|December 16th, 2010||#1|
Legionary of Truth
On Stalin's Possible Jewish Ancestry
Was Josef Stalin Jewish?
Posted Thursday, 5 February 2009 by Karl Radl
Article taken from: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...in-jewish.html
A common assertion among anti-Semites is that Joseph Stalin, the infamous Soviet dictator, was in fact a jew. This argument is so tenuous that it can be dealt with relatively quickly. However it is important to state that this argument occurs with alarming rapidity despite the obviously problematic nature of the assertion: hence it is important to deal with the few ‘proofs’ offered for this argument.
The argument that Stalin was a jew would seem to have been popularised by the reference to it in Maurice Pinay’s famous anti-Semitic book, ‘The Plot against the Church’ , which was translated into at least three languages  and has been reprinted four times in English since its original publication . Pinay argues as follows:
‘[…] 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 rumours, about which mutterings began in his direction.’ 
Then if we compare this to the most commonly cited source on the internet for this allegation, to which many anti-Semites challenged on this subject reference back to. We are told as follows:
‘Stalin's childhood origins were supposedly Georgian, but the truth is his mother was Ossete, from the Khazarian region.In the Georgian language "shvili" means son of, or son, as in Johnson. "Djuga" means Jew. Therefore Djugashvili means Jewison.
So Joe Stalin's real name, before he changed it, was Joe Jewison. It gets better, his name was Joseph David Djugashvili, a typical Jewish name. During his revolutionary days he changed his name to "Kochba", the leader of the Jews during one of the anti-Roman uprisings of the Jews. Russians don't change their names. Georgians don't change their names. Jews change their names.
Stalin's mother Ekaterina did laundry and housekeeping for David Papisnedov, a local Jew, who was Stalin's real father. Their nickname for Stalin was "Soso". Stalin received Papisnedov at the Kremlin often. Comrade Papisnedov often was visited by Nikolai Przhevalsky, a Jewish trader, and he is also considered a possibility as Stalin's father.’ 
We can immediately see that Stalin's surname, Djougaschvili, meaning the ‘son of Djou’ has been transliterated by the author of the second; more modern, argument from the first argument (i.e. Pinay's) into being ‘son of a jew’ (the phonetics in English pronunciation apparently being similar). This has allowed the author of the second argument to claim that Stalin was jewish by taking the second part of Pinay’s assertion and combining it with the first via what I can only speculate to be the phonetic sound of the two words in English: ‘Djou’ and ‘jew’. We can see this referenced more in Pinay’s argument when he refers to Portuguese gypsies in that Sephardi jews (and some Ashkenazim) were known in Europe as ‘Portuguese’ (for example when you asked the question: ‘How many Portuguese lived in London in 1600?’ you would simply be asking how many jews and Marranos [secret jews who outwardly kept to Roman Catholicism but practiced jewish rites, fasts, and feasts privately] were in London in 1600). This might infer that Stalin’s parents were the descendents of settled Mizrahi and/or Sephardi jews, but this has been taken by the author of the second argument and folded into the claim that Stalin’s father was a jewish merchant and that Stalin’s surname means ‘son of a jew’ or ‘Jewison/Jewson’ in English.
Therefore we first of all establish the ostensible evolution of this argument in noting how close the arguments are, but how the second oft-cited argument likely takes Pinay’s  argument and then twists it into a new form.
If we look at both arguments: we can see they particular stress on the meaning of the surname ‘Djougachvili’ or ‘Djugashvili’ and that in Pinay’s opinion it means ‘son of Djou’  and in the second argument it means ‘son of a jew’/’Jewison’. 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 ‘steel’. The old Georgian words for jew were actually ‘Ebraeli’ or ‘Uriya’, which bear absolutely no resemblance to ‘Djuga’ or ‘Dzhuga’.
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’ (‘Stal’ means 'steel' in Russian). Since in Stalin’s eyes he was the ‘son of steel’ in Georgia and hence has become the ‘man of steel’ in Russia. Hence Stalin didn’t change his name particularly much, but rather simply added in ‘man’ rather than ‘son’, which can easily be suggested to be a sign of his coming of age as an atheist marxist revolutionary and a devout follower of Lenin (rather than the seminary student on a scholarship from a poor broken family in a little town in Georgia).
Pinay’s argument is by the far the more sophisticated and educated out the two. Since his reference to Djou is a 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. Since this was a policy in the Ottoman Empire who did send jews to economically backward areas in order to boost the economy in that area and make the territory more profitable for the Ottoman Sultan through his (largely jewish) tax-farmers, administrative and customs service. However since ‘Djougachvili’ does not actually mean ‘son of Djou’ Pinay’s argument must be regarded as incorrect, but it is at the very least an educated conjecture (since it is unlikely Pinay could have found a suitable source as to the meaning of old Georgian words). The second argument seems on the other hand to be completely inventing its interpretation out of whole cloth by alleging that ‘Djuga’ means ‘jew’ in old Georgian (again perhaps ‘Djuga’ if pronounced a certain way might sound like a similar word to ‘jew’: hence one could reasonably speculate that the origin of the argument made is from the author, whose first language is English, pronouncing the words and then because they to some ears might sound alike claiming that one means the other).
Hence Pinay’s argument can be reasonably said to be disposed of, but there still remain a series of assertions in the second argument that deserve consideration. Firstly is the note that Stalin’s mother, Ekaterina Gheladze Djugashvili, was from the ‘Khazarian region’ is a indirect argument by implication that Stalin was jewish since it is commonly claimed by anti-Semites that Ashkenazi jews are the descendents of the jewish Khazar Khanate (or Khazaria). There is no evidence for this on both counts: i.e. we have no evidence that Stalin is descended from Khazars and secondly the evidence is heavily against the Khazars being the origin of the Ashkenazim .
Therefore we can only suggest this is an attempt to suggest a stronger argument that Stalin was of jewish descent than has been offered. It is in fact contradicted by the author in the reference page  he has added regarding Stalin’s mother when he asserts that she was that she was from tribe of the Alans  and not a Georgian. However this is essentially irrelevant since the Alan territory was in the borderlands of northern Georgia and they are closely related to the Georgians. Hence the argument being made not only contradicts the early inference, but then secondly derives into pure Semantics to claim that Stalin’s mother was not Georgian.
Further on this reference page it asserts that there are doubts as to the identity of Stalin’s biological father. There has been little doubt expressed in the biographies of Stalin for the simple reason that there is no evidence suggesting that Stalin’s father was anyone but Vissarion Ivanovich Djugashvili. This claim is asserted in more detail in the second argument when it is claimed that there are two candidates who are reported to be jews: David Papismedov and Nikolai Przhevalsky.
The claims are then referred back to the reference page and the detail of why the author thinks these two were Stalin’s father is given. The claim surrounding Nikolai Przhevalsky is given as follows under the title of ‘Stalin’s Real Father’:
‘The most notable such speculation was that Stalin's father was the Belorussian Nikolai Przhevalsky. The face of Joseph Stalin is almost identical to that of Nikolai Przhevalsky. Apparently Przhevalsky did stop off in the town of Gori in Georgia on his way to Tibet. According to the story, in Georgia he was hosted at the home of wealthy Georgian where Ekaterina Gheladze worked as a maid. According to the speculation Przhevalsky seduced Ekaterina and left her pregnant as he journeyed off to Tibet. According to the story the Georgian family (or Przhevalsky) to avoid scandal paid Vissarion Djugashvili a substantial amount of money for him to marry Ekaterina Gheladze and this was the source of the capital for him to have run a shoe-making business employing about thirty cobblers. He subsequently lost the business and later died in a drunken knife fight.
There appears to be no hard evidence for Przhevalsky being the father of Stalin. There was a city in Siberia that was named after Przhevalsky. The Bolsheviks changed the name after they came to power but Stalin later changed it back to Przhevalsky. However it would not be out of line for Stalin to deviously promote the notion that he was really Russian rather than Georgian. he was of Jewish blood from the Dinaric race.’ 
It is worth noting firstly that the use of the qualifiers ‘apparently’, ‘according to the story’, ‘according to speculation’ denotes that these are essentially bits of gossip heard and enlarged upon as time has gone on (if indeed they are genuine: since no originating source is cited) in the manner consistent with folklore in general. If I was to suggest that Elizabeth I of England was jewish and then say ‘according to speculation’, ‘according to the story’ etc ad infinitum: then I could not suggest that this is the case without corroborating sources of a primary nature or examining the secondary literature explaining why they are wrong. The author does neither so one must take his words with more than a pinch of salt.
The author himself admits that there is ‘no hard evidence’, but then speculates in his title that Przhevalsky is ‘Stalin’s Real Father’ and then asserts in direct contradiction to the earlier sentences in his own paragraph that Stalin ‘was of Jewish blood from the Dinaric race’. In fact Przhevalsky during his travels to the East was in a different part of central Asia during 1878-1879 (the years between which Stalin was presumably conceived) and there is no evidence that he even visited Georgia in his lifetime. There also no evidence I am aware of that Przhevalsky was jewish, but rather a scion of an aristocratic Polish family (not a ‘jewish trader’ as asserted in the second argument, but rather a famous Russian geographer). If we have no evidence to suggest that Stalin was the product of a lover's tryst between Przhevalsky and Stalin's mother then we cannot assert that it is simply a fact as the author does: contradicting himself in the process.
We must secondly note that this story about Stalin’s father being paid off to marry Stalin’s mother and that Stalin’s father is without any apparent factual foundation. Stalin’s father would seem to have created his own success by hard work (employing several apprentices [the number of 30 seems excessive]), which then deteriorated as he began to drink heavily and came into conflict with Stalin’s mother over Stalin’s future occupation. Stalin’s father also did not die in a drunken knife fight (this is again a folkloric rumour), but rather from tuberculosis and pneumonia according to current academic opinion.
Thirdly the assertion that the changing of the name of the city of Karakol, the city’s original name, back to Przhevalsk in 1939 by Stalin after it had been changed back to Karakol in 1921 by the Bolsheviks (in reaction to popular demand) is not an indication or evidence of Przhevalsky’s asserted status as Stalin’s biological father, but rather that Stalin was changing place names back to those of great Russian heroes (of which Przhevalsky was but one: as a famous Russian geographer) in order in inspire nationalism in his population (which was a key element in much of Stalin’s internal policy).
Fourthly in the second argument the author claims that Przhevalsky often visited David Papismedov who was a local jew in Gori and whom was one of Stalin’s mother’s laundry clients. Papismedov certainly showed kindness to the young Stalin giving him books to read and giving donations of money to his mother. However there is no evidence Przhevalsky even knew Papismedov (or visited Georgia or Gori for that matter) let alone was a frequent guest in Papismedov’s house: as I have said Przhevalsky was at the time (1878-1879) far away in the East and a long way away from Georgia.
This leads us to discuss the second alternative candidate for Stalin’s biological father: David Papismedov. Who unlike Nikolai Przhevalsky was, in fact, jewish. The evidence cited for this is even thinner than that given for Przhevalsky’s fatherhood and it consists entirely of Stalin’s relationship with Papismedov, which is given on the reference page as:
‘Stalin's mother Ekaterina did laundry and housekeeping for David Papisnedov, a local Jew, who was Stalin's real father. Their nickname for Stalin was "Soso". Stalin received Papisnedov at the Kremlin often.' 
The fact that Stalin’s mother did the laundry and housekeeping for a local jew who treated her and Stalin himself comparatively well, certainly in comparison to Vissarion, does not make him the father of Stalin nor does it offer evidence of such. Since Stalin’s mother had other clients, for whom she did laundry and housekeeping as well, if Stalin was not Vissarion’s son then one would have to look at the other clients who would have equal opportunity of having a lovers tryst with Stalin’s mother as Papismedov. In terms of giving Stalin’s mother money and Stalin books to read: these can be seen simply as acts of charity rather than an acknowledgement of paternity. It is well to remember that acts of charity by monastic orders, for example, towards single mothers or married women does not mean the monk or monks having sired that single mother’s or married woman’s children. So therefore we can’t simply assert that because Papismedov was kind to Stalin and his mother that he was Stalin’s real biological father and that as a result Stalin is jewish.
Papismedov did indeed call Stalin by his family nickname; ‘Soso’, but then so did his mother and Vissarion. For it was a family tradition with Vissarion’s family nickname being: ‘Beso’. Again it is not proof of paternity or an acknowledgement of such for a family friend to call Stalin by his family nickname and speculations of such can hold no evidential merit. When Papismedov went to the Kremlin he went there to look for a boy of whom he was presumably fond and to see if he was still alive (and if so what had happened to him). Stalin greeted him much as he did any old friend whom he thought warmly of and was quite congenial and friendly towards him as an early kind influence in his life (who he probably saw as giving him the means and the skills to begin his career as a marxist revolutionary i.e. books). It is again not an argument in favour of Papismedov’s paternity that Stalin treated him well when he came to the Kremlin, of his own volition, looking for Stalin. In fact had Papismedov been Stalin’s father and Stalin had known this there would have been no reason for Stalin not to openly proclaim this when he was the Soviet dictator, but yet he did not.
Hence we must conclude that the claim that either Nikolai Przhevalsky or David Papismediv was Stalin’s biological father is without foundation and until sufficient primary evidence is brought forward for this interpretation of the argument that Stalin must be regarded as nothing but un-evidenced speculation.
The only other piece of evidence brought forward to support the contention that Stalin was jewish by this second argument is that Stalin used the name; ‘Kochba’, in his early revolutionary days. Kochba, or more properly bar Kochba, is a reference to the jewish leader of the Bar Kochba revolt against Rome in 132-135 A.D. In fact Stalin didn’t use ‘Kochba’ but rather ‘Koba’. Koba is a mythological figure in old Georgian literature roughly approximate to the figure of Robin Hood: i.e. a noble outlaw who robbed from rich and gave to the poor. The parallel between the figure of Koba and Stalin’s political beliefs is obvious as it coincides with Marxist ideas concerning the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor to make a more equal society. Bar Kochba was a fanatical jewish zealot who fought on religious grounds to install a jewish theocratic dictatorship free from Roman control on Judea (as well as potentially much of North Africa, Syria and Cyprus). The parallel, in Stalin's marxist thought, between Stalin the Marxist revolutionary and bar Kochba the fanatical jewish zealot is non-existent, but between Stalin and Koba the Georgian Robin Hood: it is obvious.
Therefore we can only conclude in summation that there is no evidence that Josef Stalin was in fact jewish and that the evidence that has been advanced for this being the case is inaccurate, highly speculative and possibly deliberately distorted.
 Maurice Pinay, Trans: Anon, 2000, , ‘The Plot against the Church’, 4th Edition, Christian Book Club of America: Palmdale
 The original was written and published in Italian, but it was translated within a few years into Spanish, German (in which there are two separate editions: one for Germany and one for Austria) and English (as well as quite probably French, but I cannot find reference to a French edition).
 This is notable, because post-1945 anti-Semitic books don’t often run into multiple editions as well as printings and are rarely translated into different languages. Only anti-Semitic classics such as Arnold Leese’s ‘Jewish Ritual Murder’, Henry Ford’s ‘The International Jew’, Adolf Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ and the 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion' can boast such sales and/or perceived/actual importance: hence Pinay’s ‘The Plot against the Church’ must be regarded as an anti-Semitic classic irrespective of its intellectual merit.
 Pinay, Op. Cit., p. 65
 http://judicial-inc.biz/Bush_Mossad11.htm [Accessed: 05/02/2009] (Warning: this site plays an awful rendition of classical music at you, which may frighten you, your children and/or your pets).
 Pinay cites Bernard Hutton in the French language magazine, ‘Constellation’ (of March 1962), as his source and having dealt with the author of the second argument before I am aware that he is not fluent in French (he also happens to be half-jewish as he admitted on LibertyForums some years ago). Therefore this lack of fluency in French and that the author is unlikely to have looked up the reference suggests that either the author of the second argument is taking Pinay’s argument and/or a citation of it (or possibly another earlier source) and twisting it into a slightly different argument from the one that Pinay offers.
 Simon Sebag Montefiore in his 2007, ‘Young Stalin’, claims that it means ‘son of juga’ (similar to Pinay’s suggestion), suggesting it derives from ‘djogi’ meaning herd, but doesn’t make a compelling case for this interpretation.
 On this point please see Kevin Alan Brook, 2002, ‘The Jews of Khazaria’, 2nd Edition, Rowman & Littlefield: New York.
 http://judicial-inc.biz/st__alin_sup...stalins_mother [Accessed: 05/02/2009].
 Who were famously used as a light cavalry mercenaries by the Byzantine Empire.
 http://judicial-inc.biz/st__alin_sup...ai_Przhevalsky [Accessed: 05/02/2009].
 http://judicial-inc.biz/st__alin_sup...vid_2nd_father [Accessed: 05/02/2009].
|December 16th, 2010||#2|
Legionary of Truth
The one thing on this article I want to comment on is the situation with Papismedov. I would say that most Jews are very unlikely to be generous people, from my studies as well as my experience. But since Jews weren't very common in Georgia, we don't know what kind of cultural and social influences and motivations were working on him. But I would say that there are many possibilities as to why Papismedov treated Stalin and his mother well, which do not include Stalin being the illegitamate child of Papismedov. I won't bother going through various examples and possibilites, but it's possible there was some other kind of relationship between Papismedov and Stalin's mother (besides what was mentioned in the article) that would cause the whole thing, and Joseph Stalin was the son of the mother, so the relation there would lead to Stalin as child being treated well too.
|December 16th, 2010||#3|
Join Date: Oct 2010
Errors, whether deliberate or misguided, should be pounced upon and urgently washed away. Those who use crappy arguments like Dzhugashvili means "son of jew" need to have the facts crammed into their face until they accept the truth. If they don't accept the truth, they should be seen as malicious agitators trying to make WNs look ignorant (although many, maybe most are, unfortunately) and gullible (definitely most are).\
I'll point out something that Semitic Controversies did not note, and that is "jew" is only pronounced with the "dzh" sound in English and Italic languages. An eastern language like Georgian would probably use the "y" sound for a direct Georgianization of jew/yehud, since other all eastern languages do, whether Arabic, Russian, Greek, Armenian, or Assyrian.
|December 16th, 2010||#4|
Legionary of Truth
იოსებ ბესარიონის ძე ჯუღაშვილი
So this last part is what matters: ჯუღაშვილი
But if you translate Jew to Georgian, it's this: ებრაელი
Son of a Jew: შვილი ებრაელი
Jew Son: ებრაელი შვილი
Jewish Son: ებრაელი ძე
You can see differences in the letters, so that alone should be enough to tell someone that the "Son of a Jew" translation is wrong. The "son" part was the only correct translation, the other part is unclear but it is not "Jew" or "Jewish".
|December 16th, 2010||#5|
Legionary of Truth
I want to remind everyone that this in no way tells us that the Soviet Union was not essentially Jew-controlled. Here is an excerpt from Which Way Western Man? by William Simpson (Chapter 19, Appendix 4):
ALLEGED SOVIET ANTI-SEMITISM
"Much has been made of a “Soviet anti-Semitism” that is alleged to have been initiated by Stalin. Those who hold to this view call attention to the Czech purge of 1953, the year of Stalin’s death, in which nine of the eleven men executed were Jews. In reply to this, and further, as a background for what I want to say about the years that have followed, I can hardly do better than to quote some comments from competent observers of that period. The first are taken from Gothic Ripples, Nos. 96, 97, and 98 of the year 1953, by Mr. Arnold S. Leese, whom I have found an exceedingly exact and reliable investigator. (Gothic Ripples has been defunct since Mr. Leese’s death, but I have a complete file of it.) In No. 96 he wrote:
“Recently in Czechoslovakia there has been a drastic purge of officials anxious to be their own bosses, like Tito in Jugoslavia. Now, you can’t purge Bolshevists without purging Jews; in Stalin’s great purges in Russia (1935-8) the victims were nearly all Jews, but there were always plenty of Jews left to carry on Bolshevism. To the alarm of world Jewry, it could not be hidden from the public that in this new Czechoslovakian purge, the officials arrested were nearly all Jews. Actually, we know for certain that twelve out of the fourteen were Jews. . .”
And then he lists the posts that these Jews held. One is struck at once by the fact that they were anything but Jewish nonentities. On the contrary, they included Rudolph Slansky, Vice-Premier of Czechoslovakia and Secretary-General of the Communist Party; and also the Deputy Secretary-General, numerous deputy Ministers (of Finance, National Defense, Foreign Trade and Foreign Affairs), a local secretary of the Communist Party, and a member of the editorial staff of Rude Pravo, the official organ of the Communist Party.
“In these facts,” resumes Mr. Leese, “not in the fact of their sentences, you have the proof that Bolshevism is Jewish in Czechoslovakia. But the most significant fact of all is that the Minister of Justice who ordered the execution of the condemned eleven men (of whom nine were Jews) was Stefan Reis, recognized by the Jewish Chronicle [one of the leading Jewish periodicals of England] of 5th May, 1950, as a Jew himself!”
How can anyone conceive that so many Jews could have attained posts of such eminence and influence in a Communist country and in the Communist Party if there had been any mounting feeling against Jews on the part of the Government?
In the next issue of Gothic Ripples (No. 97), Mr. Leese comments on the readiness with which gentiles the world over had swallowed the Jewish brainwash of Soviet anti-Semitism. “Let us just remind everyone that Stalin married a Jewess, whilst his daughter married in 1951 a Jew; that in the recent Czechoslovakian purge the Minister of Justice was the Jew, S. Reis; that two Jews, E. Pollak and Jaroslav Simon, have just been decorated in Soviet Russia for agricultural services; . . . while at the Jewish Board of Deputies meeting on the same date [1.18.53], a far-sighted Jew, A. Wolffe, who knew this lie of anti-Semitism in Russia would come back on the Jews like a boomerang, said to his fellow tribesmen, ‘You know, as I know, that there is no anti-semitism in Eastern Europe.’ The whole idea is puerile. Even in Rumania, the Jewess Anna Pauker has been replaced by another Jew, A. Bughici.”
And Gothic Ripples No. 98 records that the Jewish Chronicle, 2.13.53, had reported that Vol. 15 of the Soviet Encyclopaedia published that month, had declared that “the Jewish problem does not exist in the Soviet Union, where today Jews find the doors open to all professions.” It adds, after pointing to the Jewishness of the Government in Hungary, “you can only purge a Jewish Government by purging Jews from it.”
A succinct note in Time magazine, March 2, 1953, confirmed this. In regard to the expected purge of Jews in Communist Hungary, it sifted down the reports to mean “that a Russian purge tribunal has gone to Hungary to root out ‘suspected Zionists’ from the strongly Jewish (90% in the top echelons) government of Communist Premier Matyas Rakosi, who is himself a Jew.”
Free Britain for March 15, 1953 (No. 135) brought out another side of the matter:
“For thirty-five years the Russian people have been exploited and pillaged by the Soviet Government.
“Never has it been allowed to occur to the Russian masses that they have a Jewish Government, although this is known to be the case.” [With this compare Americans’ unawareness of the Jewishness of our Government for the past 50 years!]
“If once the Russian people were to awake to the fact they had been ruled for all these years by the one people whom they detest most of all, the Soviet Government would be faced with a domestic upheaval that might end the regime.
“The Russians have always detested the Jews, and the main reason for all the secrecy behind the Iron Curtain, for the secret police, for the censorship of the Press and for the concentration camps is to prevent the Russians learning that their country is ruled by Jews.
“That is why two years ago Free Britain pointed out that ‘the soft underbelly of the Soviet Monster is the Jewish Question.’ “Now in spite of all precautions the Russian people are beginning to learn the truth, and it has become an urgent matter for their Jewish masters to throw dust in their eyes. They have found it necessary to sacrifice some of their own people, as of old, and to give the widest publicity, in an effort to make their actions appear anti-Jewish.
“By its actions the Soviet Government has shown beyond any shadow of doubt the one thing it fears above everything else is that its Jewishness should become known to the Russian people.”
But there are those who claim that no matter what may have been the official Soviet attitude toward Jews 15 or 20 years ago, mounting evidence for the past decade has conclusively proved this to be hostile. In reply to this, I would submit such indications as the following:
(1) On Sept. 30, 1960, the B’nai B’rith Messenger, official organ of one of the most powerful Jewish institutions in the world, published this “exclusive United Nations WUP report”:
“A.I. Mikoyan has officially denied that any form of anti-Semitism exists today in the Soviet Union, a Soviet Embassy revealed this week. . .
“Take, for example, the list of members of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. How many Jews are on it? There are most likely relatively more of them than representatives of other nationalities.
“My brother is an aircraft designer and he works with Gurevitch, a Jew by nationality. Their plan is called ‘MIG,’ that is, Mikoyan and Gurevich. I don’t consider this an instance of anti-Semitism.
“There are many Jews among the artists. . . . Talented Jews have wide opportunities for the development of their gifts. There are many Jews among the film directors, artists, screen players, composers, musicians, writers, and also in officies, in ministries, in the Army. They hold high posts. We have, for example, General of the Army Kreiser, a very respected man, a Jew by nationality. I know him personally.
“Engineer Dymshitz is likewise a Jew. He is minister in charge of all capital construction in the Soviet Union.”
(2) Mr. A.K. Chesterton, who has made it part of his business to be informed about all matters vitally pertaining to Jews, in a personal letter to me dated June 11, 1973, wrote:
“The Soviet Union has always been anti-Zionist, and nonetheless so because it procured tens of thousands of Polish Jews for export to Palestine in 1946. . .
“Heaven knows that I am no champion of the Soviet regime, but it does have my sympathy in recognizing that dual loyalty in the eyes of Zionist Jews is a deceptive phrase to cover up single-minded loyalty to Israel. As far as I am aware, Russian Jews have no specific complaint against the regime except its discouragement of emigration.” [Emphasis added.]
Please note that this brings us up to a few months ago.
(3) The South African Observer (Box 2401, Pretoria, South Africa), in its issue for February 1973, had a significant note about the activities of Walter B. Kissinger, a brother of Henry Kissinger. Walter is a millionaire American industrialist, who is also the head of a West German firm, the Rohe Company, “which is negotiating a contract involving over $125 million with the Soviet Union to build and equip five hundred gasoline stations in and around Moscow.” This hardly supports the idea that Jews have any deep grievance against the Soviet Government.
(4) But to my mind what completely silences the idea that the Russian Government has done anything that has seriously alienated Jewish affections and support, is the well-established fact that, although the United States and all the other major nations of the West has been under steadily increasing Jewish control for the past fifty years, every one of them, and the U.S. most of all, has consistently done whatever was necessary to prevent Russian collapse. What organized Jewry can do, and leaps to do, when it really feels itself confronted by an enemy, was made fearfully plain by the vengeance it heaped upon Hitler and Germany. Beside this, any resentment Jews may feel toward Russia looks pretty pallid. And if at first one be disturbed by noticing, for instance, that the New York Times “every day seems to run a scheduled attack on the Russian Government,” one needs to remember that the Jews stand out in history as the great masters of deception. With their undisputed control of the mass media they are in a position to fabricate whatever reports they will, as a smokescreen to cover up their real designs: they can make us think they are about to move in one direction, when in fact they intend to move in the opposite. Above all, there is the fact, behind which Dr. Antony Sutton has put such mountains of indisputable evidence (as already detailed in my text), that since Stalin as much as before him, it has been the Jew-controlled U.S.A. that is chiefly responsible for having built up the Russian regime, prevented its collapse, and maintained it in power. Most recently, “when the last Soviet famine threatened as the result of yet another failure of collectivized agriculture, Dr. Kissinger [himself a Jew born abroad], whose power base is the international financial groups whose interests he has faithfully served, rushed to Moscow . . . to offer the necessary credits to enable American wheat to be shipped to the Soviet Union. 700 million dollars were provided.” 1 Russia got the wheat by American taxpayers’ having to go short of wheat for themselves. They got it without actually paying a cent for it. They got it “on the cuff,” by a mere promise to pay for it, a promise on which they may be counted to renege, as they reneged on their obligation to pay off their debt to the U.S. of 11 billion dollars for Lend Lease.
All this shows actual favoritism toward Communist Soviet Russia, and is inconceivable on the part of a Jew-controlled U.S. Government, except as the Soviet Union not only had the approval of American Jewry but enjoyed its active support.
This favoritism, as revealed in the apparent attitude of the U.S. Government to a recent Russian military move, was commented on in the London Financial Times of April 22, 1974:
“No one without access to the inner councils of the Kremlin can say, of course, that Russia would not have mounted this considerable new military effort if the U.S. had not been willing to act as its extremely indulgent international banker. But what cannot be denied is that, by granting the Soviet greatly extended access to American money and resources, President Nixon’s detente has made it very much easier than it would otherwise have been for Russia to cope with the additional stresses its intensified military effort must be imposing on the country’s external payments and domestic economic situation.”
And as a final observation bearing on the alleged anti-Semitism of the Russian Government, I must add a note about the so-called Dartmouth Conferences. Eight of these have been held since the first in 1960, half in the U.S., half in Russia. They have all been held in secret under extreme security precautions. Money to cover the expenses incurred has almost always been supplied by the large American tax-exempt foundations, notably the Ford Foundation. The delegates are exclusively from the U.S. and Russia. They are persons of very great power and influence in the worlds of finance, politics, science, education, and all the means for shaping the public mind. They manifestly work, like the Bilderberger Group, in close liaison with the Council on Foreign Relations, all of which further the same ends. They are obviously an instrument for bringing together in particular the U.S. and Russia, to combine their forces for the destruction of national sovereignties and to create a homogenized world most advantageous to money-making and favorable to the dominion of the Earth by bankers.
But the point of particular importance here is that a large number of the names of the Russian delegates to the Dartmouth Conferences have been Jewish. This, it would seem, makes it undeniable that “racial Jews still have great power and influence in the Soviet totalitarian dictatorship.” See Youth Action News, August 1974, at the bottom of page 7. (Box 312, Alexandria, Virginia 22313.)
I readily allow that there may be indications that do not fit in with the view that I have presented here. And perhaps I could not answer every such contrary indication. But I must heed my very painful awareness both of the fearful importance of our not being taken in, and of the Jews’ need of deception for the accomplishment of their ends, and of their genius for it. Our very existence as a nation, and as a people, may depend on our discerning clearly, beneath all appearances to the contrary, what is really going on. But let it be my final word that the danger, as I see it, is not so much from what apparently emanates from Russia, as from the Jewish International Money Power that works partly behind and through it, and always for the destruction of the White man everywhere—in the United States, in Russia, in Britain, in Europe, throughout Africa, in Australia, and in New Zealand. And nowhere has it ever been truer that if we don’t hang together, all of us White men, we shall certainly hang separately. And the hangman will be the Jew.”
|December 16th, 2010||#6|
The Epitome of Evil
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
If you see my point?
Leaving it open to speculation is a dangerous matter in history as you get Atlantis and Arthurian type scenarios (which have spawned their own historical and pseudo-historical sub-genres).
Last edited by Karl Radl; December 16th, 2010 at 02:10 PM.
|December 16th, 2010||#7|
The Epitome of Evil
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York