djugashvili, means 'Son of [a] Jew' in Old Georgian, is one that dates back to the Ukrainian nationalist diaspora of the 1930s when it appears to have been first argued. (3) It was popularised as a theory by Maurice Pinay in his much reprinted work 'The Plot against the Church' when he argues thus:
'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.' (4)
The argument made by Pinay and those who have followed him 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'.
Neither of these are, in fact, correct since the word 'Djuga' (or 'Dzhuga') in old Georgian does not mean 'jew' or 'Djou', but rather it roughly equates 'iron' or 'steel'. The old Georgian words for jew were actually 'Ebraeli' or 'Uriya', which bear absolutely no resemblance to 'Djuga' or 'Dzhuga'. (5)
So Stalin's surname would actually mean something equivalent to 'Son of Steel', which then makes sense of Stalin’s adoption of 'Stalin' as his surname, which in Russian roughly means 'Man of Steel'. We can speculatively state that in Stalin’s eyes he was the 'Son of Steel' in Georgia and hence has become the 'Man of Steel' in Russia. This is made sense of when we understand the Georgians regard themselves as a hard-working warrior people and have a fearsome reputation in their geographical area for it. (6)
Montefiore's claim; based on Stalin's mother's suggestion, is that Djugashvili means 'Son of the Herd' and is possibly Ossetian in origin. (7) 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 (being Leon Trotksy (8) and Maxim Litvinov). (9)
This is likely a tactic on both Trotsky's and Litvinov's part; as old Bolsheviks and former friends of Stalin, (10) to try to minimize the impact of Stalin's influence and historical reflection on the international Communist movement by tacitly playing on the traditional Russian dislike of the peoples of the Caucasuses: who they consider to be racially alien. This is evident as early as 1925 when Trotsky and Kamenev argued this when they were trying to turn the Soviet Central Committee against Stalin so that they could become the leaders of the Soviet Union. (11)
This is ironically represented in some of Stalin's first actions as de facto ruler of the Soviet Union when he systematically undermined the decentralized governmental systems of the different nationalities that made up the Russian Empire (12) in spite of having been instrumental in having set it up, (13) which Reiber (14) and Wood (15) locate; as I do, in his status as a racial outsider in Russian society and therefore his need to modify; which remember Marxism holds to be merely a change in superstructure not in the base (i.e. nationality is an abstract creation of economic necessity), Soviet ideas of nationality to fit his own status as a racial outsider in Russian society.
Despite this 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'. (16) What Stalin means is; as I have outlined above, quite simple: he is a part of a reviled and distrusted community in Russian society and born of a society that owes more to Asia than to Europe, which means in Stalin's view that he has had to 'become' a European through 'becoming' Russia rather remaining identified as an Asiatic by being Georgian. (17)
This univeralisation and subsequent shift of identity is behind Stalin's time as a student priest and then the cause of his attraction to Marxism, which held a concomitant view to Christianity that allowed him to change from an Asiatic to a European not by Christian brotherhood; which still then in practice if not in theory enacted tacit racial discrimination, but by the brotherhood of man encapsulated in denying the validity of all previous 'laws' except those enunciated by Marx. This is in spite of the fact; as Pipes has argued, (18) that Marxism per se had in actuality very little influence in guiding the politics and policy of the Soviet Union (except in its earliest years) (19), but rather was a way of rationalising and explaining it (20) as is indicated by innumerable comments in the memoirs of Communists; both high and low, of the problems of the inflexibility of Leninist party discipline and the party line of the moment.
This feeds into our understanding of Stalin's identity precisely because he was conscious of being Georgian and was in a sense both proud of it and ashamed of it at the same time. In this way he is comparable to jews like Trotsky; whom he is frequently compared with, (21) as he was a member of a minority that felt itself persecuted by the Russians (22) and was allied with the jews against the Russians. (23)
This is; of course, easily transliterated from a racial struggle to being one between classes as if the class and racial stratification of society is generally parallel then it is a simple matter to use a nationality denying intellectual system; like Marxism, to funnel an attitude of racial struggle against a group in a superior position through the prism of class struggle without seeming to be nationalist and thus losing or widening both domestic and international propagandistic appeal dependent on the given context.
Thus Stalin could be proud of being Georgian and also 'Russify' himself as his instinctual racial nationalism had developed into the struggle of 'proletarian nationalism' in the cause of internationalism. To simplify: Stalin utilized the common piece of leftist intellectual double-think of believing that by promoting nationalism he was in fact aiding internationalism by hastening the disruption of the power structures of the ruling class and thus paving the world for the creation of socialism.
This makes sense of why Stalin both supported the oblast system of national group self-governance under Lenin and then gradually dissembled it during his rule: as in Stalin's eyes the time of nationalism to create internationalism was now over and that national differences could now be demolished only to be built up again into the 'proletarian nationalism' of Socialism's much discussed 'new man'.
The symbol of this 'new man' is found in Stalin's own change of name from being the 'Son of Steel' to being the 'Man of Steel' with his national identity as a Georgian (represented by the meaning of his Georgian name) being subsumed through the prism of Marxist thought by his new international identity (represented by the meaning of his Russian name). This 'dialectical' evolution; as Le Blanc has pointed out, is an often forgotten aspect of historical studies on Marxism (24) and as such requires us to understand how figures such as Stalin understood themselves as well as how others understood them.
Pinay’s argument is by the far the more sophisticated than and his reference to Djou is a quite historically plausible one. Although I can find no reference to an island of/called 'Djou' outside of Pinay: it is quite possible that Pinay's reference to an island where 'Portuguese' were sent is accurate. This is because 'Portuguese' was a term frequently used to describe Marrano; or sometimes simply Sephardi, jews (25) as well as the well-known fact that the Sephardim were officially expelled from Spain in 1492 of whom many went to the lands of Islam, while the Marrano jews also tended to emigrate at periodic intervals as well. (26)
It was also a long-standing policy of the Sultans of the Ottoman Empire to resettle jews; as a people allegedly skilled in what we would now call 'wealth creation', to poor and economically underdeveloped areas of their lands so as to increase their tax revenues in the medium to long term, (27) while the jews in time came to dominate the Ottoman customs and taxation service as well as the civil service more generally. (28)
However since 'Djugashvili' does not actually mean ‘Son of Djou’: Pinay’s argument must be discarded because as plausible as it could be: if its central proposition; upon which it all rests, is incorrect then the possibilities it suggests fall down like a house of cards.
The second and third assertions that are said to prove that Stalin was of jewish origin are linked; although mutually exclusive ones, whereby two allegedly jewish candidates; David Papisnedov and Nikolai Przhevalsky, are put forward as Stalin's 'real father'.
The first issue to address here is to point out that only one author; Montefiore, (29) in the modern epoch has doubted that Stalin was in fact the son of Vissarion (Beso) and Ekaterina (Keke) Djugashvili: although even Montefiore makes it clear that there is no evidence other than rumour which is likely nothing more than an attempt to; as he says, 'diminish the [later] tyrant' by claiming via implication that Stalin was a 'lesser' man because of it. (30)
Montefiore also correctly points out that Nikolai Przhevalsky was a famous Russian explorer and not jewish: (31) indeed it is doubtful that Przhevalsky ever visited Gori in Georgia, let alone at the time concerned or could possibly have known Stalin's mother Keke (he was also arguably a homosexual). In fact Przhevalsky was thousands of miles away in China at the time of Stalin's conception! (32)
The myth of the Przhevalsky visit to Gori and his fathering Stalin was created by Edvard Radzinsky (33) based on a myth that Stalin actively fostered; (34) along with several other different candidates and versions, of his own conception and birth that distanced himself from his alcoholic and violent father Beso (to whom indeed he actually looks almost identical). (35)
In the case of David Papisnedov: he is another Radzinsky creation (36) based off a local myth, which frequently merges most of the elements of the far more plausible Georgian friend of the family, local merchant, wrestling champion and ladies man; who also happened to be Vissarion's best man, Yakov Egnatashvili. (37) I can find no evidence for David Papisnedov's being suggested as Stalin's father nor the role that he allegedly played in Stalin's life other than rumour and folklore as it was Egnatashvili who Keke assisted with the laundry and it was Egnatashvili who loaned Beso the money to set up in business as a cobbler. (38)
We should also understand that Keke had been pregnant three times before Stalin was born (39) and that her and Beso appear to have had frequent sexual intercourse (40) before the marriage broke up largely over the future of Stalin (41) who was intellectually gifted like Beso (42) and as such was thought to have a bright future ahead of him by his mother, while Beso disagreed and wished to see the young Stalin in trade before he died in 1890. (43)
As such it would be very surprising if Beso was not Stalin's father precisely because we have no clear evidence to make us suspect anything different and as such it not reasonable to suggest that Stalin was jewish because of a cuckolded father.
The last of the assertions made in favour of the argument that Stalin was of jewish origin is his alleged use of the nickname; Bar Kochba, as his alias when he began to live as a professional revolutionary when in fact Stalin actually used the nickname 'Koba'. (44)
Koba is a Georgian romantic and literary figure who is roughly approximate to Robin Hood in English literature: (45) as such he fits the Marxist revolutionary Stalin a lot better than the alleged 'Bar Kochba'! Indeed the origin of Stalin's use of the nickname 'Koba' probably lies again with Egnatashvili as he used 'Koba' as his wrestling alias and was still close to Stalin in 1929. (46)
As such therefore we have disposed of all the assertions made to argue that Stalin was in fact of jewish origin and can state unequivocally that whatever else Stalin may have been. He was not in any way, shape or form: jewish.
(2) I take the arguments on this score principally from the most commonly cited source for them that I can find: http://judicial-inc.biz/Bush_Mossad11.htm.
(3) Jerry Muller, 2010, 'Capitalism and the Jews', 1st Edition, Princeton University Press: Princeton, p. 137
(4) Maurice Pinay, 2000, , ‘The Plot against the Church’, 4th Edition, Christian Book Club of America: Palmdale, p. 67
(5) Not being fluent in old Georgian I have asked several people who are this question over the years and they have come back consistently with this general answer. I have also looked it up in dictionaries of Georgian more than once to confirm by thoughts on this matter. Also see Edvard Radzinsky, 1997, 'Stalin', 1st Edition, Anchor: London, p. 39 for confirmation.
(6) 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
(7) Simon Sebag Montefiore, 2007, 'Young Stalin', 1st Edition, Phoenix: London, p. 19
(8) Leon Trotsky, 1947, 'Stalin: An Appraisal of the Man and his Influence', 2nd Edition, Hollis and Carter: London, pp. 417-420
(9) Vojtech Mastny, 1976, 'The Cassandra in the Foreign Commissariat: Maxim Litvinov and the Cold War', Foreign Affairs, Vol. 54, pp. 366-376
(10) For an excellent summary of their important role in the Bolshevik revolution see Robert Service, 2011, 'Spies and Commissars: Bolshevik Russia and the West', 1st Edition, MacMillan: Basingstoke.
(11) Reiber, 'Stalin as Georgian', Op. Cit., p. 18
(12) 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
(13) 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
(14) Albert Reiber, 2001, 'Stalin: Man of the Borderlands', American Historical Review, Vol. 5, pp. 1651-1691
(15) Alan Wood, 2005, 'Stalin and Stalinism', 2nd Edition, Routledge: New York, p. 11
(16) Reiber, 'Stalin as Georgian', Op. Cit., p. 18
(17) Montefiore, Op. Cit, pp. 40-43
(18) Richard Pipes, 1994, 'Russia under the Bolshevik Regime', 1st Edition, The Harvill Press: London, p. 502
(19) Andrjez Walikci, 1995, 'Marxism and the Leap to the Kingdom of Freedom', 1st Edition, Stanford University Press: Stanford, p. 2
(20) Isaac Deutscher, 1967, 'Stalin: A Political Biography', 2nd Edition, Oxford University Press: New York, pp. 458-460
(21) Reiber, 'Stalin as Georgian', Op. Cit., p. 21
(22) Montefiore, Op. Cit., pp. 133-136
(23) Wood, Op. Cit., pp. 11-12
(24) Paul le Blanc, 2006, 'Marx, Lenin and the Revolutionary Experience: Studies of Communism and Radicalism in the Age of Globalization', 1st Edition, Routledge; New York, pp. 138-140
(25) Neville Laski, 1952, 'The Laws and Charities of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews Congregation of London', 1st Edition, The Cresset Press: London, pp. 1-2
(26) Bernard Lewis, 1984, 'The Jews of Islam', 1st Edition, Princeton University Press: Princeton, pp. 84-85
(27) Ibid, pp. 122-124
(28) Benjamin Ginzberg, 1993, 'The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State', 1st Edition, University of Chicago Press: Chicago, pp. 15-16
(29) Montefiore, Op. Cit., pp. 24-25
(30) Ibid, p. 26
(31) Ibid, p. 25
(32) Roy Medvedev, Zhores Medvedev, 2003, 'The Unknown Stalin', 1st Edition, I. B. Tauris: London, p. 249
(33) Radzinsky, Op. Cit., p. 34
(34) Montefiore, Op. Cit., p. 25
(35) Medvedev, Medvedev, Op. Cit., p.249
(36) Radzinsky, Op. Cit., pp. 40-41
(37) Montefiore, Op. Cit., pp. 20-25
(38) Ibid, p. 20
(39) Deutscher, Op. Cit., p. 3
(40) Montefiore, Op. Cit., pp. 20-21
(41) Ibid, p. 29
(42) Ibid, p. 20
(43) Ibid, pp. 44-45; Deutscher, Op. Cit., p. 4
(44) Wood, Op. Cit., p. 14
(45) Deutscher, Op. Cit., p. 7
(46) Montefiore, Op. Cit., p. 387
This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...in-jewish.html
|May 7th, 2012||#52|
The Epitome of Evil
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Is Fidel Castro Jewish?
Is Fidel Castro Jewish?
Before I started my research into Cuban Communism and more particularly Che Guevara: I had not even the slightest inkling that there was even a suggestion in some quarters that Fidel Castro was of jewish origin. Nor would I have credited such an argument which seemed not only improbable but absurd as Castro had done nothing; as far as I knew, to have warranted such a suggestion.
Now although I am not yet satisfied there is a strong enough case to argue it cogently; as what we have is speculative and hearsay although from those who knew Castro in his youth (ergo of evidential value to make a decent case but not enough to prove it), I thought it prudent to lay before my readership some of the tantalizing reasons we have to suggest that Fidel Castro (and therefore his brother Raul Castro as well) is of jewish origin.
A largely ignored problem; because it is of only minor interest to most biographers, with Fidel Castro's life story is that we know very little about the origins of his father's parents or about his mother in general. This is for two reasons:
A) Castro's mother was a working class woman; Lina Ruz Gonzalez, and as such her family left little to no written records of their existence.
B) Castro has; since he has come to power in Cuba, actively suppressed all our sources of knowledge regarding his parents life and lineage.
Now the traditional explanation of this oddity is the fact that Castro was born a bastard and as such is particularly sensitive about his ancestry because it is the symbol of his rejection from Cuban society and as such he has suppressed knowledge of it to protect his injured pride. (1) Now there are three things that are lacking in this explanation.
Firstly Fidel's father; Angel Castro, did in fact marry his mother; Lina, but after Castro was born and as such although a born a bastard Castro is no longer one. Although one might suggest that the bastardy still remains a stigma: Fidel would be little different to the many children who are born to Catholic mothers before they are married and who then subsequently marry. There is no evidence; as far as I am aware, that there is a mass suppression of origins among bastards and indeed in Cuba the culture of Machismo undoubtedly caused many a bastard child to be born. (2)
Secondly Fidel is a self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninist to whom the bourgeoisie conventions such as bastardy are supposed to mean nothing as they are derived from 'bourgeoisie religious teaching' which acts as Marx's famous 'opium of the masses'. We know Marxists in organised parties and groups; such as Fidel's, of this time tended to perform periodic self-criticism of their actions so that they could alter future actions to be more revolutionary and radical in keeping with the tactics of the organised revolutionary cadre that was enunciated by Lenin in the work that made his name: 'What is to be done?'
We know that Fidel performed such self-criticism while he was in the Sierra Maestra; as Che Guevara notes as much, (3) and as his habits haven't altered much since then there is little reason to suspect that he does not still perform this revolutionary self-criticism as derived from Lenin's thought. (4) As such therefore it seems very improbable that Fidel would have kept to such a bourgeoisie convention especially as he has long been an atheist and an active opponent of any form of Christianity that does not serve the Cuban state.
Thirdly the explanation of ongoing injured pride due to his social status as a bastard is not presented with evidence: it is simply used as a convenient reason to ignore a thorny issue. This is not to suggest a conspiracy to suppress the ancestry of Castro on the part of historians and biographers, but rather that they have viewed it; as a minor detail, to be far too much trouble than it is worth to look into. As it is quite plausible to suggest that Castro would close the Cuban archives to any author who does not comply with his wishes to keep his origins shrouded in a cloak of mystery and speculation. (5)
In spite of this we do know some basic details as to Castro's father's origins and his mother's as well. Angel Castro; Fidel's father, was a former soldier; from the village of Ancara near the town of Ludo in Galicia in northern-western Spain, who settled in Cuba after fighting for the Spanish Empire against Cuban independence. (6)
After the war Angel stayed on in Cuba eventually becoming a landowner and local celebrity due to his innovation of hiring large numbers of Afro-Cuban workers (more than he needed) to cut his sugar cane and then; once they had become proficient in it, offering them to his neighbours; particularly the Cuban-American Sugar Company and the United Fruit Company, for a fee. (7) Thus Angel grew rich as well as; due to his Spanish origins, an established element of Cuban high society and while he was married to his first wife; Maria Argota, for whom he seems to have had little real affection and then started to have an affair with Fidel's mother Lina who was a servant girl at the time. (8)
Lina Ruz Gonzalez is where; as above stated, the trail goes cold: she is usually described as 'Cuban' which is meant to suggest that she was a native of Cuba, (9) but this is a misleading description precisely because she was; to be a sure a naturalized Cuban, but at the same time she was of Spanish origin and of whose family appear to have never married with the local Cubans. (10)
Unfortunately we know precious little about Fidel's paternal grandparents; as there appears to be few written records of them, but we know next to nothing about Lina other than that she was a working class Cuban woman of; as far as we know, pure Spanish origin. We may reasonably presume that she was Catholic, but that is about as far as we can go without looking to Fidel's own words on his ancestry.
That Lina may well have been of jewish origin is suggested by some comments that Fidel made in 1941 at the elite Jesuit school of Dolores that he attended. As Symmes puts it:
'He was never an ideological fascist, Cubenas said, and was definitely not an anti-Semite. Fidel had explained at the time that he could not be 'with' the fascists because they were against the Jews, and he could not be against the Jews for the simple reason that he was one. He volunteered that he was descended, through his grandmother, from Jews. Fidel was Catholic, not Jewish, and Cuban, not European, but he told anyone who would listen that the Jews were his own people.' (11)
Now biographers have been quick to write off this as Fidel in high spirits, (12) but I am not so sure given that there are two points which suggest to me that Fidel might actually be telling the truth about his origins in light of how little we actually know about Lina Ruz Gonzalez in particular.
Firstly at the time Fidel made his claim about being jewish: it was the worst possible time to do so as he existed in an environment that was itself very hostile to jews and their influence. His Jesuit teachers were supportive of the Axis (13) and in all likelihood were also opposed to jewish influence as well given that this was common in the Roman Catholic Church at this time.
As such it is possible to try and cast this as youthful identification with the jews as a 'persecuted minority', but this is problematic because in doing so we have to ignore the fact that Castro rather admired the Third Reich, Fascist Italy and the government of Juan Peron at this time. (14) Further to this we know that Castro wasn't a socialist or inclined towards it at this time: he certainly did not read Marx or become a Marxist till the late 1940s. (15)
As such to cast it as youthful identification with the 'underdog' is to portray Fidel's motivations only in the light of his later conversion to Marxism and (the usual) attempts to proletarianise his youth. Thus we cannot agree with those who argue that such an identification was a passing fancy or a fit of youthful pique, because it relies on a priori reasoning.
Indeed in a hostile environment there is little reason for Fidel to specifically declare himself a jew as an act of defiance: he may as well have declared himself an atheist, a homosexual, a devil-worshiper and so forth if he wished to do that. As he did none of these then it is impossible to suggest that Fidel was 'acting up' and that therefore we have to take his comments far more seriously than most of Fidel's biographers would like to.
To me the comments on Fidel's part seem more like the reaction of a teenager to his having studied the writings of those opposed to jews with an admiring eye only to then find out; probably from his mother, that she was herself jewish through his grandmother which would therefore make Fidel jewish as well. To which Fidel reacts by then taking this heritage on board wholesale and openly proclaiming to the world that he was jewish: only to settle down again and begin the intellectual drift towards a political ideology; which he found in Peronism and then Marxism, that would allow him to be both of jewish ancestry and nationalistic. (16)
Secondly Fidel's mention of his being jewish through his grandmother is quite significant and it is reasonable to suggest that the significance of this statement has been missed by Fidel's biographers precisely because they know little of Judaism or jewish culture. Very simply put: Judaism and jewish culture assign jewishness matrilineally and as such for Castro to mention that it is through his grandmother (and therefore presumably his mother Lina) that he is jewish suggests a knowledge of jews that is unusual considering the fact that it is not the kind of thing you would expect a young teenager to know unless someone had explained it to him.
Therefore we have Castro using a piece of logic that few people his age should know let alone be able to comprehend the significance of: it is possible that Castro picked this piece of knowledge up on his own but again this seems unlikely as to do so he would have had to read specialised work on the subject to confirm that was actually how jewishness was assigned as opposed to the more common patrilineal system (which fitted more with Cuban; and Fidel's own, Machismo).
One of the better attempts to explain this claim of jewishness has been made by Szulic who claims that Castro was called a 'jew' by his classmates because he was a bastard and that was Cuban slang for being an unbaptised bastard. (17) However this is unlikely firstly because I can find no evidence or reference to such usage and secondly the Real Academia Española gives the Cuban slang usage of the term 'bastard' as the Spanish one: Cabrón. (18)
Thus I can see no reason for the claim that Szulic makes nor any evidential underpinning for it. It seems to just be an invented argument on Castro's part in response to Szulic's question about Castro's statement of his jewishness: I ascribe it to this as I can think of no other logical reason that Szulic would have come out with it given that he does not give a reference to where the assertion comes from.
Therefore we have to take Castro's claim from 1941 that he is a jew quite seriously as he has no reason to make it other than the fact that he; or believed himself to be, jewish at the time that he made it. As such we have to conclude that there is a good case; albeit a speculative one, that Fidel Castro is in fact of jewish origin and would halakhically be considered jewish.
(1) Tad Szulic, 1986, 'Fidel: A Critical Portrait', 1st Edition, Hutchinson: London, pp. 59-60
(2) Patrick Symmes, 2007, 'The Boys from Dolores: Fidel Castro and His Generation – From Revolution to Exile', 1st Edition, Robinson: London, pp. 33-34
(3) Che Guevara, 2006, 'Reminiscences of the Cuban Revolutionary War', 1st Edition, Harper: New York, pp. 41-42
(4) Szulic, Op. Cit., p. 47
(5) Clive Foss, 2006, 'Fidel Castro', 2nd Edition, Sutton: Stroud, pp. 95-96
(6) Szulic, Op. Cit., p. 55; Symmes, Op. Cit., p. 102
(7) Nathaniel Weyl, 1961, 'Red Star over Cuba: The Russian Assault on the Western Hemisphere', 1st Edition, Devin Adair: New York, pp. 40-41
(8) Szulic, Op. Cit., p. 59
(9) Symmes, Op. Cit., p.
(10) Szulic, Op. Cit., p. 59; Simon Reid-Henry, 2009, 'Fidel and Che: A Revolutionary Friendship', 2nd Edition, Sceptre: London, p. 20; Hugh Thomas, 2010, 'Cuba: A History', 2nd Edition, Penguin: New York, pp. 518-519
(11) Symmes, Op. Cit., p. 335
(12) Foss, Op. Cit., p. 4
(13) Symmes, Op. Cit., pp. 64-65
(14) Ibid, pp. 335-336; Szulic, Op. Cit., pp. 78-79; Weyl, Op. Cit., p. 42
(15) Ibid, p. 89
(16) Marxism is usually seen as a purely international and egalitarian creed, but it in fact encourages nationalism among 'oppressed peoples' like the Cubans so that they can overthrow their 'capitalist oppressors' and then develop their thought so that they become 'citizens of the world' disregarding ethnicity, race and country of origin. This is why; incidentally, most Communist parties; especially outside of the West, after their first years in power almost inevitably turn out to be nationalist not egalitarian political movements.
(17) Szulic, Op. Cit., p. 63
This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...ro-jewish.html
|May 25th, 2012||#53|
Join Date: May 2009
Raising Reds: The Young Pioneers, Radical Summer Camps, and Communist Political Culture in the United States
The author of this intriguing, though sloppily edited, little book is a self-proclaimed "radical parent," himself raised by parents who were "intellectuals and radicals." His personal philosophy, he confides, is that "the world is out there to be changed" . His sympathy for the goals, if not always the means, of the American Communist activists described in this book is readily apparent.
Mishler's analysis concentrates on the period from the early 1920s to the mid-1950s. This chronological era sandwiches a fifteen-year period of semi-respectability for the Communists in America, 1930 to 1945, between two decades of virulent Red Scare.
His book provides a timely reminder that, during the depths of the Great Depression, and continuing through the anti-Fascist war years, the Communist Party was able to connect with significant aspects of mainstream American society and culture. During this time, Communists led labour unions, wrote leading articles for the popular press, and taught openly in universities. A combination of the Cold War, McCarthyism and working-class prosperity terminated this rapprochement between Marx and the Mayflower, though Mishler argues that much of their radical critique of capitalism resurfaced in the New Left protests of the Sixties and Seventies.
The central focus for Mishler, as it was for Communist parents in the first half of the 20th century, is "the problem of how to educate children so that they would grow up to be radicals" (25). The issue of which community institutions - the family, the school, the state, various voluntary organizations - are to be charged with the responsibility of socializing the next generation is an ongoing dilemma. At that time, most Communists were either immigrants or the children of immigrants. They understood the pressure on their own offspring to conform to the norms of the mainstream culture in this 'New World' society. Yet they rejected much of that society's founding myths on ideological grounds. What to do? The answer was sought in after-school programs and summer camps built around the Marxist values of the parents, though these ideas were framed to be as compatible as possible with the more radical aspect of American liberalism.
Through the 1920s, the largest number of American Communists derived from the immigrant Jewish and Finnish communities.
Parents and party organizers frequently clashed over the relative weight to be given to working-class solidarity, as opposed to ethnic heritage, in the curriculum of the out-of-school educational programs. By the 1930s, party thinking had relaxed somewhat, so that ethnicity was nurtured rather than shunned, even as the youth programs moved to adopt more of the trappings of the host culture, notably organized sports.
During the more strident period of party educational activity in the 1920s, parents had often been deliberately excluded from participation in the leadership of the main youth organization, the Young Pioneers. In fact, the children were sometimes taught to undermine the authority of their own parents, particularly authoritarian fathers, as a metaphor for and precursor to the coming revolutionary victory of the working class over the bourgeoisie. Mere analysis of the injustices in society was deemed insufficient. The young students were inspired by their adult leaders to take direct political action in support of their causes. This included skipping regular school attendance to take part in public rallies, demonstrations and strikes.
In the end, the institutionalized extra-school education of young Communists in America collapsed. The threats and enticements of mainstream society prevailed over a determined but tiny minority. Here and there, however, a few residual survivors - sometimes dubbed Red Diaper Babies - surface to remind Americans of an overlooked element of their past. This book and its author provide one such example.
|May 26th, 2012||#54|
The Epitome of Evil
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
|June 19th, 2012||#55|
The Epitome of Evil
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
The Socialist History Society
The Socialist History Society
A Short Case Study on the Jewish Question
I haven't commented on the goings-on; or rather should I say storms in broken tea cups, of the Socialist History Society for some time: in part, because I have had little of interest to say about this broken down collection of old communist party hacks and their attendant hangers-on. However the May edition of the Socialist History Society Newsletter; which for some reason they are now issuing as a new series (so it pretentiously but nonsensically reads 'Issue 2, Vol. 1'), is absolutely chock full of kosher goings-on.
I have commented on this before; that said I feel that it is the right time to reiterate the point, but it never ceases to amaze me how obsessed both the far left and the kosher conservatives (1) of this world are with the jews. Remember that both the far left and the kosher conservatives are supposed to be egalitarians; although their reasoning and routes are different they more or less want to get to the same end result, but yet they give an inordinate amount of time, effort and printed space over to talking about the jews both directly and by proxy.
I doubt either group really understands or even acknowledges that they are actually giving an inordinate amount of space and time over to the self-chosen of Yahweh. However one need only remember that the jews are not even half a percent of the world's population or that of any major country to see that anything more than a mention here and there; when there is not some especially pressing need to discuss the jews, is over-representative in relation to their numbers.
So if the jews are talked about and discussed directly and by extension an inordinate amount of the time by the far left and kosher conservatives then it cannot be their numbers or their importance as a simple voting demographic that is behind this discussion. There is however one aspect of the jews that make them more or less unique in world history: the fact that they always successfully gravitate towards key economic, social and cultural positions in which they can hold the most power and influence. (2)
This then gives us the unstated rationale behind much of this probably unintentional discussion in that those of the far left and kosher conservatism espouse egalitarian ideas and reject the separateness/uniqueness of the jews in terms of humanity, but at the same time court and talk positively about the jews as a separate people to the active exclusion of more numerous groups such as native Europeans.
In short the political ideologies in the spectrum I have generally delineated tacitly recognise the reality of jewish power and influence. While at the same time seeking to deny that power and influence, because doing so would also bring them the censure of the most politically and economically power segments of jewry.
We may also note that further to this abiding interest in the jews we tend to have a massive over-representation of jews among the prominent figures and leaders in far left and kosher conservative circles, which then reflects itself in the significant over-representation of specifically jewish issues and pro-jewish perspectives in the ideological systems thus generally delineated.
For example the far left has since the 1930s seen one of its principle goals and functions as combating the far right; the traditional enemies of the jews, and it is thus little wonder that even as the far right decreased in power and were increasingly marginalised by this continuous bombardment of 'anti-fascist' propagandising and activity that the far left has continued to attack it as if it were an ever-present threat.
Kosher conservatism has by contrast; since its beginning in the 1950s (although one can trace its activities back at least to the 1830s), seen one of its principle goals as protecting and championing the state of Israel as either part of a Christian messianic mission or a global 'crusade' aimed at combating communism. Since the fall of communism and the rise of a coordinated anti-Zionist opposition however Kosher Conservatism has sought to re-brand its mission to protect and champion Israel as a form of 'united front' against the undefined enemies named 'liberals', 'leftists' (read critics of Israel) and 'Islamists' (the 'new enemy' of the jews).
If we admit the before-stated fact that jews are heavily over-represented in these circles then it becomes clear that the reason why the far left and kosher conservatives spend so much time on the jews is primarily, because they are so frequently jews themselves and those who aren't jewish become heavily influenced by the kosher cultural and intellectual environment around them and begin to; unintentionally or intentionally, ape the jews as a people.
Perhaps the best way to represent this graphically would be to re-cut a famous cartoon from Joseph Goebbels' newspaper 'Der Angriff' in which a German worker is being pulled between one jew representing the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and another jew representing the German Communist Party (KPD) who are loudly accusing each other of being a 'traitor to the working class'. (3)
If we then modernise this image we can see that Europeans and Americans are being pulled between between one left-wing jew and one conservative jew who are loudly accusing each other of being a 'traitor to the jewish people'.
After this is the situation we find ourselves in: isn't it?
Between a leftist Tweedledum and a conservative Tweedledee who are at once screaming a torrent of abuse at each other and trying rip the world apart for the sake of constantly proving their absolute loyalty to the jews.
This dynamic that I elaborated can easily be demonstrated by taking the latest SHS newsletter as an example and giving a little additional information.
As to the jews who run the SHS well we know that the SHS President; Professor Eric Hobsbawm, is a Marxist jew (and incidentally an apologist of Stalin's) (4) and its joint chair is Stefan Dickers (5) (who as the SHS newsletter previously mentioned is both jewish and a Marxist). (6) While its recently deceased secretary was Professor Nina Fishman another Stalinist jew (7) and another joint chair was formerly a Marxist jewess named June Cohen. (8) In addition it is revealed in this month's issue that even the newsletter is sub-edited and arranged by another long-time Stalinist jew: Sidney Kaufman! (9)
This is quite a record for an intellectual society of less than three hundred members worldwide (many of whom are academics) and no less that this society; which grew out of the [British] Communist Party's Historians Working Group (for example the important Marxist historian Christopher Hill was a part of the group), (10) has actually been central to pushing an overly Marxist intellectual historical agenda in academe.
If one begins to note that over the last few years we have had as an average at least one mention of the jews in addition to the historians frequently cited or advertised being themselves jewish: then one sees a distinct correlation between this obsession with the jews and the physical jewishness of the SHS.
To give some examples we discover that one of the more preeminent Marxist historians of Chartism as well as an SHS member; Professor David Goodway, was a graduate student of Hobsbawm's (the jewish apologist for Stalin) who supervised his doctoral dissertation and Goodway promptly especially recommends the work of jews on Chartism (he cites one gentile and one jewish author) to his readers. (11)
Another jewess with Marxist leanings; Professor Nadia Valman, addressed one of the few SHS sponsored talks on the subject of Amy Levy (12) (an early jewish communist [who was also a lesbian I might add] and friend of Karl Marx's most famous and accomplished daughter Eleanor) (13) and how positively wonderful she apparently was.
While yet another Marxist jewess; Professor Anne Showstack Sassoon, eager to show off her revolutionary intellectual credentials gave a separate SHS talk on the how applicable the 'revolutionary ideas' of the famous Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci are to the contemporary world. (14)
In addition to the veritable traffic jam of the secular rabbis and toanot (lit. 'advocates') speaking on the alleged 'revolution' (which we must admit is taking quite some time to materialise in spite of all the 'contradictions of capitalism' and the 'objective conditions' being ripe): we find that the SHS newsletter repeatedly mentions and focuses on specifically jewish issues.
For example it has recently published an article on Auschwitz by a jewish Marxist named David Horsley, (15) repeatedly talked about notable jewish communists like the high-ranking party boss of Brno; Otto Sling, and deplored Stalin's execution of them (16), published three obituaries of a long-time jewish communist named Wolf Wayne, (17) and published two accounts of Sidney Kaufman's subversive activities as a jewish communist agent in the British army. (18)
We can see from all this detail that the SHS is actually an influential microcosm of the far left in general in that is dominated by jews and that the gentiles associated with it have concomitantly been made to prioritise jewish fixations and intellectual prisms as that is; by dint of group dominance, the norm of the SHS.
Indeed this is particularly so when we recount Hobsbawm's latest interview with his fellow jew; although a [literally] kosher conservative, Professor Simon Schama who discussed Hobsbawm's life with him and what made him Marxist. (19) The key element here is that both of these writers are jewish and both are unashamed of that fact using it as an element in their work, while Hobsbawm warns about the rise of the far right as the traditional enemy of the jews. Schama warns of the rise of Islam and writes against those on the left; like Slavoj Zizek, who frequently criticise Israel.
In essence the reader is stuck between two jews; one a Marxist and one a kosher conservative, and has no ostensible option to form an opinion outside of that intellectual dynamic.
As such then we can but conclude that the problem is not some simple popular ideological abstract such as Marxism or conservatism per se, but rather the context in which any such theory is propounded and as such then it is clear that the jews are themselves a biological problem; even just in terms of their means to propagate their ideas, and that any group that wishes to reflect non-jewish interests must by dint of this include no jews.
It really is that simple.
(1) For example see my article 'The Insane Philo-Semitism of The Quarterly Review' (http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...quarterly.html )
(2) A good one volume summary of this maybe found in Benjamin Ginsberg, 1993, 'The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State', 1st Edition, University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
(3) See Russel Lemmons, 1994, 'Goebbels and Der Angriff', 1st Edition, University of Kentucky Press: Lexington, p. 98
(5) Socialist History Society Newsletter, May 2012, p. 2
(9) Socialist History Society Newsletter, May 2012, p. 8
(10) Willie Thompson, 2012, 'Setting an Agenda: Thomson, Dobb, Hill and the Communist Party Historians', Socialist History Society Occasional Publications No. 29, pp. 44-45
(11) Socialist History Society Newsletter, May 2012, p. 3
(13) On their relationship see Yvonne Kapp, 1979, 'Eleanor Marx', Vol. 2, 1st Edition, Virago: London, pp. 258-260
(17) Socialist History Society Newsletter, May 2011, p.14
(18) Ibid, May 2012, pp. 6-8
(19) Ibid, p. 11
This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...hort-case.html
|June 21st, 2012||#56|
Join Date: May 2009
"The Only 'American Citizen' ever admitted to the Chinese Communist Party"
New Hope(PA) native's documentary captures an American Communist in China
By Jeff Gammage
"It's said that every revolution needs true believers.
And no one believed harder or longer — or paid more dearly for it — than Sidney Rittenberg.Rittenberg, 90, is the only American citizen ever admitted to the Chinese Communist Party, a onetime confidant of Mao. In return for his idealism and devotion, he was twice thrown into Chinese prisons on false charges, serving a total of 16 years, all in solitary confinement.
Now, the definitive story of Rittenberg's rise, fall, and rebirth is told in a new film, The Revolutionary, produced and edited by Philadelphia-area native Don Sellers. On Saturday the movie makes its East Coast debut at the National Constitution Center, as part of the Philadelphia Independent Film Festival
Rittenberg was born to a prominent family in Charleston, S.C., in 1921, coincidentally the same year the Chinese Communist Party was founded in Shanghai. As a college student, he became active in labor and civil-rights issues.
He arrived in China as an Army Chinese-language specialist in September 1945, just as the Chinese civil war was beginning. When his Army hitch ended, he decided to stay. He traveled to the Yan'an mountains and met a young Mao Tse-tung, then organizing communists to fight the nationalists.
Rittenberg's logic: China's people were poor and suffering. The communists seemed to be the only ones trying to fix that. But he didn't want to be a mere adviser. He wanted to be part of the action. He was granted party membership, virtually impossible for a foreigner. Even today, among Chinese, membership is relatively rare, held only by about 70 million of 1.3 billion people — 5 percent of the nation.
To see this film you've got to bring your brain with you," said Sellers, who grew up in New Hope and took his first film class at Bucks County Community College. "There's a lot of films, you sit down, you watch. … This film, you have to do some of the work yourself."
Rittenberg played a vocal role in one of the 20th century's great disasters, the Cultural Revolution, which plunged China into lawlessness from 1966 to 1976. That era echoes today in the mistreatment of Chinese dissidents such as Chen Guangcheng, the blind lawyer who recently escaped from custody and came to the United States.
Rittenberg has spent decades artfully rebuilding his life, and painfully examining his personal responsibility for harm to others. He remains a subject of infinite fascination for scholars, analysts, and journalists who study China.
"I didn't expect him to be so forthcoming about questioning his own premises, questioning his own beliefs and convictions," said producer Irv Drasnin, a veteran China documentary-maker, formerly of CBS News.
Rittenberg was trusted to translate important Central Committee documents and even Mao's collected works. He became close to Jiang Qing, Mao's notorious, radical wife, and a friend to statesman Zhou Enlai.
He saw the growing cult of personality around Mao — and soon was touched by it.
In 1949, Rittenberg was wrongly accused of spying. He was sent to Beijing Prison No. 2 and thrown into solitary. It didn't shake his faith in the party. Offered the chance to leave prison and return to the United States, Rittenberg declined.
"He still believed in the revolution," said Lucy Ostrander, Sellers' spouse and filmmaking partner, and producer of The Revolutionary.
Rittenberg thought the party investigation would clear him, that the leaders had the capacity to admit and rectify mistakes. And, eventually, that's what happened.
After six years, he was released and appointed to a sensitive position, a show of the party's confidence. At the Broadcast Administration, he was put in charge of the English-language section of Radio Beijing. For the next decade he thrived.
In 1966, Mao unleashed the violence, upheaval, and roiling political currents of the Cultural Revolution. Rittenberg, not sensing the danger, joined in the struggles and denunciations. In 1968 he was arrested for criticizing the government and sent back to solitary.
He expected to die in prison. A decade earlier, Mao might have admitted a mistake. But now, as a god figure, he would never concede to twice being wrong.
He was released in 1977, his spirit intact, his faith in communism broken. He moved to the United States in 1980, and today leads Rittenberg Associates Inc., a China consulting firm whose clients have included Prudential Financial, Intel, and Microsoft.
"Sid really had three lives," said Sellers, who has edited programs for Frontline. "He had this whole life as a labor organizer. He had the life in China. He had the life in the U.S., after he came back, penniless, the life of reestablishing himself."
In a way, the film got its start in 1983, when Ostrander made a movie about journalist Anna Louise Strong, who had interviewed Mao in Yan'an in 1946. Strong needed an interpreter, and who was there but Rittenberg.
Ostrander interviewed Rittenberg for that film. Two decades later, Sellers noticed a news story about him. Ostrander looked up his autobiography, The Man Who Stayed Behind, cowritten with former Inquirer editor Amanda Bennett.
Twenty-six hours of interviews were carved down to 92 minutes. Now there are plans for a theatrical release in New York and Los Angeles, and a DVD including special extras — like Rittenberg playing gin rummy with Mao.
Rittenberg said in an e-mail that he thought the film was wonderful. And that while China has changed dramatically, it has far to go.
"The day is rapidly passing when improvement in livelihood will induce people to accept gross inequalities and injustices," he said. "Either the leaders will carry out vigorous, incremental reforms, or they will ultimately have them carried out for them."
Read more: http://www.philly.com/philly/enterta...#ixzz1yRqet1Pj
|June 21st, 2012||#57|
Join Date: Dec 2003
I suspect that eyewitnesses of events in early-20th-century Russia would be incredulous at the suggestion that their observations lacked credibility simply because they did not explain how they could recognize Jews upon seeing them. Even in 21st-century America where most Jews are to varying degrees culturally assimilated, and where there is a great variety of racial types, a group of Jews will still be quite obvious to somebody that has some awareness of Jews as an ethnic group.
As for this --
Anti-Nazi is a codeword for anti-White.
Last edited by Hadding; June 21st, 2012 at 02:01 PM.
|June 22nd, 2012||#58|
The Epitome of Evil
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
A Recent Article on the Jews and Hungarian Communism
In Brief: A Recent Article on the Jews and Hungarian Communism
The last few days have been rather busy for me and I haven't had much of an opportunity to publish new material here. However as I do not like not publishing anything for a few days I thought to reproduce a paragraph or two from a recent academic article on the issue of anti-Semitism and its origin as a popular sentiment among Hungarians. To wit:
'The Hungarian Communist party's (HCP) history was from its inception intertwined with the relationship between Jews and non-Jews. When the party was formed in November 1918 its leader, Bela Kun, and at least ten of the seventeen central committee members and sixty per cent of the party membership were Jewish. After holding power with the socialists for 133 days, the party was banned, and its leaders, including Kun, lived in exile in the Soviet Union. Kun was executed in 1937, in one of Stalin's purges, probably on suspicion of having Trotskyite sympathies. If his execution was meant as a warning to the rest of the Hungarian communist leadership, it had the desired effect. Matthias Rakosi would surpass all other party chiefs in the Soviet bloc for his subservience to Moscow. In at least one respect, however, Rakosi did not oblige. Notwithstanding Molotov's advice that with the Soviet Union's liberation of Hungary the Communist Party should be re-established with non-Jews at its helm, the four leading members of the newly formed Central Committee were to be of Jewish origin. As Molotov had anticipated, Jewish prominence in the Communist party could not but affect the population's perception of communism, in a country where in the recent past there had been an overwhelming public reaction of indifference to anti-Jewish laws, ghettoization and the deportation of 500,000 Jews to the Nazi death camps.
The communist leaders returning to Hungary in1945 after years of exile in Moscow knew that their efforts to expand the party's social base would be hampered by widespread anti-Semitism. However, rather than confront anti-Jewish prejudice, the party suppressed public discussion of matters touching specifically on Jews.' (1)
This is confirmed by Miller who states quite clearly that:
'In early communist Russia the state may again have appeared to be in danger of becoming Jewish, this time because of the number of actual Jews in positions of power, locally as well as centrally, and this again may have influenced both official and popular thought throughout the Soviet period.' (2)
And who says jews weren't massively over-represented in supporting and trying to implement communism in Russia and in Europe at all levels?
(1) Paul Kelemen, 2012, 'The Hungarian Communist Pary, ethno-nationalism and antisemitism', Twentieth Century Communism, Vol. 4, p. 200
(2) Jacob Miller, 1970, 'Soviet Theory on the Jews', p. 45 in Lionel Kochan (Ed.), 1970, 'The Jews in Soviet Russia since 1917', 1st Edition, Oxford University Press: New York
This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...-jews-and.html
|June 28th, 2012||#59|
Join Date: May 2009
Alexander Parvus: Trotsky’s Mentor from Hell
Parvus* was born in 1867 in the town of Berezino in the province of Minsk in Byelorussia, but grew up in Odessa where he finished college in 1885. He then continued his studies abroad. In 1891 he passed his final exams at the University of Basel and left as an economist and financier. He later look a doctor’s degree in philosophy.
*The Jew millionaire Alexander Parvus (real name: Israel Helphand, or Gelfand)
He worked for several years in different banks in Germany and Switzerland. He also became a skilful publicist who understood how perfectly the phraseology of Marxism could conceal political and war crimes. Parvus had studied the history of Russia and knew that the country would be quite helpless if the nobility and the intellectuals were eliminated. All these ideas made a great impression on Leiba Bronstein and Vladimir Ulyanov. Alexander Parvus, as a professional criminal, wanted to transform Russia into a base for international speculators and criminals who would hide under the name of “social democrats”.
Lenin believed this to be impossible since Russia was not rich enough and wanted to use Switzerland for this purpose but Trotsky agreed with Parvus. Parvus was therefore the man behind Trotsky’s theory of the permanent revolution.
Trotsky echoed, like a parrot, that Russia must be thrown into the flames of the world revolution.
The author Maxim Gorky characterized the socialist Parvus as a miser and a swindler. He had often put the famous author’s royalties in his own pocket.
Once, when he did this, the German Socialist Party’s honorary tribunal (Karl Kautsky, August Bebel, Klara Zetkin) condemned him morally. After this, Parvus travelled to Constantinople, where he became advisor to the Young Turks (i.e. the Jews). He mediated trade between Turkey and Germany and became exceedingly wealthy in the process.
For a time he also edited the newspaper Arbeiter-Zeitung.
The Attempts at a Coup d’Etat in 1905
Parvus wrote as early as 1895 in the periodical Aus der Weltpolitik, which he himself financed, that war would break out between Russia and Japan and that the Russian revolution would be born out of this conflict.
In his series of articles “The War and the Revolution”, published in 1904, he also predicted that Russia would lose the war against Japan. The international capitalists wanted to begin a “revolution” in St. Petersburg in connection with Russia’s defeat in the Russo-Japanese war in 1904-05. The chief organizer, Alexander Parvus, received two million pounds sterling from Japan to organize the seizure of power in Russia. (Igor Bunich, “The Party’s Gold”, St. Petersburg, 1992, p. 33.)
The war began with a Japanese attack on Port Arthur (now Lushun) on the 9th of February 1904. It was, above all, the European banks belonging to rich Jews, which financed the Russo-Japanese war. All possibility of credit was shut off to Russia while Japan had unlimited credit. The most important Jewish loan-shark, Jacob Henry Schiff in the United States of America, supported the Japanese military forces with a loan of 200 million dollars, according to Encyclopaedia Judaica.
The Jerusalem Post admitted on September 9, 1976 that it had been Schiff who lent the money needed to construct the Japanese navy. Several British banks built railways in Japan and financed Japan’s war against China. It was the same Jacob Schiff who made sure that no banks were permitted to lend money to the Russians.
At the same time, he supported “revolutionary” Jewish groups in Russia. Encyclopaedia Judaica called these “Jewish self-defence groups”. The Provisional Government was later given all possible financial aid from his banking house Kuhn, Loeb & Co and other banks.
Encyclopaedia Judaica characterized Jacob Henry Schiff as a “financier and philanthropist”.
The Jewish capitalists wanted to seize power in Russia in the name of the workers. Parvus and Bronstein-Trotsky believed the time was ripe when the Russians lost Port Arthur on the 2nd of January 1905 (20th of December 1904). Parvus and Trotsky immediately began to organise major provocations, strikes and riots. The Social Revolutionaries had terrorized the nation as early as in 1904.
The Zionist Socialist Workers’ Party, which took part in this revolution, according to surprising information in Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 1971, Vol. 15, p. 657), had been formed in Odessa in January 1905 for subversive purposes. The Jews’ secret society Kagal (Kahal) was also involved. The general public has never heard that a secret Jewish society that called itself Kahal (Council)† had been operating in Russia since the 19th century.
† The KAHAL is sometimes spelled the “Kehel” or “Kehelih.” The Ashkenazi Jews are only loyal to their local Kahal. Goyim government, police and courts mean nothing to them. Each local Kahal takes orders from Kahals further up the chain and all of it is secret to the Goyim. "These mothers certainly have a major Kahal yanking the chains of America today."
Suomen Tietosanakirja, but the Russian encyclopaedias, of course, knew nothing about it. The first major action organised by Alexander Parvus together with his Jewish comrade Peter (Pinhas) Rutenberg, was later called “Bloody Sunday”.
On the 9th (22nd) of January 1905, the freemasons Parvus and Rutenberg placed their Jewish terrorists (chiefly Social Revolutionaries) in different trees in the Alexandrovsk park and ordered them to shoot at the guards by the Winter Palace. The soldiers were forced to return fire to protect themselves. (Igor Bunich, “The Party’s Gold”, St. Petersburg, 1992, p. 33.)
All this has only now been revealed from the Communist Party’s secret documents. The official history has up to now been an audacious lie: the soldiers in front of the Winter Palace were supposed to have opened fire on peaceful demonstrators. 150 were killed and a further 200 were wounded following this provocation.
The Tsar was shocked. He gave a subsidy to the collection for the dead and their families. He even received a “revolutionary” delegation in a fatherly manner. The Social Revolutionaries’ terror organization was infuriated. Bloody Sunday was skillfully exploited by the “revolutionary” propaganda, which claimed that “thousands of people lost their lives”. Similar myths are spread even to this day.
The preparations for a national coup had begun. The Jewish terrorists Roza Brilliant, [Ivan] Kalyalev and others murdered the Tsar’s uncle, the governor of Moscow, Grand Duke Sergei Romanov, on the 4th (17th) of February.
Parvus, Trotsky and their Jewish accomplices organized and coordinated bank-robberies, mutinies on the armored ships Potemkin (June 1905) and Ochakov and on a further ten warships, revolts in Kronstadt, Sevastopol and other places. The Jewish Bolshevik Leonid Krasin (actually Goldgelb, former criminal and stockbroker), together with Parvus’ bandits, committed bank-robberies, murdered policemen, bought weapons — all to destabilize Russia.
This is the point where the Swedish Jew Salomon Schulman should be quoted:
“Few today think of the Jews’ important role, both ideologically and practically, under the pioneering period of the socialist movements.” (Dagens Nyheter, April 12, 1990, B 3.)For this reason, I unearthed some facts about the role of the socialist Jews in the struggle for Russia in 1905-1906.
Lieutenant Peter Smidt, who in November 1905 agitated for mutiny on the warships in Sevastopol, openly boasted that he was the weapon of the Jews (Novoye Vremya, March 1911). Parvus and Trotsky were given plenty of aid from the United States, where the Jewish millionaire Jacob Schiff even in 1890 organised and financed training for Jewish “revolutionaries” from Russia.
It was B’nai B’rith (Sons of the Covenant), the Jewish Masonic organization, that planned the instruction for those training courses. The same order also played an active role in the so-called revolution in 1905. (“The Ugly Truth About the ADL”, Washington, 1992, p. 27
Adolf Kraus, Grand Master of B’nai B’rith, truthfully said to another liberal freemason,
Count Sergei Witte (married to the Jewess Matilda Khotimskaya), during the Russo-Japanese peace negotiations in the summer of 1905, that the Jews would unleash a revolution on Russia if the Russian Jews were not given free hands to act. The peace treaty was signed in Portsmouth on the 5th of September (23rd August) 1905. The American financier Jacob Schiff was present. Witte described this event in his “Memoirs”.
Before this, “revolutionary” leaflets (printed in England) had been spread among the Russian prisoners of war and thousands of Jewish “revolutionaries” from the United States of America had been sent to Russia. These Russian-Jewish terrorists protected themselves with American passports. The acts of terror, however, were so brutal that Russia refused these Russian Jews the right of American citizenship. B’nai B’rith, whose headquarters were in Chicago and whose pompous representation is evident even in Washington, was behind these acts.
The organization was founded on the 13th of October 1842 in New York by 12 Jewish men, symbolizing the 12 Jewish tribes who were to rule the world. Many leading figures within this movement were militant advocates of slavery, among them Grand Master Simon Wolf. B’nai B’rith’s first lodge in Europe was founded in 1885 in Berlin. There were 103 lodges in Germany in 1932. B’nai B’rith was the only Masonic organization allowed to continue operating even under the Nazi rule.
Today B’nai B’rith is the largest Jewish organization in the world. In 1970 it had 500,000 male members spread over 1700 lodges in 43 countries and 210,000 female members in 600 lodges (Encyclopaedia Judaica). There are presently 70 established lodges in Europe. The only lodge in Austria is called Maimonides.
The organization works to secure the power of the Jews over humanity, as revealed by the Hungarian Jew Aron Monus in his book “Verschworung: das Reich von Nietzsche” (Vienna, 1995, p. 149). B’nai B’rith is an executive organ for L’Alliance Israelite Universelle. The official budget before 1970 was 13 million dollars. B’nai B’rith’s secret service, the ADL (Anti-Defamation League), has been called the KGB of the extremist Jews.
Jewish terrorists had been active in Russia already before this but in 1905 the terror assumed unprecedented proportions. The fanatics began to murder without discrimination. One of the worst terrorists was the Menshevik Vera Zasulich (1849-1919). In 1878 she [almost] murdered the mayor of St. Petersburg, Fiodor Trepov, with a large-calibre revolver but was acquitted by the court on the 31st of March 1878. Other leading Jewish terrorists were Movsha Strunsky, Feig Elkin, Roza Brilliant and Feldman. They all followed the tradition of the infamous Jewish terrorist Grigori Gershuni.
The social revolutionary Gershuni was behind the murder of the Minister of the Interior, Dmitri Sipyagin (1902), the attempt on the life of Obolensky, governor of Kharkov and the murder of Ufa’s governor N. Bogdanovich in Bashkiria (1903). Gershuni was sentenced to death in 1904. He was pardoned by the Tsar and given life imprisonment instead. Gershuni managed to escape. He was praised as a hero throughout Europe.
Gershuni’s right hand was Yevno Azef (1869-1918), the son of a Jewish tailor. It was often he who planned the murders performed by the Social Revolutionaries’ terrorist section. Yevno Azef was involved in several important plots, among others the one against Vyacheslav Plehve, the Minister of the Interior, who was murdered on the 28th of June 1904. (Carroll Quigley, “Tragedy and Hope”, New York, 1966, p. 99.)
Azef had already managed to infiltrate the police as an agent of the Social Revolutionaries in 1892, but never revealed the murderous plans of the terrorists since he knew the intentions of the police. He was eventually forced into double-crossing both sides. In 1908, the social revolutionary central committee discovered that Azef had betrayed his own comrades who then decided to kill him, but he managed to escape abroad. On the 7th (20th) of October 1905, all the trains stopped.
On the 8th of October, St. Petersburg was paralyzed by a general strike which spread to other large cities on the 12th (25th) of October.
Power stations, banks, restaurants and hospitals were closed. No newspapers were published. Nothing worked. Agitated masses crowded in all the large cities, waving red flags and standing on street corners, listening to Jewish speakers who demanded an end to the tsarist regime. Already in April 1905, Trotsky had released a leaflet encouraging the people to overthrow the Tsar.
Trotsky had returned from Switzerland in January 1905, but his activities with the subversive movements reached their peak precisely in October. The Tsar’s advisor, Sergei Witte, demanded on the 9th (22nd) of October that Nicholas II should either summon the Parliament, the Duma, and have him named Prime Minister or have to use force against the masses. The Tsar followed this advice and Witte became Prime Minister on the same day.
Parvus and Trotsky founded the first Kahal, which was called soviet in Russian, on the 13th (26th) of October 1905. This soviet began with 40 council members, all of whom dreamed of seizing power. All “revolutionary” activity was coordinated from this Jewish organizational centre, which was camouflaged as a workers’ council. The chairman at the beginning was the Jew Peter Khrustalyev (Georgi Nosar).
His closest collaborators were Leon Trotsky and Alexander Parvus. The other leading members were neither poor peasants nor workers, but Jewish conspirators and freemasons: Grever, Edilken, Goldberg, A Simanovsky, A. Feif, Matzelev, Bruser and others.
These people were supposedly representing the Russian working class, despite the fact that no one had elected them. Trotsky believed the Soviets to be an excellent means with which to continue the traditions of the Paris Commune.
He hoped to win power for himself through the chaos they caused. Parvus and Trotsky continued to feed the flames of the general strike and the resultant national chaos though their secret network. The instigators actually believed the tsarist regime was about to break down.
The soviet had intended to keep the general strike going as long as possible, but the workers’ eagerness to revolt faded away.
The agitators no longer had the people behind them. The Tsar also announced a manifesto on the 17th (30th) of October, in which he promised that suffrage would be broadened and that the legislative power would be divided between the parliament and government. The people began to calm down. Trotsky, who had his 26th birthday on the 25th of October (November 7th), was deeply disappointed.
The attempt to take power had failed. (As we know, criminal International Jewry eventually succeeded in 1917)
Last edited by littlefieldjohn; June 28th, 2012 at 12:16 PM. Reason: title edit
|July 11th, 2012||#60|
Join Date: May 2009
Freie Arbeiter Stimme (The Free Voice of Labor)
The Freie Arbeiter Stimme (Yiddish: פֿרייע אַרבעטער שטימע The Free Voice of Labor) was the longest-running anarchist periodical in the Yiddish language, founded initially as an American counterpart to Rudolf Rocker's London-based Arbeter Fraynd (Workers' Friend). The early Yiddish spelling, פֿרייע אַרבייטער שטיממע (Fraye Arbayter Shtimme), reflects the early 20th century fashion to Germanize certain Yiddish words. Over the years, the title was changed to the native Yiddish pronunciation, פֿרייע אַרבעטער שטימע (Fraye Arbeter Shtime).
Publication began in 1890 and continued under the editorial of Saul Yanovsky until 1923. For a period the paper was under the editorial of Mark Mratchny, an exiled Ukrainian anarchist and former editor of Nabat (The Alarm), the organ of the anarchist Nabat Federation during the Makhnovist-Bolshevik peace agreement. The paper ran for 87 years until it finally was forced to stop publication in 1977 under the editorial of Ahrne Thorne due to the declining and aging population of both Yiddish speakers and anarchists in the United States.
Contributors have included David Edelstadt, Emma Goldman, Abba Gordin, Rudolf Rocker, Moishe Shtarkman, and Saul Yanovsky. The paper was also known for publishing poetry by di Yunge, Yiddish poets of the 1910s and 1920s.
The newspaper's story has been memorialized in a documentary by Steve Fischler and Joel Sucher of Pacific Street Films: The Free Voice of Labor: The Jewish Anarchists (1980). The movie contained a short interview with a very young Joe Conason. Paul Avrich was a consultant on the film. As of 2006[update], AK Press has begun distributing it as part of a double DVD release entitled Anarchism in America.
"All rulers should be exterminated" - Emma Goldman's doctrine
"'I am an anarchist. I am a disciple of Emma Goldman. Her words set me free."Leon Czolgosz, killer of President McKinley in 1901.
Czolgosz preferred to use the name Fred Nieman and told people he was a "Polish Jew."
Shiploads of Jew anarchists floated in & landed on American docks every day in the 1880s-90s ; they immediately began plotting against the government, bent on destroying American society through any means possible.
Last edited by littlefieldjohn; July 11th, 2012 at 02:08 PM.