Page 1

De Natura Judaica: debunking anti-Jewish conspiracy theories by Steven Parris Ward (Ph.D)

Dedicated to the memory of Harry Lesser: a fair philosopher, a kind man and a good Jew


Contents Preface 4 Section I Key factors that have fed Judeophobic conspiracy theories in the past (a) The irrational bigotry fostered by the Protocols 8 (b) Churchill’s National and International classifications 12 (c) The Zionist Bolshevik conflation 17 (d) Socialism’s anti-capitalist concerns 25 (e) The fallacy of a Nazi Zionist friendship pact 29 (f) Various political developments suggesting an extensive influence 49 (g) Jewishness and its misperceived threat to cultural identity 55

Section II A Presence Misunderstood (1) The Jewish Illuminati conspiracy 61 (2) The Jewish Masonic conspiracy 94 (3) The Jewish French Revolution conspiracy 137 (4) The Jewish Bolshevik conspiracy 165 (5) The Jewish Russian Revolution conspiracy 179 (6) The Nazi Jewish Bolshevism conspiracy 248

Conclusion 358 Appendices (i) Fake quotes 366 (ii) The Neturei Karta’s idea of “true” Jewishness 374 2

(iii) A critique of Kevin Macdonald’s biogenetic group evolutionary theory 388


Preface The interest in conspiracy theories today generally reflects a fascination with the past that appears to have endured. Secret societies, revolutionary intrigue, mixed with esoteric plans for world domination, exert a strange and compelling hold on the minds of many.

Their contemporary

relevance, claim the “Truthers”, provide a much-needed antidote to today’s “mainstream propaganda”, which in itself is not viewed as offering anything other than a legacy of lies and a distorted view of reality. On the flip side, such theories too often tend to justify prejudice and xenophobia, lending credence to extreme political perspectives and a skewed view of reality. Justification often centres around an appeal to the so called indubitable “facts” of history. These “facts”, however, are invariably susceptible to multiple interpretations. A variety of false perspectives can often be theorised as a consequence, but one of the most heinous must surely be the theory that a cabal of Jews (acting to further Jewish interests exclusively) have sought for centuries to dominate powerful institutions and ultimately gain total dominion over the Earth. In this, a pro Jewish bias is naturally assumed, as well as an inbuilt racist and supremacist world view that presumes prejudice. The assumed “Jewish imperative” that underlies the strategy is, then, always one bent to wicked and immoral ends against any who will not support them, and more specifically who are not of their kind. These kinds of theories are not only false, but dangerous; as they promote racism and tend to exacerbate a more general hatred of Jews, rather than simply a particular Jewish group.

The International Holocaust

Remembrance Alliance provides a more encompassing definition of anti-


Semitism accordingly and identifying its key points will help to combat it. The definition is as follows: “Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or nonJewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” The IHRA gives examples such as: • Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews. • Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. • Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour. • Applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. • Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterise Israel or Israelis. • Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. • Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel. Bearing these points in mind, this book will more broadly debunk antiSemitism and not simply the primary conspiracy theory, which nevertheless itself implicitly assumes many of these features. It will 5

address the premises that define anti-semitism, refuting them by recourse to a fairly extensive historical and philosophical analysis of statistics and evidence. In addressing these features, it will also show that whilst some past events certainly indicate some Jews as revolutionaries and subversives, the validity of what might more generally be called the “Jewish conspiracy theory”: a view of a specifically Jewish religious, racial, political, national, or tribal imperative sine qua non, to assure control and advantage, is essentially one based on a series of fallacies, historical misrepresentations and half-truths. There is an old Yiddish proverb in this respect: “A half-truth is a whole lie”, which seems particularly apt. The proverb conveys the idea that half understood facts generally lead to entirely erroneous claims. These claims may even be dishonest, based on a deceitful manipulation of what truth supposedly entails. It is the duty of the wise, therefore, to consider all facts on their merits, rationally and soberly, in order to ascertain what a more rigorous and complete truth could actually entail.


The Background: Key fallacies that have fed Judeophobic conspiracy theories in the past


(a) The irrational bigotry in citing the Protocols It can only be a madman, a bigot or a fool, who clings to an opinion when simultaneously they accept the contrary fact as the truth.

In this,

irrationality appears to rule supreme, and the believer sacrifices reason on the altar of their own preconceived prejudices. Yet such was the perspective of the leading National Socialists during their rise to power in the Germany of the 1930s and 40s. They still appealed to “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” for justifying their racism, even after it had been earlier exposed as a hoax in the 1920s. They continued to circulate the book to school children as part of their anti-Jewish propaganda campaigns, despite it commonly being acknowledged as a forgery even amongst themselves, both privately and in public.1 Even the propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels admitted that the Protocols was a work of fiction and a fraud, although this did not stop him, nor the regime more generally, from using the work to justify more terrible ends. As Goebbels wrote in his diary in 1924: “I believe that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are a forgery … [However,] I believe in the intrinsic, but not in the factual, truth of The Protocols.”2 The book surfaced in Russia and was most likely a political propaganda stunt to justify the vilification of Jewish radicals during the reign of Nicolas II. In 1921 the Times of London published convincing proof that “The Protocols” was largely plagiarised from books published decades earlier—primarily “The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu” by Maurice Joly (1864) and “Biarritz” by Hermann Goedsche (1868). 1

In later years, similar exposés appeared in Germany and the United States. A U.S. Senate committee declared that “The Protocols” was bogus. In 1993 it was officially declared fraudulent by a court in the country of their origin—Russia. Yet chillingly the same mindset still exists and propagates this dangerous book’s circulation; David Duke’s Illustrated Protocols being a case in point. It appears an anti-Semitic belief in the “intrinsic truth” of “The Protocols” still enables its message to flourish, but also the content itself has an enduring ability to enflame prejudice, fear and hatred, even 2


Justifying the Protocols forgery as real in this “intrinsic” sense, allowed anti-Semitism to take root based on a skewed misconception of the book’s supposedly “true” or “real” validity. It reveals, however, only that the Protocols was used to justify a preconceived prejudice in their own minds, lending it an ideological and historic rationale it should never have been afforded. Its “intrinsic” authenticity supposedly overrode the claim of it being a forgery, but in accepting the oxymoron, the irrationality of their own prejudice is revealed. In this, Judeophobia shows it needs only a halftruth justification to promote the full-blown values of fear, bigotry and racism.3 The book being accepted as a forgery, but nevertheless one which claimed to be reflective of an intrinsically authentic Jewish imperative, identifies an irrational racism in Goebbels’ claim, and a presupposition of a threat among those who admit the book is a forgery. As Duke himself writes (echoing Goebbels’ reasoning towards the end): “The Protocols have been derided as a forgery, slander, and lies—yet remain one of the most widely read books in the world on the Jewish Question. In my new book, I show that it is actually irrelevant if the original Protocols were written by Czarist agents or not. In fact, as I point out, they are in reality a highly predictive work of “fiction”—much like George Orwell’s 1984, or Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Although the characters and storyline in both those works are “fiction”, the idea which underlay both those books was most certainly fact.” Words remarkably echoing Goebbels’ own spurious reasoning and objectionable antiSemitism. Hitler himself most likely thought the Protocols to be predictive based on comments in Mein Kampf: 3

“To what extent the whole existence of this people is based on a continuous lie is shown incomparably by the Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion...” In this, the assumption of its truth is broadened to make an entire race of people culpable. It is not simply confined to a Jewish elite that themselves might oppose the majority concerns of the race. Hitler, therefore, clearly displays anti-Semitism, rather than merely a disdain for a particular group of Jews that harbour a subversive and malevolent intent. 9

justified not by facts, but by lies. The lies propagating the belief of a more general Jewish threat, that consequently justified extreme political policy. This contradiction reveals the half-truth reasoning, the lies and the prejudice which rests at the heart of the argument, and which has been the cause itself of so much Jewish tribulation. It further displays the irrational and dishonest bigotry of the Hitler regime considering that, even if the book had been entirely genuine, an entire race was castigated for the actions of a subset, the greater majority being entirely innocent of any crime.4 This prejudice then reveals a more universal hatred for Jews that makes little distinction in terms of subsets, or individual attitudes, or ironically national identity. The original concern of “leaking” the Protocols had been to support the political interests of the Russian Tsar. The book was supposedly meant to reveal the machinations of a Jewish cabal with an anti-Tsarist, antiChristian agenda, bent on furthering their own political interests. The text presented the impending Russian Revolution of 1905 (not 1917) as being part of a powerful Jewish conspiracy by an elite intent on a long-term strategy of global domination. The leaking of the supposed strategy by this elite, tended to foment anti-Semitism more generally, rather than merely focus attention on hampering particular political groups, as was Rachokovsky’s remit. However, its broad anti-Semitic effect was not repressed in this, as this attitude generally tended to deflect public Most who claim the “Protocols” to be a forgery purport it to be originally produced in Russia between 1897 and 1903, possibly by Pyotr Ivanovich Rachkovsky, Head of the Paris office of the Russian Secret Police. Its aim was to spread an anti-Jewish narrative and support the political views and policies of the Tsar. Others claim it was Rachkovsky’s agent in Paris, Matvei Golovinski, who in the early 1900s authored the first edition. Another Rachkovsky agent, Yuliana Glinka, is often cited as the person who sent the forgery from France to Russia, via her uncle Gen. Orgveskii, from where it first came to public attention. 4


attention from Russia’s growing social, economic and political problems. It thus provided a convenient scapegoat against the increasingly visible and influential Jewish populace. The anti-Jewish conspiracy theory thus masked the multiple causes and failings that led to revolution. Whilst its real concern justified political activism against those revolutionary Socialists deemed a threat, some of whom just so happened to be Jews, its tendency led to the erroneous assumption that those who fomented revolution as a political cause did so primarily because of a specifically “Jewish� ideology and nepotistic concern. The consequences of believing such propaganda justified what I have termed the Jewish Bolshevik conflation. An erroneous conflation, which also gave false justification to the Holocaust, for both racial and political ends. 5 Racism is born of prejudice and fear. The common characteristic displays a lack of reason, but the justifiable desire to stem anti-Semitism is too often a concern that gives the guilty a free pass. Whilst the concern for human rights is a noble and philanthropic concern, it should not blind one to the assumption that particular Jewish individuals, or even Jews acting in political groups, should be unequivocally exonerated of some of the most heinous crimes and subversive plots of the 20th century. Whilst this work makes the case that Judeophobia is indeed repugnant, my concern will also be to show the nature of the Jewish beast, as well as its higher angels. This task is one which focuses above all on the fallibilities in human nature, but is one not blind to the influences of its environment. In all of this, little distinction was given to particular groups or individuals, in spite of the elite emphasis in the book. The material fostered a more widespread antiSemitism, which tended to overlook any diversity of opinion amongst Jews themselves. It propagated the assumption that all Jews generally thought and felt the same because of some racial, but not necessarily religious identification. This view assumes they hold some intrinsic common values because of this and have an overriding tendency to act as a tribe in turn. 5


Jewishness, then, cannot simply be assumed to be a trait apart, nor one formed merely as a consequence of a religious, biological or tribal imperative unshaped by its social and political circumstances. It cannot simply be viewed in a vacuum as quintessentially “Jewish” and virtuous as a consequence. To this end, the social and political influences that have shaped it will have to be determined in order to assess (as objectively as possible) any probable guilt that might rightly be assigned, the degree of culpability or innocence, based on my own analysis of the historical evidence, objectively and free of prejudice, whenever this is humanely possible. In an endeavour to separate the good from the bad then, we can now turn to the views of that esteemed maker of fine speeches Mr Winston Churchill: a good place to start in pruning the leaves of anti-Semitism from the tree, in order to help more reasonable notions concerning the Jews to take root in the earth of common sense and common sensibilities.

(b) Churchill’s national and International classifications In February 1920, Winston Churchill wrote a seminal article for the London Illustrated Sunday Herald entitled “Zionism Versus Bolshevism: a struggle for the soul of the Jewish people”. The concern was on the circumstances of the Jewish people, their national identity, the diaspora, and the importance of the creation of a “Jewish state” at that time. After first noting the importance of judging people on their individual merits and conduct, Churchill draws a distinction between “National Jews” and what he terms “International Jews”: the former being assimilated, and who identify foremost in terms of their nationality and


only secondly in terms of their faith or race. He thus gives the distinction with an example as: “…an English man practising the Jewish faith…a worthy conception, and useful in the highest degree.”6 In respect to the national Jews of Russia, after noting the many who fought bravely in World War One, Churchill goes on to give further recognition that: “…in spite of the disabilities under which they have suffered, [they] have managed to play an honourable and useful part in the national life even of Russia. As bankers and industrialists, they have strenuously promoted the development of Russia’s economic resources, and they were foremost in the creation of those remarkable organisations, the Russian Co-operative Societies. In politics their support has been given, for the most part, to liberal and progressive movements, and they have been among the staunchest upholder of friendship with France and Great Britain.” In contrast to these “honourable” and “useful” individuals, Churchill then mentions the “International Jews”, whom he contends certainly had a “very great” role in the creation of Bolshevism and in implementing the Russian Revolution. He describes these Jews as terrorists, existing in violent opposition to the values and efforts of the National. A league, or “sinister confederacy”, arising from those countries where Jews had settled, and had then been persecuted “on account of their race”. Whilst he also draws a religious distinction, claiming that:

Whilst critics might claim it is a mark of how being British was too often conflated with being an Englishman at that time, it is a sense implied, but not entirely an error made by Churchill, as he speaks of the “National Jew” as being foremost one who is able to “identify themselves with that country”. Due to this the “National Jew” is able to “enter into national life”. Any association of power of the British with the English has in any case been distinguished more markedly by continuing devolution and the creation of the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland parliaments today and the conspicuous absence of a purely English parliament. 6


“Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world.” In this, Churchill is fully aware that being Jewish denotes both a race and a religion, but does not necessarily require both. His concern is to distinguish the role of the National as “useful” and “honourable”, in contrast to the subversive role of the International. He appears to make a distinction between the “National”, who are assimilated to their country of residence, but also rather contrarily speaks of a third category of Jew, which is Zionist. He then rather tends to conflate this “sphere” with the National, and views Zionism as being positive too, because it is a nationalist movement. He fails to see Zionism as being in any way antithetical to any national assimilation of Jews in their adopted homelands, nor does he view its largely majority secularism as being a negative influence upon the Jewish mindset. Criticisms he does raise against Bolshevism however. 7 Churchill also does not really consider in his brief, but well written article, the resentment Jews themselves might have caused (due to their positions of influence) in Russia, whilst they still persisted in clinging to their own racial distinctions, culture and religious traditions. The desire to sustain Jewishness supposes separatism, rather than assimilation, but in this he rather presumes that the National Jews have been persecuted because of their racial and religious distinctions, and that this has prevented them from achieving their true desire, which is naturally to assimilate. The Churchill does not consider in his praise of the “National Jew” the extent to which Zionists too might have stifled the interests of the National or may have been antithetical to them. Certainly, he does identify specifically the Zionism with the National, but he omits to consider how this minority movement, at that time advocating the founding of Israel, was antithetical to the national assimilation of Jews in their adopted homelands. Generally, and more widely, he sees Zionism only as being positive and downplays its contradictions. 7


assumption being that it was not the Jews who were to blame in emphasising such distinctions, but others, perhaps those of indigenous descent, the Russian Christians as an example, who viewed Jewishness negatively. In this, however, he does not really consider the complexities of assimilation or separatism sufficiently in his brief distinction of Jews, nor the problems that any clinging to such distinctions by the Jews themselves might have caused in exacerbating any resentment of success or power. He assumes only that the good “National Jew” is assimilated, or strives to be assimilated, but nevertheless in identifying as Jewish they have suffered prejudice that thwarted the aim. In this essay, Churchill largely limits the definition of what Zionism is. He fails to distinguish it as a heretical movement advocating secularism, which in this sense was an anti-Jewish movement in its intolerance of religious orthodoxy. He sees it only in favourable terms as a Nationalist political movement. Yet he also fails to consider its antithetical tendencies in respect to this, as well as its commonalities with Marxist-Socialism. 8

The virtue of Churchill’s anti-Bolshevik perspective was voiced to weaken the Communist appeal to Jews. It tends however to raise issues and contradictions. At that time, on the Jewish Question, Bolshevism had been opposed to Zionism on the ideological front and to anti-Semitism on the political front. British imperialism, in contrast, was promoting Zionism to

Churchill’s definition of the National Jews fails to consider that their “honourable” contribution to “liberal and progressive” movements (particularly in respect to the “Russian Cooperative Societies”) is one that may have greatly served to propagate (in his view) the negative philosophy of Marxist Socialism. He also overlooks the subverting influence of Zionism as a Left-wing Socialist movement itself. He views “Nationalism” positively in terms of it helping to develop Russian economics and the virtues of international cooperation, but fails to consider that this in turn helped to propagate Communism in the West. 8


counter Bolshevism: an approach that also tended to support the White Guards in the Russian civil war, who yet also had a long tradition of antiSemitism and pogroms. During the civil war, anti-Bolshevik forces killed at least 60,000 Jews. 9 What the pro-Zionist discourse did, however, was to inadvertently make anti-Semitism ideologically acceptable as a political strategy, at least in respect to targeting Marxists. This strategy was more sophisticated and more honest than the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” ruse, whose inspiration was drawn from the French Revolution in the 1700’s, when reactionary French circles also alleged a Jewish hand in proceedings. Churchill, nevertheless, reiterated the idea of an international “Jewish” conspiracy, a half-truth that had lived on in nineteenth-century Europe, in countries such as Germany and Poland: a view of Jews that had not and still hasn’t been properly laid to rest. The clever irony of Churchill’s approach, however, was that his anti-Bolshevik strategy was itself based on a class-based political analysis of the Jewish Question. It raised a distinction between assimilated capitalists and in his view nationalist Jews, or Zionists and the Bolsheviks or Marxist revolutionary Socialists that Socialists themselves might even be obliged to recognise, if not support. Churchill’s distinctions sought to use anti-Semitism as a political weapon against Socialism for the promotion of national patriotism. It also simultaneously tended to promote political Zionism. He was attempting to draw clear distinctions, but overestimated people’s ability to keep them

Such contradictions rest on the persecution of Jews but may be resolved if the reason for persecution was cast in ideological and not simply religious or racial terms. Bolsheviks then were slain, not simply those racially or religiously identifying as Jews. 9


in mind, as they too often fell into the trap of viewing all Jews as an enemy. Unfortunately, as far as the anti-Semitism of that period was concerned, it tended to contribute to the more bigoted view that Jews more generally had invented Marxism and Bolshevism to further a specifically international Jewish movement to assume power over the gullible goyim of the world! In the case of European anti-Semitism, the postulate of a Jewish-Bolshevik compact was thought to coexist with the view that Jewish bankers supported them and also sought global control. 10

Placing Churchill’s distinctions about Zionism and Bolshevism aside, something now needs to be said about Zionism and Bolshevism’s common features in relation to these more holistic perspectives, which even today exacerbate anti-Jewish conspiracy theories tending to a more universal hatred of Jews. (c) The Zionist Bolshevik conflation Modern conspiracy theories tend to emphasise common features and common origins and thus a common and coordinated Jewish strategy to strengthen specifically Jewish interests. The nature of this is usually cast in terms of it being formulated as a double pronged strategy to help protect Jews, whilst strengthening their grip on power. In this, historical anomalies and differences are played down and a tribal theory is often

Churchill’s position on the Jewish Question was based on a distinction between the National and International Jews. In this he sought to warn of the dangers of the International Socialists or the Russian Bolsheviks specifically. The anti-Semitism of Adolf Hitler, however, was more pathological and defined a general Jewish-Bolshevik target of hatred that was too often spoken of in racial terms. The race when associated with Socialism compounded the danger, but Jews were always a general enemy and threat to the world. As he states in Mein Kampf: “If, with the aid of his Marxist creed, the Jew triumphs over the peoples of the world, then his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity.” 10


promulgated. The idea being that, irrespective of conflicting ideas and perspectives, which in some cases even threaten traditional orthodox religious beliefs, all the Jews support each other, simply because they are Jews. This ethno-tribal impulse supposedly overrides any dissent. In this, however, the definition of what precisely constitutes this impulse of “Jewishness” is too often inadequately defined. When it is broached, it is usual cast in racial, more universal terms, which seeks to protect it from the ideological conflicts that threaten to undermine any agreement of what they claim defines the “common” Jewish interest. In this respect, then, ideas of a Jewish strategy, or a double pronged strategy, require emphasising Zionism and Bolshevism’s overlapping concerns. As is so often the case with conspiracy theories, much is taken out of historical context, and feeds on half-truths that mask the bigger more








philosophical detail is generally not required, only the ability to argue a plausible case by cherry-picking information to support the increasingly bizarre perspective. Consequently, all that is required is the ability to argue deductively rather than inductively, and in this make broad connections, without assessing the historical events or specific facts. For example, the extent Bolshevism and Zionism became mutually antagonistic to each other’s political concerns as the 20 th century unfolded. It largely ignores also the anomaly that Soviet policy became pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel and by extension anti-Zionist in the Stalin era. It also requires ignoring Stalin’s opposition to any who opposed his General Line policy, many of whom were persecuted Jewish Soviet citizens, sympathetic to Zionism and Israel’s concerns. Its chief concern here, is to beef up the supposed nepotistic camaraderie between the Jews and the Communists, emphasising Leftism as a “Jewish” ideology, and 18

also characterising any dangerous play for power as a Jewish trait more generally, irrespective of the disagreements evident even between groups of their own kind. Zionism, then, becomes viewed not as antithetical to Marxism, but a dual complementary arm informed by the Jewish tribal perspective. In this, whilst there are indeed broad common features and sources of origin, generally the conspiracy theorists view diversifying developments as irrelevant. When faced with them as a critique, they even tend to view historical developments that contradict the grand theory of unity simply as propaganda, deliberately planted to confuse. In this, conversely, they also sometimes assume fake propaganda is real if it supports their case: their attitude to the authenticity of the Protocols being a case in point. In a nutshell, Zionism and Bolshevism tend to be conflated, as it requires the belief that in some broader sense they were and still are both coordinated and inspired as “Jewish” theories. This is done to further the claim they further specifically “Jewish” interests. Such interests commonly outweigh any political, religious or personal disagreements that arose, evident even from their inception. As is generally the case, conspiracy theory tends to combine both fact and fallacy to give a veneer of plausibility. This may be deliberate to justify a preconceived prejudice, or in some cases simply due to a mistaken assumption. The tendency to conflate, however, is not entirely fallacious. In this, therefore, whilst important differences do exist, they tend to be ignored, but the complementary themes and common objectives that support the


case are heavily emphasised. These commonalities certainly existed in respect to Zionism and Bolshevism, inasmuch as they both: •

Sought to modify religious belief and transform Jewish identity.

Originally advocated secularism.

Sought to propagate Leftist ideas and values in their leading figures.

Were antithetical and heretical to orthodox Judaism.

Cast themselves as revolutionary strategies.

The simple distinction that divided them, however, was a tendency to nationalism as opposed to internationalism, with the emphasis on the destruction of the capitalist nation state. Whereas by the time Stalin’s Soviet nationalism did begin to emphasise the national, the anti-Israel position was clearly apparent. Marxist-Leninism’s inevitable anticapitalist economic and revolutionary progression heralding ultimately a utopian non-state ideal of global proportions. Zionism, representing its ultimate anti-thesis, with its ideological emphasis on establishing the capitalist, free trading, nation state of Israel. Nevertheless, whilst the ultimate ideals might have differed, according to its own prominent figures (such as Jabotinsky on the right and Hess on the Left) Neo Nazi conspiracy theorists today still tend to emphasise the Socialist ideas more generally, whilst claiming the Zionist Socialist link points to a common Jewish strategy. Jabotinsky’s leftism is then played up. They do this because many are of a Right-wing nationalist persuasion themselves, but supposedly hold an anti-Semitic prejudice that loathes the idea of Jews supporting political principles they themselves might hold. Consequently, they tend to emphasise such facts as Moses Hess, Karl 20

Marx’s mentor in Socialism, being one of the founding fathers who sought to develop Zionism into a political movement for a nation state for Jews that yet had its roots in Marxism’s original beliefs and values. 11 As part of the argument, Stalin’s Communism can also be appealed to, as it was concerned with creating a Soviet Nationalism and this strengthens the conflation, but this led to many Jews rejecting the ideals of the Stalin regime nevertheless. Shared principles between Zionism and Bolshevism however did endure. Eastern European Marxist Jews, led by Ben Gurion, a Zionist who yet saw himself as a Bolshevik, came to play a crucial part in Israel’s founding in 1948. The Socialist kibbutzim being a practical implementation, reflective of the Communist ideal. The revolutionary militancy of the two movements also remained and has generally reinforced the belief in common objectives for those who sought to critique the Left and Jews simultaneously. However, splits and disagreements in the Zionist camp, as much as the Socialist, were always evident from the beginning, and these chiefly centred on the issue of what Jewish nationalism should entail. In the context of the debates, the left-wing Zionists put emphasis on the strength

Hess in this was named “The Communist Rabbi”. He wrote his book “Rome and Jerusalem” in 1862, and generally mapped out Zionism’s foundations in the light of Socialist theory. Before this, too, he had formulated the first written principles of Communism in his “Socialism and Communism” (1843), “A Communist Credo: Questions and Answers” (1846) and “Consequences of a Revolution of the Proletariat” (1847). In keeping with this also, he assisted Marx and Engels in their work “The Communist Manifesto” (1848). He also acted as Marx’ personal stand-in at meetings of the Internationale in 1868 and 1869; six years after having written Zionism’s magnum opus “Rome and Jerusalem”. All this, then, despite divergent goals, does suggest complementary aims and beliefs, but only to a qualified extent, as they fail to emphasise the more nationalistic Right-wing imperatives: the inclination to Parliamentary democracy and Israel’s laissez faire capitalistic concerns. Ideas that certainly do not justify the notion of a Jewish universalism in respect to some of Communism’s and Zionism’s chief ideological concerns. 11


of the Jewish proletariat and the Socialist ideology in the Zionist movement, suggesting that under certain circumstances their ideal state could contribute to the anti-imperialist struggle on a world scale. As far as the Zionist Right was concerned the democratic and capitalistic principles of the nation state were deemed of prime importance. As far as the antiZionist Left was concerned, they stressed the bourgeois and capitalist leadership of the movement, as well as its imperialist ties. The different currents that contributed to the emergence of Zionism make it difficult to consider the movement merely as one concerned with championing only Leftist ideology. Its relationship to Judaism was also complex. Zionism attempted to use religion for political ends. In this, it was not exactly “anti-religious”, as it tried to keep intact the social function of Judaism to unify the Jewish people, but at the same time it did seek to eliminate much of what it considered was its mystical content. Marxist Socialism oft spoke of an economic and social class struggle. Its common feature with Zionism was it sought to use religion for political ends, but more explicitly derided it in favour of humanism,


phenomenon originating only from Man.12 Religion then was redefined to

Whilst both Marxism and Zionism emphasise the social function of religion, the foundation of irreligious criticism was contained in the humanist assumption that for Marx: 12

“Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the selfconsciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realisation of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any 22

serve a socially useful purpose, just as opium did for a sick or injured person: it was temporarily useful in this, as it reduced people's immediate suffering and provided them with pleasant illusions, but it also reduced their energy and their willingness to confront the oppressive reality that capitalism had forced upon them. This truth needed to be realised, therefore, to obtain true health and happiness for the individual and the body politic. The realisation of class consciousness entailed true happiness for the individual. True happiness required giving up the illusion of religion, so that the false class consciousness that it perpetuated could give way to the reality of true class consciousness. This would naturally make the need for revolutionary action apparent, in order to address the injustices of inequality in society.13 Orthodox religious Jews, however, have always been wary of the paradoxes contained in the Zionist project. On the one hand, it aimed at maintaining religious identity. On the other, it threatened its very existence, by replacing Jewish messianism with the political doctrine of Jewish nationalism.

true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.� 13

As Marx stated: “Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.� 23

As formulated by Yakov M. Rabkin, the dilemma was that: “while (Zionism) claimed to be a force for modernisation against the dead weight of tradition and history, it idealised but also recontextualised and distorted the biblical past, manipulated the traditional symbols of religion and proposed to transmute into reality the millennia-long dreams of the Jews cast in purely nationalist and political terms. But above all, Zionism sought to propagate a new definition of what it meant to be Jewish.� The new definition sought to embrace wider concerns and perspectives as it progressed. Yet it has also provided an advantage for Zionism more specifically in today’s Western world, influenced by the sensibilities of political correctness, for the furtherance of its more specific interests. Speaking as a Jewish collective, however, has too often promulgated problems and dissent, both within the Jewish communities and in the wider world. In all this, those that oppose Zionism are too often claimed to be antiJewish wholesale, when the reality is anything but. The ultra-orthodox Torah aligned Jews in this latter respect, prove the case and are something of a thorn in the side to those propagating the charge. They provide a counterweight by their very presence that not all who oppose Israel are necessarily



More generally,



traditional faith centred perspective stands as a reminder of the religious tenets and perimeters of what Judaism and Jewishness once were and could continue to be as an orthodox practise. Conversely the tribal strategy (a theory often proclaimed by anti-Semites, or more specifically ethno-nationalists or Neo-Nazi groups) is also too often used as a ploy to classify all Jews as acting as a collective, with little regard for the merits of the individual (let alone dissenting groups) who 24

might well oppose the strategies of Zionism and/or Communism, or might even criticise both. It is a strategy that seeks to attack Jews wholesale, blurring the distinctions and negating as an example the nationalistic virtues and distinctions Zionism clearly provides. In this, the collective Jewish impulse is stressed, but it fails to account for the fact that significant numbers of Jews do not necessarily support one holistic perspective. 14 (d) Socialism’s anti-capitalist concerns By way of an antidote to the Jewish Bolshevik conspiracy claims, Tyler Cowen shows in his article “The Socialist Roots of Modern Anti-Semitism” (Jan 1st 1997) that anti-capitalist Socialist concerns have often prompted Judeophobia in itself, as a historic and supposedly natural response. This natural response was born from the assumption many Jews were involved in usury and banking and were as a consequence wealthy propertyowners. Their role as exploiters of the downtrodden proletariat is often assumed in this. In contrast, Cowen argues, capitalism encourages racial, ethnic, and religious tolerance, while supporting a plurality of diverse lifestyles and customs. In this, moreover, Socialism tends to lead to low rates of economic growth, disputes over resource use, statism and totalitarianism, which rather invites conflict, rather than cooperation. As Today, most religious Jewish assemblies worldwide see Zionism as a positive development of Judaism. Whilst some smaller groups of orthodox Jews, such as Neturei Karta, consider Zionism to be essentially incompatible with Judaism, because the creation of a Jewish state can only be the work of God, not of people. See Appendix for an outline of many of the fallacious claims in respect to this. 14

Another development, Christian Zionism, has considerable support in the American Bible Belt, whilst other Christian congregations worldwide, such as The Swedish Pentecostal Movement, lend unswerving support. Christian Zionism is a large organisation but is yet subordinate to Jewish Zionism in its support of a Jewish state in Zion. The supposition in this is, however, that one day these Jews will become “Christians” in the sense the will accept the Messiah (the prophesised coming) on Jesus’ return. 25

a consequence, ethnic and religious minorities usually do poorly when political coercion and anti-capitalistic statism prevails. Jewish interests, therefore, are not protected as a minority in an alien land. Any economic troubles, usually associated with interventionism, tend to exacerbate the psychological responses of “envy and resentment”, which in turn aggravates “prejudice and persecution”. Ellis Rivkin, in “The Shaping of Jewish History: A Radical New Interpretation” (p.239-240) illustrates the point: “Since World War II Jews and Judaism have been liberated in every country and territory where capitalism has been restored to vigorous growth-and this includes Germany. By contrast, wherever anticapitalism or precapitalism has prevailed the status of Jews and Judaism has either undergone deterioration or is highly precarious. Thus, at this very moment the country where developing global capitalism is most advanced, the United States, accords Jews and Judaism a freedom that is known nowhere else in the world and that was never known in the past. It is a freedom that is not matched even in Israel... By contrast, in the Soviet Union, the citadel of anticapitalism, the Jews are cowed by anti-Semitism, threatened by extinction, and barred from access to their God.”

The socialist origins of modern Judeophobia illustrate the link between statism, anti-capitalism and the persecution of minorities. As a formal, intellectual movement it arose in the middle of the nineteenth century, when anti-Jewish conspiracy theories in particular grew in popularity. German writers picked up on earlier anti-Enlightenment theories of a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy to conquer and rule the world. During the French Revolution, the Jews, along with the Masons, were identified as forces for liberalism, secularism, and capitalism. German writers in this soon found the Jews to be a more popular target than the Masons, perhaps 26

because they were more publicly visible and somewhat recognisable targets. The Judeo-Masonic theories eventually discarded the other conspirators, such as the Templars, the Freemasons and the Illuminati, and thence focused on the Jews, or even conflated them with the old targets, whilst emphasising their Jewish profiles. The anti-Jewish creed was formalised by Wilhelm Marr, the German writer who coined the term “anti-Semitic”. In 1879 he published his popular “The Victory of Judaism over Germandom”. He also founded the Anti-Semitic Journal and started an Anti-Semitic League. Marr admired Tsarist Russia, but had earlier been a radical socialist. The new antiSemites who followed expanded the medieval attacks on Jewish traders and usurers and developed a full-scale economic critique. The Jews subject to the greatest vilification unsurprisingly embraced cosmopolitan, Enlightenment values and tended to be economically successful. Adolf Stocker’s Christian Social Party (1878-1885) combined antiSemitism with Left-wing, reformist legislation. The party simultaneously attacked laissez-faire economics and the Jews as being part of the same problem. Stocker’s movement mixed medieval anti-Semitism, based in religion, with modern anti-Semitism, based in racism and socialist economics. As he states: “I see in unrestrained capitalism the evil of our epoch and am naturally also an opponent of modern Judaism on account of my socio-political views.” Georg Ritter von Schonerer led the Left-wing, anti-Semitic movement in Austria. His German Liberal Party, developed a lower-middle-class, antiSemitic, anti-capitalistic platform in the 1880’s. He directed his antiSemitism towards the Rothschilds, advocating nationalisation of their 27

railroad assets. Later, he broadened his charges to attack Jewish merchants more generally. Such polemics enthused the young Hitler who was an avid admirer of Schonerer, and even reputedly hung Schonerer’s slogans on his bedroom wall. This tendency was not simply confined to Germany. More generally, nineteenth-century socialist movements did little to stifle the anti-Semitic attitude. The socialist critique of capitalism and anti-Semitism justified anti-Semitism as a necessary response to achieving anti-capitalistic goals. As French Jewry was highly commercial, financial and capitalistic, it is of little surprise that Proudhon and Fourier, who stressed the abolition of usury, saved their most vehement tirades for the affluent Jewish moneylenders. Karl Marx continued the anti-Jewish polemics of the socialists. He detested Jewish religion and customs anyway in his more general support of atheism as a requirement for class consciousness and revolution. However, the historical association between Jews, private property, and commerce also prompted his well-known anti-Semitic diatribes. His disciples, Duhring and Lassalle, even used anti-Semitism as a means of introducing anti-capitalist doctrine. They believed that if the public could be convinced to hate Jewish capitalists, the public would eventually come to hate non-Jewish capitalists as well. The contrast with more capitalistic orientated democracies such as the United States is notable. As Cowen notes: “America started off with few Jews, but attracted many, chiefly due to its free economic principles and atmosphere of relative tolerance. By the 1920s, three of the four cities with the most Jews were located in the United States. New York had the largest number, and Chicago 28

and Philadelphia were third and fourth (only Budapest was second). Today Jews account for only two percent of the American population, but they still account for half of the billionaires.” In this, the differences between the Soviet and US systems of rule stand in stark contrast. They illustrate the contrasting benefits for the individual of laissez faire economics, as opposed to state run, anti-capitalist, socialist policies. Besides human rights for the individual being valued, individual strivings are generally valued and rewarded also. Whereas a socialist state tends to emphasise the collective over the individual’s needs and wants. Individual rights are generally secondary to the collective good. Absolute meritocracy in the socialist system is emphasised, but rarely achieved. Enforced egalitarianism generally breeds resentment and prejudice for those who achieve more in terms of wealth. Individual effort and enterprising initiative are rarely admired as virtues in or of themselves.

(e) The fallacy of the “Nazi Zionist” friendship pact Theodor Herzl, generally viewed as Zionism’s official founder, outlined the founding of Israel in “The Jewish State” (1896); a plan which was approved by the first Zionist congress in 1897. In this, his debt to Hess in his “Rome and Jerusalem” is acknowledged. He claims it as the book that said everything one needed to know about Zionism, where race, people, and the idea of nation merged to create a new “national Socialism”. Political extremists, or misguided individuals, sow further confusion by associating Zionism with National Socialism (Nazism) and suggesting they even shared complementary ideological principles in the common ideas of race and homeland echoed in the ideas of the later “lebensraum”


and “blut und boden” of the German Reich.


Ignorance aside, this is

sometimes done intentionally by the Neo-Nazi groups, in order to blur the immorality and political radicalism of National Socialist ideas. The implication then is the Nazis were okay because the Zionist Jews held similar political ideals in turn. They then use it to strengthen the spurious claim that the Holocaust didn’t happen, it being simply a Jewish ruse, used to further their claim for a Jewish nation. Setting aside the more cynical strategy to further Neo-Nazism, we must address those individuals who (versed in potted history) unintentionally ignore the subtler facts that distinguish the conflation. This confusion recently became a high-profile perspective again, when in 2016 the former London mayor Ken Livingstone claimed Hitler was “supporting Zionism”

Though clearly emerging later, German National Socialism, like Zionism, was created with some similar ideological components, but with different effects on society. However, with its emphasis on the importance of a homeland/heimat as well as its racial component, ideological comparisons can broadly be made. A comparison not lost on some Jews, such as Chaim Nachman Bialik, national bard of Israel, who wrote in “The Present Hour” (1934): 15

“I too, like Hitler, believe in the power of the blood idea.” This is very much a case of political interpretation of whether such broad values indicate deeper similarities. Claims are often made from the Left and Right with a political axe to grind. Just as it may be disputed to what extent National Socialism was considered the antithesis of Bolshevism, or whether it was indeed the mere flip side of the same political coin of totalitarianism. The so called “alliance” of Zionists with National Socialists in the Haavara Agreement (1933) suggests it was not antithetical to their concerns, nor was it antithetical in its essential philosophy, at least in some key respects, but it is an assumption that rarely takes into account the full historic and political context, or the more prevalent anti-Semitic attitudes championed against Jews more generally at that time, irrespective of their Zionist or pro Marxist sympathies. This was founded on a racial prejudice, which ultimately overrode any specific ideology, but may well have been compounded by it in the case of particular secular Jews being Bolshevik nevertheless. As Zionism had compatible features in some broad respects with this deadly enemy of the German Reich, any similarities with National Socialism might well have been moot in the context of Nazi anti-Jewish racial theory in any case. 30

before he “went mad and ended up killing six million Jews”. This led to Livingstone being quickly suspended from the Labour Party, which was already in the throes of a painful row over anti-Semitism.16 The fallacy is all too familiar in citing the Haavara Agreement (a transfer agreement between Zionists and Nazis to transport Jews to Palestine agreed in August 1933) as the most potent evidence of a wilful cooperation between Hitler and the Zionist movement that justifies Holocaust denial.17 When viewed in a certain way, this deal does superficially appear to suggest that Hitler’s government endorsed Zionism, but just because it was a means to help German Jews relocate to Palestine, it does not necessarily mean National Socialists were ever “pro Zionist”, or even more seriously “pro Jewish”, who sought only repatriation, as opposed to other means against the Jews collectively as a race, such as genocide. A case the Holocaust deniers are apt to make. Livingstone’s recent claims of “real collaboration” between the National Socialists and Zionists echo Lenni Brenner’s discredited Zionism in the Age of Dictators. On June 14, 2016, Mr Livingstone gave evidence before the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee and its inquiry into anti-Semitism. His citation of Mr Brenner’s book was dismissed as lacking any suitable authority. Days later, he submitted written evidence of more ‘authoritative’ sources on the collaboration via the Haavara Agreement. This however is not an issue of there being collaboration, cooperation certainly did occur, but whether they shared sympathetic aims and whether such cooperation ultimately pointed to common anti-Semitic values, which clearly was not the case. Conflation of the two even leads to the erroneous assumption that Hitler was a Zionist or Zionists were simply Jewish Nazis. Clearly absurd claims. 16

The Haavara Agreement was the only formal contract signed between Nazi Germany and a Zionist organisation. The signatories were the Reich Ministry of Economics, the Zionistische Vereinigung für Deutschland (Zionist Federation of Germany) and the Anglo-Palestine Bank (then under the directive of the Jewish Agency for Palestine) who brokered the agreement. Jewish emigrants had to hand over their possessions before they left Germany, and the proceeds were used by a company specifically set up for this purpose in Tel Aviv to purchase German goods for sale in Palestine. The proceeds of these sales were then paid in Palestinian currency to the emigrants in Palestine. 17


Implicit within this theory is the idea that the National Socialists have been somehow misrepresented as the exterminators of the Jews and that this is simply a case of misreporting history, chiefly by a Zionist/Jewish contingent keen to further their own interests. They have done this by seeking sympathy and promoting a false idea of excessive victimisation during the war. They seek to further the idea of Holocaust Denial in this, by claiming it is largely a recent invention, or further the idea of Holocaust Revisionism, as a partial step that ultimately leads to outright denial. The concern is to purge National Socialism of any responsibility for Jewish genocide.18 Proof of the fallacy of this “Zionist Nazi� collaboration theory is that the Haavara Agreement was immediately criticised from all sides, the most notable critic originally being Hitler himself, although he did continue to re-sign orders to renew the agreement indicative of later support. The later support however contrasts with a Hitler increasingly indolent and indisposed to bureaucratic responsibilities: his attitude being that such issues invariably sorted themselves out at the lower levels. But from the outset, Zionists too made their criticism of the transfer agreement known. Whilst Rabbi Stephen S. Wise requested empathy for the German Jews who felt compelled to do whatever was necessary to escape the reaches of the National Socialist regime and save their possessions, Joseph Kraemer, Another implication in the theory is that the anti-Semitic attitude was born entirely of the Jews own making and tendency to infiltrate and subvert. That the National Socialist attitude had been laudable and was a reaction to events largely brought upon them by the Jewish economic boycott in 1933. In all of this, the Jews are blamed and the Nazis are portrayed as seeking only a reasonable solution via the Haavara Agreement. The theory fails to properly consider the fact that anti-Semitic segregation and prejudice prior to these events was already deep rooted and helped bring the National Socialists to power as a consequence. The economic upheavals of the 1920s largely having been blamed on the minority Jewish presence. 18


the Head of the Order Sons of Zion, argued against, because it violated the anti-Nazi boycott. More generally, Haavara Ltd. (the trustee office responsible for the transfer agreement) faced intense scrutiny and criticism from many Jewish voices. For example, a section of the British Board of Jewish Deputies had requested its abolition. Some speculated that the owners of Haavara were profiting from the transfer deal. Others accused them of being no more than agents of the National Socialist state. It could not readily be claimed therefore, that Jews more generally were happily working with National Socialists to further their own benefit. A Jewish National Council vote in December 1935 prevented a split in the support for the agreement. The key argument in its favour was that the Hitler regime did not profit from the agreement, as it guaranteed the maximum transfer of Jewish capital to Palestine. This was seen as weakening the regime in some small sense. Nevertheless, the split vote did show the division of opinion on the matter. Opposition to it was strengthened by the fact that (between February 1935 and 1936) the agreement had failed to transfer any Jewish capital and had assisted only 1,300 Jewish families. It was criticised therefore as something of a PR exercise to mask Jewish oppression. In any case too, Zionists were not even particularly favoured, and reflected the realisation that an across the board anti-Semitism had certainly developed by 1935, which forced the sale of any “Jewish” businesses into “Aryan” hands. Within three years, just 20 to 25 per cent of Jewish businesses remained. 19

The Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses was observed as law throughout Germany from April 1, 1933. Only six days later, the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service was passed, banning Jews from government jobs. 19


By 1935 National Socialist interest in the Haavara agreement began to wane. The yearly contract was only renewed for three months. It seems the Nazi interest was only maintained if it could be justified as serving the regime. It helped Jews leave Germany at no currency loss. It kept transport businesses busy in times of unemployment. As the economy strengthened, however, and the regime became more confident and selfassertive in its political and ethno-nationalistic principles, its long-term plan crystallised and Nazi advocates (supporting its advantages) diminished. Hitler’s support, during the 1937-1939 period, appears to have oddly stood in contradiction to this negative attitude to Haavara. The support for Haavara by Hitler has been used to suggest a genocide shirking, kindly man, who despised the world banks and simply wanted the Jews deported so they could be happily reunited with their homeland. This view is promulgated by some Nazi sympathisers. It supposes Hitler was a philanthropist and largely a champion of Zionist and by extension Jewish concerns: a clear distortion of the facts. But it might even have been a ruse itself, used to promulgate a more caring façade, to mask the more sinister intention of planned genocide and the furtherance of a final solution to the Jewish Question. It was an issue he had always been clearly obsessed with as leader based on his earliest writings. Lacking, however, the documented evidence of a specific order to exterminate Jews in a preplanned programme by him, the answer cannot be definitively laid to rest. In respect to this, it could certainly be claimed nevertheless that Hitler still wanted to be rid of the assumed “subversive” Jewish presence by any means possible.


The Haavara Agreement has been used by conspiracy theorists to rewrite history in a false light. In doing so it supports (intentionally or not) NeoNazi concerns. However, there was certainly no happy or sincere collaboration, despite what Lenni Brenner argues in “Zionism in the Age of Dictators” that has chiefly promulgated this increasingly skewed interpretation of a “Nazi Zionist” collaboration theory. Lies appear to rest at its centre and promulgated as a deliberate attempt to distort and deceive for ideological advantage. Even Brenner himself has been guilty of this, as much as those Neo- Nazi radicals who promulgate it like a Chinese whisper on websites. For example, Mr Brenner takes the words of Rabbi Joachim Printz out of context, ending with his quote about the Nazis “asking” for “more Zionist behaviour”. But this was not his principle argument, as Printz claimed the pro-Zionist overtures of the Nazi state were in reality no more than a “façade”. He emphasises too that “it should not be confused with cooperation on the part of one side or the other”. Another claim for “real collaboration” concerns the legality of the Zionist flag. In two statements, one given to the Guardian in 2016 and repeated in March 2017, Brenner asserts that the Zionist flag was the only other flag allowed to fly in Hitler’s Germany. However, the Nuremberg law cited by Mr Livingstone in this did not reference Zionist flags specifically. Article 4 of the Nuremberg Laws in fact prohibited Jews from flying the Reich flag, or national colours, or for them to display Reich colours. This weakens the supposed collaboration theory. Whilst concerning the caveat for the Zionist flag, it would have proven too risky in any case for Jews to display their own colours, given the general widespread and increasingly 35

vehement targeting against them. Any promise to protect such rights would have merely paid lip service, with little meaning, displaying a disingenuous concern for equality, as racial laws had already stripped Jews of Reich citizenship and the protections it conferred by this time. Article 4 if anything only helped single out Jewish households. On October 3, 1935, Jews could not legally put out German flags on Hindenburg Day, unlike other German households. This effectively marked out and ostracised German “Jews�: lending the impression they were antipatriots, or at least anti-German, even if they were genuine patriots only opposed to the current regime. It tended to give the impression they were outsiders or aliens more concerned with their Jewishness, rather than their nationality or political beliefs. This targeting was propagated by the Nazis too with the proviso that the headquarters of the Zionist Organisation would be permitted to fly the blue-white colours of its own flag in law, even though in practise it hardly ever occurred, as the risk of anti-Semitic violence against them remained ever present. To reiterate, it displayed them as clearly marked targets if they had done so and also stoked discontent in the public at large, which would only help the increasingly Judeophobic political regime to justify further anti-Jewish measures. It gave a very distorted signal as to their supposed concerns as anti-patriotic Jews residing in Nazi Germany. This problem was evident in some German newspapers of the time, who advised Jews against displaying the blue-white Zionist flag, even though there were legal provisions to be able to do so, as it may have led to civil unrest. In any case, only a year after passing the Nuremberg Laws, the Nazi state banned Jews from flying their own colours on German national holidays entirely. While they were free to fly the colours on Jewish 36

holidays, they were again effectively reluctant to do so, with the threat of anti-Semitic violence hanging over their heads. 20 Hitler’s developing ‘madness’ (a condition also differentiated as emerging “later” by Ken Livingstone) is largely used to differentiate his tendency to genocide as being a late period phenomenon brought on by his ailing physical condition, rather than a genuine ideological and pathological hatred nurtured from his younger days. It simultaneously propagates the collaboration theory in turn. The suggestion is he began with the idea of deportation to help both the Germans and the Jews, but then driven by illness and the circumstances of the war became a crazed killer mistakenly It remains true that certain ships departing Germany to Palestine did display the Swastika flag and the Zionist flag simultaneously. This, however, may have been more of a maritime legal requirement than a sign of a genuine spirit of collaboration. A genuine spirit of collaboration nevertheless may have been falsely fostered without discounting more devious anti-Semitic concerns. A coin/ token representing the Agreement, with the Star of David minted with a Swastika, also supposes collaboration, but this again need not be indicative of a lessening of the more general Judeophobia that arose during the Nazi regime, particularly if it was deemed beneficial to the anti-Jewish ethos of ridding Germany of the Jews more generally. 20

“In 1933 and 1934 The SS Untersturmführer Leopold Itz von Mildenstein from the SS Office for Jewish Affairs, travelled to Palestine on fact finding missions and he was accompanied on these tours by a number of Zionist officials. Although his first tour was planned for five months, v Mildenstein stayed over 6 months. He became a welcome guest at many Kibbutz Farms. His pro-Zionist report, later printed in the Reichspropaganda Ministry Official magazine ‘Angriff’ with the title ‘A Nazi travels to Palestine’ (Ein Nazi fährt nach Palästina) was so filled with praise and compliments about the work being done by the German Jewish settlers in Palestine that Goebbels had a special coin minted in honour of the cooperation. The coin had a Star of David on one side and a Swastika on the other. In recognition of this coin, Palestine’s largest fruit growing firm decorated its Placard Advertising signs for Jaffa Oranges, with a huge portrait of King David flanked by Swastika flags.” All this it should be remembered occurred whilst Goebbels was busying himself with the making of disturbing propaganda films concerning the supposedly subhuman Jewish threat and its subverting influence on the German people. A threat that made no distinction or concessions in respect to “Zionist” Jews. 37

intent on destroying the entire Jewish race. It rather seeks to excuse Hitler of any real responsibility in this, by claiming mental illness excuses any culpability or genuine intent. This, however, stands in contradiction to the fact he originally opposed the Agreement and then supported it later on. However, if one accepts that this shifting support was indeed merely a “façade” to perpetuate a ruse to further more evil plans, it is also suggestive of a more sinister intention and a chillingly rational, malevolent mind, bent on preserving (as far as possible) a covert and deliberate programme of mass genocide. In any case, all the purges and racial laws that preceded Hitler’s eventual support of the Agreement were simply the first pragmatic steps towards implementing what appears to have been a deliberate programme of mass extermination, as it was based on overtly professed racial theory.21 A There were only 525,000 Jewish people living in Germany in 1933 (0.75% of the total German population). Discrimination against Jews began immediately after the national seizure of power in 1933. The Nazi Party used anti-Semitic views to gain votes. Using the "stab-in-the-back legend", they blamed poverty, the hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic, unemployment, and the loss of World War I and surrender by the "November Criminals" on the Jews and "cultural Bolsheviks", the latter considered to be in a conspiracy with the Jews. German woes were attributed to the effects of the Treaty of Versailles. In 1933, persecution of the Jews became active policy. This was at first hindered by the lack of agreement on who qualified as a Jew as opposed to an Aryan; this caused legislators to balk at an anti-Semitic law for its ill-defined terms. Bernhard Lösener describing it as "total chaos", with local authorities regarding anything from full Jewish background to  1⁄8 Jewish blood as defining a Jew; Achim Gercke urged  1⁄16 Jewish blood. Those of mixed descent (Mischlinge) were especially problematic in their eyes. The first anti-Semitic law was promulgated with no clear definition of a Jew. Finally, the criterion was set at three or four Jewish grandparents; two or one rendered a person a Mischling. 21

It is notable that the proponents of this law, and the several thousand more that were to follow, most frequently explained them as necessary to prevent the infiltration of damaging, "alien-type" hereditary traits into the German national or racial community. These laws meant that Jews were now indirectly and directly dissuaded or banned from superior positions reserved for "Aryan Germans". From then on, Jews were forced to work in more menial positions, becoming second-class citizens, or to the point that they were "illegally residing" in Nazi Germany. 38

theory Hitler had favoured even since his imprisonment in the 1920s, but which reached its apotheosis in the twilight of the war. 22 By 1938 the Nazis openly threatened to exterminate German Jews with ‘fire and sword’. Das Schwarze Korps printed that all Jews would descend into criminality, and the state would have to exterminate its “Jewish underworld” just as “it eliminates all criminals.” Hitler’s anti-Semitic ideology then could not allow him to publicly support the idea of a Jewish state or deportation more generally, as anything more than an act of political expediency. Support later was most probably a smokescreen for his real long-term plot, which ultimately entailed ridding Germany and later the entire world of the Jewish race, once Western domination had In the early years of Nazi rule, there were efforts to secure the elimination of Jews by expulsion; later, a more explicit commitment was made to extermination. On August 25, 1933, the Nazis signed the Haavara Agreement with Zionists to allow German Jews to emigrate to Palestine in exchange for a portion of their economic assets. The agreement offered a way to leave an increasingly hostile environment in Nazi Germany. By 1939, 60,000 German Jews (about 10% of the Jewish population) had emigrated there. Thereafter, Nazi policy eventually changed to one of total extermination. Nazi doctrine culminated in the Holocaust, or so-called "Final Solution", which was made official at the January 1942 Wannsee Conference. Adolf Hitler read about racial hygiene during his imprisonment in Landsberg Prison: Friedman, Jonathan C. (2011). The Routledge History of the Holocaust. Taylor & Francis. p. 49. He believed the nation had become weak, corrupted by dysgenics, the infusion of degenerate elements into its bloodstream: Evans, Richard J. (2005). The Third Reich in Power. Penguin Press. p. 429. Precisely where Hitler picked up the ideas is uncertain. In his Second Book, which was unpublished during the Nazi era, Hitler praised Sparta, (using ideas perhaps borrowed from Ernst Haeckel), adding that he considered Sparta to be the first "Völkisch State". Hitler, Adolf (1961). Hitler's Secret Book. New York: Grove Press. pp. 17–18 cites that he endorsed what he perceived to be an early eugenics treatment of deformed children: 22

“Sparta must be regarded as the first Völkisch State. The exposure of the sick, weak, deformed children, in short, their destruction, was more decent and in truth a thousand times more humane than the wretched insanity of our day which preserves the most pathological subject, and indeed at any price, and yet takes the life of a hundred thousand healthy children in consequence of birth control or through abortions, in order subsequently to breed a race of degenerates burdened with illnesses.” 39

been secured. It is to be noted also that his later support was strengthened by a new alliance with Haj Amin al Husseni in November 1941. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem suggested killing the Jews (rather than merely expelling them) during his meeting with Hitler in Berlin of that year. Al-Husseini began by declaring that the Germans and the Arabs had the same enemies: “the English, the Jews and the Communists.” He proposed an Arab revolt all across the Middle East to fight the Jews; the English, who still ruled Palestine and controlled Iraq and Egypt; and even the French, who controlled Syria and Lebanon. He also wanted to form an Arab legion, using Arab prisoners from the French Empire who were then POWs inside Germany. He asked Hitler to declare publicly, as the German government had privately, that it supported “the elimination of the Jewish national home” in Palestine. The supposition then that Hitler’s real desire was merely to expel rather than murder the Jews can be shown to be false with this meeting. A great deal of evidence indicates that the decision to murder all the Jews of Europe had been taken sometime during the prior six months. The implementation of the policy, indeed, had begun immediately after the invasion of the USSR on June 22, when Einsatzgruppen squads began rounding up and shooting Jews by the thousands as troops advanced into the USSR. On July 31, Reinhard Heydrich of the SS had received a directive to prepare “the total solution of the Jewish Question”. The construction of death camps in Poland had already begun and Heydrich had already sent out invitations for the Wannsee Conference: the meeting of high German officials from all involved ministries, which discussed the implementation of the “Final Solution” when it convened in January.


Deportation then was not some kindly act, but a means of continuing genocide with shared culpability. Nazi Germany’s “fundamental attitude” in this was clear: Germany stood for “uncompromising war against the Jews” including, obviously, the “national home” in Palestine. “Germany”, he continued, “was at the present time engaged in a life and death struggle with two citadels of Jewish power: Great Britain and Soviet Russia.” Ideologically the war was “a battle between National Socialism and the Jews” and Germany would of course help others involved in this “war of survival or destruction”. Germany, Hitler said, in an unusually honest admission of what was about to happen: “was resolved, step by step, to ask one European nation after the other to solve its Jewish problem, and at the proper time to direct a similar appeal to non-European nations as well.” The Nazi Zionist collaboration theory implies goodwill between the two parties. It implies fairly broad support between them based on shared ideological values. It overlooks the fact that the Haavara agreement was even quite possibly corralling Jews into a trap. Whilst the Party often faced criticism from fellow party leaders for helping Jews, the paradox becomes resolved considering deportation was delivering Jews into the hands of a neighbouring enemy intent on their destruction. In all this, their official policy was to “solve the Jewish Question” and was approved in Hitler’s reply to Al-Husseini that “the Jews are yours”. Any collaboration too must be tempered by the attitude of the Zionist Council, which was in any case split in its concerns about the Haavara Agreement. Haavara may have been seen by the National Socialists as one part of a variety of methods that could be used to solve the Jewish Question: an ultimate genocide, which sought to solve it once and for all. This was the nature of the Final Solution, which was not content with merely an out of 41

sight out of mind compromise. In the interim, it may well have been seen as mutually beneficial by some unaware of the horrors of the later intent, even if it was not happily supported by all. For the Zionist Federation, it was a way to save Jews from the claws of an increasingly hostile regime and attract them to Palestine, while for the National Socialists, signing an international agreement was further proof of its fair mindedness and legitimacy, at least in public, whilst its elite envisioned other more longterm goals. In the short term, the Agreement broke the Jewish movement of boycotting German goods and helped the recovery of German exports at a time when the German economy was still in a severe depression. It offloaded in part the perceived Jewish problem from German soil and helped corral them in Palestine, whilst it co-opted the help of the Muslims, effectively relinquishing them of blame or responsibility. However, the Haavara Agreement did not mean National Socialists were ever pro Zionist as Livingstone and others have supposed. It was more a temporary pact of convenience to further advantage, but it did not in any sense denote a deep collaboration, nor mutual sympathies, or common ideological values. Even during its implementation, it was the source of division and dispute amongst many. It most certainly did not mean the Nazis were not culpable for the genocide of the Jews. The Haavara Agreement aside, Jewish scapegoating in National Socialist Germany effectively signified enforced racial apartheid. This in itself could be defined as genocide and was informed by the post War UN definition. This was the antithesis of the Zionist goal, which was to save, protect and thence transform the idea of what Jewishness entailed, by providing a national sanctuary for the Jewish people. It is, however, suggestive of the possibility that National Socialist policy towards the Jews might not have 42

been quite so clear-cut from the beginning, or worse it was foisted as a deceit. It certainly evolved into an increasing extremism in practical policy over the years, whatever the original intention had been, but the policies at home do little to justify supposed “sympathetic� concerns. In Hitler’s case specifically, it was certainly always characterised by an irrational bigotry, fear and quite obvious racism, which was not simply resorted to in some late fit of insanity for which he cannot be justifiably held responsible. It was a carefully considered world view, evident years before he even came to political power. Within the Party too, a carefully developed ideological basis had been formulated, justified as it was with increasingly unscientific racial theory. The nadir of the hypothesis viewing Jews as a sub-human species.23 This in itself is suggestive of a more Nazis graded humans on a scale of pure Aryans to non-Aryans (who were viewed as subhuman). At the top of the scale of pure Aryans were Germans and other Germanic peoples including the Dutch, Scandinavians, and the English, as well as other peoples such as some northern Italians and the French, who were said to have a suitable admixture of Germanic blood. Slavs were considered as Non-Aryan Untermenschen ("sub-humans") who were to be enslaved and exterminated by Germans. Slavic nations such as the Ukrainians, Czechs, Slovaks, Bulgarians and Croats who collaborated with Nazi Germany but were still being perceived as not racially "pure" enough to reach the status of Germanic peoples, yet they were eventually considered ethnically better than the rest of the Slavs, mostly due to pseudoscientific theories about these nations having a considerable admixture of Germanic blood. In countries where these people lived, there were (according to Nazis) small groups of non-Slavic German descendants. These people underwent a "racial selection" process to determine whether or not they were "racially valuable". If the individual passed they would be re-Germanised, and forcefully taken from their families in order to be raised as Germans. This secret plan (Generalplan Ost or "Master Plan East") aimed at expulsion, enslavement and extermination of most Slavic people. Nazi policy towards them changed during World War II as a pragmatic means to resolve military manpower shortages: they were allowed, with certain restrictions, to serve in the Waffen-SS, in spite of being considered subhuman. Nazi propaganda portrayed people in Eastern Europe with an Asiatic appearance to be the result of intermingling between the native Slavic populations and Asiatic or Mongolian races as sub-humans dominated by the Jews with the help of Bolshevism. At the bottom of the racial scale of non-Aryans were Jews, ethnic Poles, ethnic Serbs and other Slavic people, Romani, and black people. The Nazis originally sought to rid the German state of Jews and Romani by means of deportation (and later extermination), while blacks were to be segregated and eventually eliminated through compulsory sterilization. 23


carefully considered attitude, born over a sustained period of time. It suggests while National Socialist attitudes may have varied as to what the Jewish Question ultimately entailed, the only constants were a fanatical hatred of Jews, the insistence that the Jews were the root cause of all of Germany’s economic, political and social problems, and that the “Jewish” problem as a consequence must be “solved” once and for all. While recorded documents implicitly suggest this was to be ultimately solved by mass extermination, it took time until it became clear how this extermination could be effectively carried out on multiple fronts.24 In the

As Wikipedia states many statements by National Socialists from 1941 onwards addressed the imminent extermination of the Jews. Joseph Goebbels had frequent discussions with Hitler about the fate of the Jews, a subject which they discussed almost every time they met, and which he frequently wrote about it in his personal diary. 24

“February 14, 1942: The Führer once again expressed his determination to clean up the Jews in Europe pitilessly. There must be no squeamish sentimentalism about it. The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that has now overtaken them. Their destruction will go hand in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness.” [31] “March 27, 1942: A judgment is being visited upon the Jews that, while barbaric, is fully deserved by them. The prophecy which the Führer made about them for having brought on a new world war is beginning to come true in a most terrible manner. One must not be sentimental in these matters. If we did not fight the Jews, they would destroy us. It's a life-and-death struggle between the Aryan race and the Jewish bacillus.”[31] In November 1941, Goebbels published an article "The Jews are to blame" which referred to Hitler's prophecy of 1939 and stated that world Jewry was suffering a "gradual process of extermination". [28] On March 13, 1945, Goebbels wrote in his diary that the "rest of the world" should follow Germany's example in "destroying the Jews", he wrote also about how the Jews in Germany at that point had been almost totally destroyed. [32] This diary contains numerous other references to the mass extermination of Jews, including how "tens of thousands of them are liquidated" in eastern occupied territory, [33] and that "the 44

meantime, various temporary methods of “ridding” Germany of its Jewish population: including temporary collaborations, “encouraging” Jews to emigrate, forced relocation, outright evictions, internment and covert murder, were clearly pursued. The immorality exhibited in this was shocking, but justified as a virtue nevertheless. It can never be excused, and should never be simply explained away, just because a convenient theory is simpler to use than the reality of the more complex historical picture. The policies and practise of racial apartheid serve as evidence that the political policy of the Hitler regime was one particularly centred on Jewish persecution wholesale, and this alone destroys the credibility of any notion that promulgates Holocaust Denial, or a Zionist-Nazi “friendship” pact that sought only deportation for German and Jewish benefit: an ethos many who espouse this theory want to claim was maintained throughout the entirety of the war. The latter claim, in any case, fails to take sufficient account of the nature of the war itself, and the manner this event changed everything. It amplified extremism and the need to pursue deceit, betrayal, murder and lies for those that sought victory at any cost. A victory further promoted as a supposed preservation of the purity of the master race from the supposed threat of Jewish miscegenation. greater the number of Jews liquidated, the more consolidated will the situation in Europe be after this war."[34] In reference to this, David Irving is quoted as saying "There is no explicit reference to the liquidation of Jews" by Hitler, whilst critics of Holocaust denial state that it is dishonest to say such a thing when it is entirely contradicted by the diary of one of Hitler's closest associates.[35][36] So too, even the revisionist David Cole has stated that those who consider themselves revisionist have yet to provide an adequate refutation of this document to further their claims.


Furthermore, it was one that increasingly had little concern in maintaining the subtler distinctions of political subsets, in a race that were increasingly seen as a plague. The Haavara Agreement represents but one political programme in a history of Jewish deportation policies over many centuries.25 Conspiracy theorists cite it to justify a more benign Nazi policy, but overlook the fact it would have ultimately required forced deportation en masse from Europe and therefore represented a mass displacement that could not be viewed as anything less than an act of genocide itself. The UN definition on genocide after the war was written with such events in mind. In Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) it states it should be defined as the: “…intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." But further definitions incorporate: Since historic records began there has been evidence of Jewish expulsions. Followers were assumed to be treasonous and socially, economically and religiously subversive. This in turn led to major revolts on the part of the Jewish community. This website provides a brief summary. 25

The revolts have led to the claim of a Jewish revolutionary spirit, which down the ages sought to subvert and destroy. Historical cases are complex and need to be assessed on a case by case basis, rather than some all-encompassing claim that Jews from time immemorial have sought to subvert Gentiles, or for that matter that they were simply vilified as Jews and thus were entirely innocent. However, for a general critical summary of these Judeophobic theories (from the Blood Libel theory that Jews slaughter and use babies’ blood for their rituals, to modern ideas on the Rothschild Bilderburger run “Illuminati," "Zionists", "Globalist banksters" and Zio-Global cabal of the Federal Reserve international monetary elite) see here. 46

“…killings, abduction and disappearances, torture, rape and sexual violence; ‘ethnic cleansing’ or pogroms.” As well as: “Less obvious methods of destruction, such as the deliberate deprivation of resources needed for the group’s physical survival and which are available to the rest of the population, such as clean water, food and medical services. Creation of circumstances that could lead to a slow death, such as lack of proper housing, clothing and hygiene or excessive work or physical exertion. Programs intended to prevent procreation, including involuntary sterilization, forced abortion, prohibition of marriage and long-term separation of men and women, Forcible transfer of children, imposed by direct force or through fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or other methods of coercion. Death threats or ill treatment that causes disfigurement or injury; forced or coerced use of drugs or other treatment that damages health.” All these were clearly enacted and in many cases were political and legal policy in the Hitler regime. They were publicly carried out against the Jewish race and those advocating the religion, even if many also saw themselves as patriotic Germans. Jew’s own shifting attitude towards Zionism also tends to debunk the “Nazi Zionist” collusion. Whilst there was little support for it among Europe’s Jews to begin with, its popularity grew as the threat from Nazism grew. Even discounting the more orthodox sensibility that forbade exile anyway, any shared sympathetic values with Nazi persecutors would only have been a deathblow to the movement. Its popularity, however, markedly grew during the 1933-48 period. Their own patriotism to Germany and the hope that the political regime would be popularly rejected, may have also added to an initial reluctance to leave by many


prior to Kristallnacht. The choice became increasingly limited after that time. 26 Preceding the Haavara Transfer Agreement of 1933,


it is even claimed

by some pro-Nazi pseudo historians such as Dennis Wise, that “World Jewry” had supposedly caused WW2. They had triggered this by declaring economic war on Germany first they claim. This had largely led to a more popularly supported anti-Semitism due to a perceived Jewish persecution of Germans, or at least this is the suggestion in his video film “The Greatest Story Never Told”.28 However, this fallacy assumes the Jewish economic boycott occurred irrespective of any anti-Semitic tendencies that preceded it, rather than as a defensive response. National Socialist policy having arisen as a reaction to the Jews waging this economic war being the final straw. Yet this is a plain distortion, considering Hitler’s comments disparaging Jews in Mein Kampf, written in the previous decade, and which points to a culturally ingrained anti-Semitism. The morning after the Kristallnacht pogroms 30,000 German Jewish men were arrested for the "crime" of being Jewish and sent to concentration camps, where hundreds of them perished. Some Jewish women were also arrested and sent to local gaols. Businesses owned by Jews were not allowed to reopen, unless they were managed by non-Jews. Curfews were placed on Jews, limiting the hours of the day they could even leave their homes. Life became even more difficult for German and Austrian Jewish children and teenagers. Already barred from entering museums, public playgrounds, and swimming pools, they were expelled from the public schools. Jewish youngsters, like their parents, became totally segregated. In despair, many Jewish adults committed suicide. Most families tried desperately to leave at this time, but were prevented from doing so, largely being confined to the Ghetto before being transported to the concentration camps. 26

Edwin Black “The Transfer Agreement: the untold story of the secret pact between the Third Reich and Jewish Palestine”, Macmillian (1984). 27


For details of the economic boycott against German goods see here. 48

This pro-Nazi, anti-Jewish, conspiracy theory then fails to consider that the boycott was simply a reaction to a more prevalent anti-Semitic attitude spreading throughout the country during the economic and political upheavals of the twenties and early thirties. An attitude fostered long before the boycott began, but fomented by the Nazis to grow political popularism. In this respect too, Jews alone could hardly be held responsible for Germany’s economic and political troubles as a small minority, even if they were scapegoated and largely held responsible as the chief usurers and subversives. Thus, the Judeophobic attitude could not simply be dismissed as the beliefs of a few political cranks, as it appears to have been born over an extensive period of time and was very much a latent feature of the national attitude that was stoked due to political circumstance.

(f) Various political developments suggesting an extensive influence The Balfour Declaration, signed in 1917 by Britain’s foreign minister and Lord Rothschild, ultimately created the political prerequisites for a modern Jewish state in Palestine. This fulfilled Zionism’s immediate goal. Anti-Jewish conspiracy theorists suggest because of this that Britain gave away a country owned by others to a third party, in exchange for the cooperation of Jewish influence on Wall Street, partly to fund Britain’s military endeavours in the First World War, and partly to get the US on the side of the British in the war against Germany, which they deem they were partly responsible for starting.


These theories generally overemphasise the Jewish influence politically and financially and assume common strategy due to racial profiling. They claim that Jewish bankers rule democratic governments and utilise nation states for their own devious, pro Jewish purposes, because they have full control of the markets. In this, the theory tends to view democratic nation states as quasi fascistic and ruled entirely by corporations and financial institutions, rather than governments. These exert an overly Jewish influence and bias. To bolster the theory more generally, the nature of the threat of Zionism, its international influence, particularly on the US, is often played up by those who see it as a danger. Some white supremacist groups like The National Alliance in the US emphasise this influence, whilst their critics, the so-called Christian Zionists of Right-wing persuasion defend the other side and are ardently pro-Israel. Certainly, after the Six Day War in 1967, Zionism (post-Zionism) became more self-evidently a significant force in the US. The conspiracy theory has also endured, through a Jewish influence in the private banking sector (Federal Reserve), in a large Jewish presence in the media, and in particular the Hollywood film industry, the academic sphere and the Jewish lobby organisation AIPAC, as well as viewing the broad band of politics in the Democratic Party and via the Neo-conservative movement as a danger. This Jewish presence is indeed relatively strong, but is still belied by its numbers. Right-wing Constitutionalists often cite the Leftist values that such groups propagate in terms of a globalist strategy to deconstruct the nation state and promulgate international totalitarianism via supra national political 50

blocs. They cite a cultural Marxist agenda working in tandem with this, viewing its origins chiefly as a development of the Communist revolutionary strategy, without necessarily identifying the progression as specifically Zionist or Jewish per se. They appear to have little that denotes racism in their ranks or an anti-Jewish emphasis. Indeed, the John Birch Society, being the chief advocates of this perspective, have a laudable and inclusive attitude to a variety of personnel of different racial and religious perspectives in their ranks. In contrast, others tend to want to emphasise the Zionist political influence on US foreign policy more specifically, claiming it also triggered the 21st century neo-colonial wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to further Israel’s security and advantage. Some conspiracy theorists further claim this is for the supposed Zionist strategy of a “Greater Israel” in the future.29 Placing to one side the self-evident Socialist philosophical principles of the Democratic Party, which generally accentuates a collectivist, governmentcentric perspective, the US Neo-cons do indeed comprise an alliance of Jewish and Christian Zionists and Neo-liberal conservatives, with Leo Strauss as their foremost ideological figure. It advocates “Right-wing” Zionism, which bears great similarity to Jabotinsky’s in Palestine, but leftism is also influential: as Neo-cons also have roots among Trotskyites The unilateral US hegemonic objectives detailed in the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) are downplayed or conflated to emphasise primarily Jewish-centric interests and concerns. This largely involves identifying Jewish individuals and emphasising their disproportionate influence: see here and here. However, the Jewish influence is less apparent with a more complete listing and the fact anti-Israel concerns were evident, even amongst some PNAC individuals that were: see here. The “Clean Break" strategy is thought to support the idea of a Greater Israel, but usually fails to note Netanyahu opposed these Neo-conservative plans in the first place. 29


in the US (who like Ben Gurion in Palestine) were essentially Bolsheviks with a “world Socialist” ideal. Of note, too, is that the Soviet Union took a very active part in the work leading up to the admittance of Israel as a member state of the UN. To what extent this was made to reinforce the influence of Jewish Communists in the US during the 50s to strengthen Communist and not simply Zionist, let alone Jewish control, has been variously disputed and assessed. It should be stressed that although Zionism can be termed a Jewish “national Socialist” project (in the literal sense) its political influence in the US is assumed by default of Socialism. Here “Socialism” as “Liberalism” or “Progressivism” (as it is more popularly termed) exerts a considerable influence, and this in turn, it is claimed by anti-Jewish conspiracy theorists, strengthens the Zionist influence, due to their common ideological leanings. This is the by now familiar conflation. In this, both Zionism and Socialism are assumed to have a common global agenda. Conspiracy theorists against this so called “Zio-globalist agenda” claim it finds support through an international

Left leaning


desiring (in its modern

manifestation) globalism in the form of world Socialism, or corporate Socialism with a Jewish bias. The agenda rather contrarily seeks to weaken the nation state, through open border immigration and political collectivism in the form of federal unions, to further Israel’s advantage, whilst Israel is careful to ensure it resists such measures itself. The preservation of Israel as a nation is perceived as its strength by the Nationalists critical of them and the development of federal political blocs (such as the European Union) a threat, but the theory often fails to realise the political strength of said blocs themselves could be counterproductive 52

to Israel’s interests. In this, a presumption is made that federalism leads to chaos and national weakness, which itself is deemed only as a strength and virtue, whereas Israel as a nation in all of this is left to be strangely immune against larger more powerful supra-national blocs. Concerning the extent of Israel’s influence as a nation on such federal political entities, particularly the US, its actual influence is fairly limited. Support from the US does not always extend to a wholesale acceptance of Israeli policy in respect of land acquisition, or military responses against Palestinians, even when it is engaged in a war against Muslim militia itself. Whilst it is true that the influence of Zionism extends into the US, not simply through the political influence of the Democratic Party (a Socialist Party), but also through the Neo-conservative movement and via the influence of AIPAC, the CFR, Federal Reserve, UN and other organisations, it need not necessarily be indicative of Zionism exerting a mainstream influence on US policy, nor on all western governments via unipolar US influence more generally. Jewish influence is certainly more disparate and diffuse. US Socialism, in any case, tends to favour multipolarity in this respect and seeks to draw an international consensus of opinion, rather than exerting its influence arbitrarily upon them. Furthermore, whilst the US does indeed bow to a strong pro- Israel Zionist contingent amongst its political ranks, a coordinated agenda between Zionism and Socialism cannot readily be supposed. Much of the pro-Israel sensibility arises from the Right in the Republican movement. In respect to European Socialist parties too, they are not generally disposed to Israel’s concerns or needs. Indeed, many tend towards pro-Palestinian support. This is particularly so in the UK’s Labour Party for example, which has a strong pro-Palestinian support base, reflecting a fairly 53

mainstream, anti- Israel fanaticism. The conflict of interest weakens the notion of a coordinated strategy between Zionism and Socialism via a Socialist Internationale, limiting the possibility of it exerting a strong global influence. The extent of Left leaning Zionists specifically serving this agenda of course could be made, but it suggests a weak and limited influence by a small minority on the fringes of Socialist party politics in Europe. Libertarians









Constitutionalists (such as The John Birch Society) make more general non-racist claims that through organisations such as the CFR, Federal Reserve and UN, “globalists” are unduly exerting influence and progressively thwarting the emphasis on the values of the US Constitution. Globalists, they state, are implementing a cultural, social and political war against the United States and nation states more generally. This influence is, however, always identified more specifically as a development of the Socialist, Marxist, or Communist agenda, rather than strictly a Jewish strategy per se. JBS tends to trace the conspiracy back to its historical roots in Illuminism, and oppose the idea that the strategy to subvert was particularly Jewish or Masonic in its origins. Anti-Jewish, anti-Zionist activists, however, want to link this Socialist agenda to Zionism specifically. Left leaning “Zionists” they claim want to undermine the political, cultural and social fabric of the nation state and the planet as a whole. In turn, due to Socialism’s international agenda, a “Zio-globalist” alliance is proposed, which effectively seeks to control governments and further a no borders NWO, one world government agenda. Such charges tend to play up the Jewish influence by conflating Zionist strategy to further Israel’s national interest, with corporate 54

strategy that does act globally and contains a number of Jewish CEOs. This is coupled with a general emphasis on cultural Marxism and Liberal Progressivism in sympathy with Jewish concerns. Political correctness adds to the power of this influence, it is claimed, and is identified as being a primarily Jewish strategy, via the influence of such figureheads as Adorno and Marcuse and the Jewish Russian and German intellectuals that originally founded the Frankfurt School, who later emigrated to the United States. The values of the Frankfurt School sought to neutralise the perceived dangers of totalitarianism and authority figures such as were exemplified by Hitler the dictator by deconstructing and liberalising hierarchical power structures of the kind most often embodied in social institutions. In turn however this has tended only to exacerbate Judeophobic attitudes by those anti-Semites who see Jewish ideas as an existential danger to national political cultural and social institutions.

(g) Jewishness and its misperceived threat to cultural identity Racial prejudice against Jews has not simply been a peculiarly recent political phenomenon, nor has it merely been confined to the horrors of the Holocaust inflicted under Hitler’s regime. It has spanned centuries and of course transcends national boundaries. Confining ourselves to the last few centuries, however, and focusing specifically on Germany, as but one example, whilst pre-existent prejudices were certainly fomented by the ideas of Karl Marx and Socialism’s economic, anti-capitalistic views, it was also strengthened by those nationalists of the 18 th and 19th centuries in search of a specifically German cultural identity.30 Wagner, for Anti-Semitic attitudes were conveyed through the Volkskunde. See here. As it is stated: “‘Volkskunde originally had a complete absence of bigotry. However, it would gradually change due to the catalyst of nationalistic propaganda, which masked a 30


example, typified such concerns in his writings, which were indicative of a growing anti-Semitic attitude evinced amongst certain artists seeking a purer, more specific Germanicism, even prior to the founding of the nation in 1871. Consequently, this was not simply a political response to Jewish interference after the signing of the Versailles Treaty, nor was it simply due to a dangerous revolutionary spirit emanating from the Jewish Pale prior to the Russian Revolution. It had historically existed as a Judeophobic socio-cultural phenomena, predating even Germany’s founding as a nation. 31 blatant and sinister racist political agenda. As the 19th century progressed, Germans interpreted the Volk as a rallying point, which enabled them to see themselves as a superior native race and set themselves apart from other peoples.” Consequently, given that the other major demographic group at this time in Germany was the Jews, they became associated with the antithesis of ‘Volkish’ values. These Volk ideas increasingly caused Germans to see the Jews as the biological and social ‘other’. The ‘otherness’ of the Jews being presented through both physical and psychological stereotypes. The intimate association of anti-Semitism with ‘Volkish’ ideals started in the era of Romanticism in the early 19th century and lasted through the Third Reich and World War II. It was consistently present, not only in public establishments, such as government and educational institutions, but also was a constant thematic element in works of art of all genres, including literature, musical compositions, theatre-opera, and film. Wagner’s Das Judenthum in der Musik, (Jewishness in Music) is a critical view on the influence of Jews in German culture and society during the 19th century. The essays written in his final years were also controversial, with many readers perceiving them as an endorsement of racist beliefs. A case could be made that some of Wagner's operas also contain adverse caricatures of Jews, particularly the avaricious untrustworthy conniving dwarves of Das Rheingold. 31

Wagner's essay espoused more generally an attack on supposed 'Jewishness' in all German art. The essay purported to explain popular dislike of Jewish artists in what constituted true German culture, but largely focused on his personal dislike for Mendelssohn and particularly Meyerbeer, who although not being mentioned by name, is clearly a target. His racist tendencies are evident when he wrote that the German people were repelled by Jews due to their “alien” appearance and behaviour: “with all our speaking and writing in favour of the Jews' emancipation, we always felt instinctively repelled by any actual, operative contact with them.” The racist critique was coupled by extension to their musical abilities. This enabled him to provide justification for competitors in preference to the genius and superiority of his own German Musikdrama as the art of the future. A form which increasingly 56

An example of this can be found in Richard Wagner’s anti-Jewish attitude which was fairly clear and (whatever the political and cultural claims to justify it) typified an attitude born from bigotry, prejudice and the idea of a Germanic supremacism that existed aside from any Jewish influence. Indeed, a large part of its characterisation required an antisemitic perspective. It was an attitude based in irrationality and narcissism however, whatever the later politico- philosophic rationale used to justify it. That it was born of prejudice is evident, as he had no real reason to personally dislike Jews, nor see them as thwarters to his own musical ambitions. In fact, the opposite was the case, as some Jews had even helped his career. He had been assisted by Meyerbeer financially during his own monetary hardships as an example. Meyerbeer had also used his influence by arranging for the premiere of Rienzi, Wagner's first successful opera, in Dresden in 1842. He had been further assisted in the promotion of Tannhauser in Paris in 1871.

sought to incorporate Schopenhauerian aesthetic principles and expand on his ideas of music as the highest representation of the Will. Concerning his own Judeophobia, Wagner more generally argued that Jewish musicians were only capable of producing music that was shallow and artificial, because they had no connection to the genuine spirit of what constituted the true character of the German people. In the conclusion to the essay, he wrote of the Jews that “'only one thing can redeem you from the burden of your curse: the redemption of Ahasuerus — going under!” Although this has been taken by some commentators to mean actual physical annihilation, in the context of the essay it seems to refer only to the eradication of Jewish separateness and traditions. Wagner advises Jews to follow the example of Ludwig Börne by abandoning Judaism. By doing this, Jews could then take part in a “regenerative work of deliverance through self-annulment; then are we one and undissevered!”. He was, then, calling for the assimilation of Jews into mainstream German culture and society - although there can be little doubt, from the words he uses in the essay, that this call for a kind of self-nihilism was prompted at least as much by anti-Semitism, as it was by a desire for a new assimilation in a cultural and social sense. 57

Wagner’s anti-Jewish prejudice caused Meyerbeer to later express bewilderment over Wagner's perceived written abuse of him, his works and his faith. It appears that while the dislike of Jews was an implicit personal prejudice of Wagner’s, it was also a more general attitude, typical amongst certain non-Jewish German nationalists and intellectuals of the time. At the heart of this anti-Jewish attitude rests a familiar paranoia that identifies an alien threat. It is one that implies a collaborative Jewish plot to further only Jewish interests. A fear that supposedly poses a direct threat to the indigenous race, even if the race is nationally and therefore politically defined. The integrity and purity of the nation’s faith and the integrity of its culture is also defined in limited terms. Wagner typified the attitude. As the musical contributions by Jews such as Felix Mendelssohn and Meyerbeer’ were disparaged. Whilst they were also blamed for sidelining non-Jews who were equally deserving of success. This attitude excused Wagner’s initial lack of success, but was more born of bitterness not the reality. It was justified with the claim that many Jews had risen to prominence and influence in theatrical circles during his time of ignominy, stifling his more deserved fame. The acknowledgement was biased and hypocritical however, as their willingness to assist him was largely ignored in favour of his own prejudices against any who stood in his way. This is rather a narcissistic stance and a typical pitfall of the Romantic. It emphasises the primacy of genius and the priority of the heroic individual as the values that needed to be embraced in the living of the artistic life, rather than any philanthropic or humanitarian motive. That his personal 58

concern was narcissistic was evident, as he often demanded monarch and commoner alike recognise him as something akin to a musical demi-god or hero. His own Musikdrama being the fulfilment of music being the “music of the future� and the fulfilment of what true Germanicism would supposedly entail.


Section II A Presence Misunderstood


(1) The Jewish Illuminati conspiracy (a) Weishaupt and his founding of the Society Clearly Churchill did not see Zionism as a global or national threat (in spite of its Socialist features) when he first wrote his essay on Jews. He even saw Zionism as laudable in 1920 (a few years before re-joining the Conservative Party) chiefly due to its emphasis on nationalism. He felt differently about Bolshevism however and traces the conspiratorial movement by “International Jews” back to Spartacus-Weishaupt. “This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing.” Note here, Churchill claims the movement originated “among the Jews”, alluding to the last and most recent Bolshevik revolution (1917) which he considers arose as a result of a particularly dangerous kind of thinking, evident even in the period leading up to the French Revolution. He suggests, furthermore, that it really is a “worldwide conspiracy”, a threat to “civilisation”, where global domination was seen as its ultimate longterm objective. The strategy had a long historic legacy, Churchill claimed, predating Bolshevism, as it can be traced back to Adam “Spartacus” Weishaupt, a 61

Jesuit educated Grand Master of the Illuminati. Weishaupt was thought to be of Jewish ancestry and by virtue of this, Churchill appears to be implying, those Marxists, Karl Marx, Trotsky, et al. (who also happened to be revolutionaries of Jewish lineage) were its most recent activists. It was these atheistical Jews, then, who posed a threat to Western civilisation. Adam Weishaupt was the son of George Weishaupt, a rabbi in Ingolstadt. Bavaria. After his father’s death, when he was 5 years old, Weishaupt came under the tutelage of Johann Adam Freiherr von Ickstatt (both his grandfather and godfather) and thence took the name Ickstatt. Ickstatt was a Professor of Law at the University of Ingolstadt and guided the young Weishaupt to abandon the Jewish faith. Weishaupt was henceforth educated in a Jesuit school; an order he later came to despise when he renounced the priesthood and espoused atheism. From here his study of law, economics, politics and history also came to embrace various occult philosophies. He graduated from the University of Ingolstadt, [Bavaria] in 1768. He then served four years as a tutor, until he was promoted to Assistant Instructor. Around this time, in 1771, Weishaupt met a Danish trader named Franz Kolmer, who initiated him into Egyptian magical practices and the doctrines of Manicheanism; after which he developed an anarchist spirit. This spirit did little to dampen his success however, as by 1772, Weisthaupt had become, like his grandfather, a Professor in Law himself. The next year he was made a Professor in Cannon Law; a post which had been held by Jesuits for 90 years. They had founded most of the Universities and exerted strict control to eliminate Protestant influence.


None of this suggests, however, that his revolutionary thinking was the product of a particularly Jewish mindset. It does, however, point to an Enlightenment sensibility, which helped formulate an anti-Christian political radicalism and revolutionary perspective. Particularly in this respect it is believed that Weishaupt derived his ideas concerning the destruction of the Church from Voltaire’s writings. An example being a letter written to King Frederick II (the Great), a reputed high-profile Mason: “Lastly, when the whole body of the Church should be sufficiently weakened and infidelity strong enough, the final blow (is) to be dealt by the sword of open, relentless persecution. A reign of terror (is) to be spread over the whole earth, and ... continue while a Christian should be found obstinate enough to adhere to Christianity.” Weishaupt was initiated into Freemasonry in the Lodge “Theodor zum guten Rath (Theodore of Good Council)” in Munich in 1777. However, soon after, he became disappointed with Freemasonry, as he considered it not secret enough and with a tendency to being merely a social club. It is disputed as to whether Weishaupt had founded the Illuminati the year previously, or whether he went on to found his own more secret order based on what he had learned in the Jesuits and the Freemasons, similarly fusing it with Occultism and “Enlightenment” values and a revolutionary spirit. The order was first called the “Perfectibilists” and later the “Order of the Illuminati”.32 Weishaupt founded the “Ancient Illuminated Seers of Bavaria” which became known as the “Order of the Illuminati”, a name derived suggestively from Luciferian teachings, and which meant initiates were the “Holders of the Light.” In Latin, it means, the “enlightened ones.” In layman's terms, it means “to illuminate,” or “to give light.” It refers to someone in some special sense who is “enlightened”, seen as a seer or a spiritual and intellectual daimon, or even a god on Earth. Satan as a fallen angel, was originally known as Lucifer, the “Bearer of Light” and being that the group's name evolved from this, we can see the underlying connotations in the nature of its goals. In addition, May 1st as the founding day became a great day for all Socialist nations, where it was known as May Day: a day also celebrated by pagans and witches on Walpurgisnacht as Goethe, a prominent Illuminus, makes clear in Faust. The 32


Luciferian connection to revolutionary activism is extensive. For example, it similarly arises in the dedication by Saul Alinsky to Lucifer in his “Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals” (1971). It is open to debate whether Weishaupt’s Illuminati was in fact Luciferian, or truly atheist in its beliefs. It may have been outwardly theistic or deistic to new initiates, but it was certainly anti-Christian in its higher degrees. Weishaupt’s title was hardly new. There were earlier groups, with similar names, such as the 'Illuminated Ones' founded by Joachim of Floris in the 11th century, who taught a primitive, supposedly Christian doctrine of “poverty and equality.” The Rosheniah, or “Illuminated Ones” was a group located in Afghanistan during the 16th century, who sought the “illumination” from the Supreme Being, who wanted a class of perfect men and women. After reaching the fourth degree, “Enlightened One”, the initiate would receive mystical powers. A claim similarly made by the Illuminati. When the final degree was reached, they were told they had achieved perfection. It has been said that their purpose was to influence people of importance to establish harmony in the world and were devoted to fight the tyranny of the Moguls, who were the rulers of India. The group survived until the 1700’s. The Alumbrados was another movement in Spain during the 16th and 17th centuries that believed that when a person achieved a certain degree of perfection, they experienced a vision of God, and then entered into direct communication with the Holy Spirit. At this point the soul would enter a state of limbo -- not advancing or going back. Once this level was achieved, a person didn't have to perform any good works or get involved in any religious activity, because they had received the 'light.' Once they had received the 'light,' they would possess superior human intelligence. Their members mainly came from reformed Franciscans, and the Jesuits. Their unusual claims caused them to be criticised and persecuted during the Inquisition which issued Edicts against them in 1568, 1574, and 1623. Ignatius de Loyola, founder of the Jesuits, was put in jail for being a member. This condemnation forced the movement into France, where in 1654 they surfaced as the Illuminated Guerinets. There is no evidence that Weishaupt's Order of the Illuminati is a continuation of any of these groups. However, their teachings and philosophy may have had an influence on him, as he was well read. Most assuredly, there is a legacy of ideas and beliefs that tend to interconnect. The 'Illuminati' similarly was not a new name. but a name used by an occult German sect that existed in the 15th century and similarly professed to possess the 'light' received from Lucifer. It was also the name of an organisation that was influenced by the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg, which was established in 1760 at Avignon. Swedenborgian philosophy also greatly influenced the Illuminated Theosophists in 1766 at Paris, then later in London. Blavatsky’s Theosophical Movement similarly cited Luciferian and occult influences in her “Isis Unveiled” and “The Secret Doctrine”. . 64

The political mission of the order was the abolition of all monarchical governments and state religions in Europe and its colonies. In 1774, he published a fictitious article called Sidonii Apollinarus Fragment, which he said prepared the people for the doctrine of reason, the goals of which would ensure: “Princes and nations will disappear without violence from the earth. The human race will then become one family, and the world will be the dwelling of rational men.” He wrote of the aims being: “To make the perfecting of reasoning powers interesting to mankind, to spread the knowledge of sentiments, both humane and social, to check wicked inclinations, to stand up for suffering and oppressed virtue ... to facilitate the acquirement of knowledge and science.” These rather laudable public aims differed from the private, as Weishaupt himself admitted. Starting with only five members (Weishaupt and his inner circle), the Illuminati became fully operational in 1778. Referencing its concerns for secrecy and deception Weishaupt wrote: “The great strength of our Order lies in its concealment, let it never appear, in any place in its own name, but always covered by another name, and another occupation. None is fitter than the three lower degrees of Freemasonry; the public is accustomed to it, expects little from it, and therefore takes little notice of it... For the Order wishes to be secret, and to work in silence, for thus it is better secured from the oppression of the ruling powers, and because this secrecy gives a greater zest to the whole…” This was to be achieved by: “…union, but this is rare. Nothing can bring this about but hidden societies. Hidden schools of wisdom are the means which we will one day free men from their bonds.” The Order was correspondingly made up of three degrees: Novice, Minerval, and Illuminated Minerval. It was organised in a manner similar 65

to Freemasonry and the Jesuits, but no ex-Jesuits were to be admitted, except by special permission, for they “must be avoided as the plague”. Their rites and ceremonies were similar to that of the Masons, but their concerns were more atheistic and covertly revolutionary in a manner distinct to them. Their aim, he said, was to have a one-world government and ensure the enlightened elite governed the world, thus preventing future wars. One of their early programmes was to distribute antireligious material critical of clerical leaders, who were seen as obstacles to social progress, and to oppose the “enemies of the human race and of society.”33 All members were required to adopt classical names. Weishaupt adopted the name “Spartacus” (the liberating leader of the slave insurrection in ancient Rome). 34 His second in command being, Xavier von Zwack, a lawyer to Prince von Salm, was known as “Cato”; Nicolai, the bookseller, was “Lucian”; Professor Westenreider was “Pythagoras”; Canon Hertel was “Marius”; Marquis di Constanza was “Diomedes”; Massenhausen was “Ajar”; Baron von Schroeckenstein was “Mohomed”; and Baron von Mengenhofen was “Sylla”, etc. 35 Their headquarters in Munich, Germany was known as the Grand Lodge of the Illuminati (or Lodge of the Grand Orient) and had the code-named “Athens”. Among their other four lodges: Ingolstadt was known as

David Allen Rivera “Final Warning: A History of the New World Order Illuminism and the master plan for world domination” (1994). 33

Weishaupt used the epithet “Spartacus” as he considered himself a liberator of the human consciousness and of the dogmas and religions that enslaved men’s minds. 34

David Allen Rivera “Final Warning: A History of the New World Order Illuminism and the master plan for world domination” (1994). 35


“Ephesus”. Heidelberg as “Utica”, Bavaria as “Achaia” and Frankfurt was known as “Thebes”. The calendar was similarly reconstructed along Masonic lines, and here the months were known by names reminiscent of the Hebrew language: January was known as “Dimeh” and February as “Benmeh”, etc. They dated their letters according to the Persian Era, named after the king who began to rule in Persia in 632 B.C., Jezdegerd. Their new year began on March 21st, which some sources say is also New Year’s Day for witches.36 Few knew the supreme direction of the Order. Only those within the inner circle, known as the “Areopagite” (“Tribunal”), were aware of the true purpose. To all others, Weishaupt simply said that he wanted “union” and a one-world government to prevent all future wars. This was not simply a personal spiritual “union” with a greater, more perfect knowledge that lacked the grace of God, but a political union. A collectivist ethos reminiscent of later claims to political union by the Communists in Russia and the later European Union who justify its progression to totalitarianism as an endeavour necessary to secure “peace” in Europe. Naive people, with money to burn, were especially welcomed and recruited rather like “useful idiots” to a cause they were barely aware of. As Weishaupt wrote: “These good people swell our numbers and fill our money box; set yourselves to work; these gentlemen must be made to nibble at the bait ... But let us beware of telling them our secrets, this sort of people must always be made to believe that the grade they have reached is the last.” 36

Rivera (op cit),


As was discerned later in his exposed writings, this required deliberate deception: “One must speak sometimes in one way, sometimes in another, so that our real purpose should remain impenetrable to our inferiors.” The real purpose being concealed but being: “…nothing less than to win power and riches, to undermine secular or religious government, and to obtain the mastery of the world.” New Initiates were told that the Order represented the highest ideals of the Church, that Christ was the first Illuminist, and his secret mission was to restore to men their lost liberty and equality as before the Expulsion from Eden. At first this was presented in a Christian context, as Weishaupt said that Christ exhorted his disciples to despise riches in order to prepare the world for the community of goods that would do away with property ownership. Later the goal became overtly revolutionary for those programmed sufficiently to the cause. Writing to Zwack he claimed: “The most admirable thing of all is that great Protestant and reformed theologians (Lutherans and Calvinists) who belong to our Order really believe they see in it the true and genuine mind of the Christian religion.” However, when one of his followers would reach the higher degrees, the truth was revealed: “Behold our secret ... in order to destroy all Christianity, all religion, we have pretended to have the sole true religion... to deliver one day the human race from all religion.” Women were also enlisted, as they were later to be by various Socialist causes. “There is no way of influencing men so powerful, as by means of women. These should therefore be our chief study; we should insinuate ourselves into their good opinion, give them hints of


emancipation from the tyranny of public opinion, and of standing up for themselves...” The prime reason being less with equality and emancipation, but because: “This sex has a large part of the world in their hands.” Deception and fraud, the key principles of the Illuminati, divided female members into two groups: one group being society women, to lend the air of respectability, while the other group “would help to satisfy those brothers who have a penchant for pleasure”. The Illuminati also used monetary and sex bribes to gain control of men in high places, blackmailing them with the threat of financial ruin, public exposure and fear of death; a manner similar to later Mafia practises.37 After joining the Eclectic Masonic lodge “Theodore of Good Counsel” in Munich towards the end of 1778, Weishaupt supposedly came up with the idea of merging the Illuminati with the Masons. Xavier von Zwack became a Mason on November 27, 1778, and working with Abbe Marotti, purposely divulged the secret of the Order. By the middle of 1779, the Munich Masonic lodge was (according to Rivera) under their influence.38 During the first four years, about 60 active members had been recruited by a committee known as the “Insinuators” and close to 1,000 had become indirectly affiliated with the Order. Soon, three more lodges were added.

David Allen Rivera “Final Warning: A History of the New World Order Illuminism and the master plan for world domination” (1994). 37

David Allen Rivera “Final Warning: A History of the New World Order Illuminism and the master plan for world domination” (1994), 38


In 1780, Weishaupt asked Baron Franz Friedrich von Knigge (who was not Jewish) for help to grow even more numbers. The Baron was a German Freemason, born near Hanover in 1752, in a locale where Mayer Rothschild also worked for the Oppenheimer family. Much has been made of this “Jewish” connection. The Baron was recruited and given the pseudonym of “Philo”. (b) The influence of Knigge in shaping Illuminism Knigge studied law at Gottingen, served in the courts of Hesse-Cassel and Weimar, and (like Herder and Goethe) was a well-known writer of Romanticism, poetry and philosophy. He joined the Masonic lodge of Strict Observance, which was dedicated to the elimination of the occult sciences, which were widely practiced. Unable to do that, they were paradoxically forced to accept it. Knigge achieved the rank of Brother Commander and had the title of Knight of the Swan. He assisted in the establishment of a new Masonic lodge at Hanau. Because of his developing exposure and interest in the occult, magic and alchemy, he joined the Rosicrucians, a secret organisation that dated back to the fourteenth century, but which claimed its origins in Ancient Egypt. He later renounced alchemy and devoted his studies to the development of principles and practises that similarly would allow mankind to regain the perfection they once had before the expulsion of Adam and Eve. His initial plan was to reform Masonry. However, when he approached the Marquis of Constanza (a notorious Illuminist) he was informed that the Illuminati had already achieved the aim. In order to lure him, therefore, Weishaupt portrayed the Order as achieving the greatest advances in science and philosophy. Since this fell in line with Knigge's thinking, he was naturally drawn into the Order. 70

Knigge’s organisational skills and influence soon led him to become the head of the Westphalia Circle. He was instrumental in pushing further the infiltration by the Illuminati into Masonic lodges. As Weishaupt wrote of him: "Philo is the master from whom to take lessons; give me six men of his stamp and with them I will change the face of the Universe ... Philo does more than we all expected, and he is the man who alone will carry it all through.” The Illuminati was not a happy hierarchy however and many had become dissatisfied with Weishaupt’s dictatorial manner. Knigge was firmly supported by members of the Areopagite, who felt that Weishaupt's supreme authority should be shared with others, and they supported Knigge’s proposed modifications for the organisation in 1781. From 1780 the growth of the Order was rapid through its affiliation with the Masonic lodges. (c) The Wilhelmsbad Congress By December 1781 an agreement had been reached between the Masons and the Illuminati which incorporated the first three degrees of Masonry.39 The alliance became official at the Congress of Wilhelmsbad (July 16th to August 29th, 1781) which was attended by Masons, Martinistes and representatives from other secret organisations from Europe, America and Asia. All were sworn to an oath of secrecy. Comte

The changes in the hierarchy of the order incorporating the first 3 lower degrees of Masonry (according to Rivera (op. cit) consisted of NURSERY: 1) Preparation 2) Novice 3) Minerval 4) Illuminatus. SYMBOLIC: (Masonry) 1) Apprentice 2) FellowCraft 3) Master SCOTCH: (Masonry) 4) Illuminatus Major (Scotch Novice) 5) Illuminatus Dirigens (Scotch Knight). THE LESSER MYSTERIES 1) Presbyter (or Priest) 2) Prince (or Regent). THE GREATER MYSTERIES 3) Magus 4) Rex. 39


de Virieu, a Mason from the Martiniste lodge at Lyons, upon his return home when questioned about the Congress commented: “I will not confide to you. I can only tell you that all this is very much more serious than you think. The conspiracy which is being woven is so well thought out, that it will be, so to speak, impossible for the Monarchy and the Church to escape it.”

After these developments the Order grew markedly between 1781 and 1784. From Bavaria it spread into the Upper and Lower Rhenish provinces, Suabia, Franconia, Westphalia, Upper and Lower Saxony; and outside Germany into Austria and Switzerland and beyond. Total known numbers reached over 3000 members from various professional spheres. Besides Weishaupt, Zwack and Knigge (as David Allen Rivera op. cit notes) some of their more notable members were: Baron Bassus (“Hannibal”). Count Massenhausen (“Ajar”). Marquis of Constanza (“Diomedes”). Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick (“Aaron”). Gabriel Victor Riqueti de Mirabeau (“Leonidas”). Johann Joachim Christoph Bode (“Amelius”). Baron de Busche (“Bayard”). Francios Emile Babeuf (“Gracchus”). Duke of Orleans. Duke Ernst Augustus of Saxe-Weimar-Coburg-Gotha. Prince Charles of Hesse-Cassel. Johann Gottfried von Herder. Count Klemens von Metternich. 72

Catherine II of Russia. Count Gabriel de Mirabeau. Duke Karl August of Saxe-Weimar. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. Joseph II of Russia. Christian VII of Denmark. Gustave III of Sweden. King Poniatowski of Poland. By the time of the 3rd Masonic Congress in Frankfurt in 1786, the Illuminati goals were stated as: 1.) Pantheism for the higher degrees; atheism for the lower degrees and the populace. 2.) Communism of goods, women, and general concerns. 3.) The destruction of the Church and all forms of Christianity, and the removal of all existing human governments to make way for a universal republic in which the utopian ideas of complete liberty from existing social, moral, and religious restraints, so absolute equality and social fraternity should reign. Students who were members of wealthy families with international leanings were recommended for special educational programmes, given scholarships and attended special schools. As Weishaupt wrote: “I propose academies under the direction of the Order. This will secure us the adherence of the Literati. Science shall here be the lure.� He also wrote of influencing institutions:


“We must acquire the direction of education, of church, management of the professorial chair, and of the pulpit.”

To ensure that the activities of the Order would remain a secret, a warning as to the consequences of betraying the Order was included in the ceremony of initiation. Like the secret Pythagorean order of Ancient Greece (6th century BC) they would be threatened with death on revealing the inner secrets. A sword would be pointed at the initiate with the threat: “If you are a traitor and a perjurer, learn that all our Brothers are called upon to arm themselves against you. Do not hope to escape or find a place of safety. Wherever you are, shame, remorse, and the rage of our Brothers will pursue you, and torment you to the innermost recesses of your entrails.” Weishaupt’s control of the Order was weakening by 1783. He argued repeatedly with Knigge. While he preferred to work in secrecy, Knigge wanted to move on to more substantial things and this required more public dealings. In January, 1783 Knigge wrote in a letter to Zwack: “It is the Jesuitry of Weishaupt that causes all our divisions, it is the despotism that he exercises over men perhaps less rich than himself in imagination, in ruses, in cunning ... I declare that nothing can put me on the same footing with Spartacus as that on which I was a first.” He also complained of the deceit and immorality of Weishaupt’s approach: “I abhor treachery and profligacy, and I leave him to blow himself and his Order into the air.” On April 20, 1784 Knigge left the Order, followed by Baron Bassus, Count Torring, Prince Kreitmaier and others. In July, Knigge signed an agreement promising to return all documents in his possession and to 74

keep quiet on what he knew about their activities. Rivera notes that Knigge’s departure had been hastened by the discovery that Weishaupt was a worshipper of the Devil. (d) The public exposure and suppression of the Order The exposure of the Order really began in October 1783 when Joseph Utzschneider, a lawyer who had dropped out of the Illuminati in August, presented a document of its activities and goals to the Duchess Maria Anna. He was irked by his slow promotion and the constant questioning as to his loyalty. The Duchess gave the information to the Duke. On June 22, 1784, Duke Karl Theodore Dalberg, the Elector Palatinate of Bavaria, after discovering that its goal was to “rule the world” by overthrowing all civil government, sought to have all secret societies lacking government approval shut down. On March 2, 1785, he issued a proclamation identifying the Illuminati as a branch of the Masons and ordered that their Lodges be shut down. The government began a war against the Order by initiating judicial inquiries at Ingolstadt. After being replaced at the University in February, Weishaupt fled across the border into Regensburg, finally settling in Gotha, where he found refuge with another Illuminati member, the Duke of Saxe-Gotha. In April, 1785, Utzschneider was able to convince three other members to defect. They were fellow professors at the Marienburg (Marianen) Academy who began to have doubts about the validity of the Illuminati’s principles when they received no mystical powers. They were also disgruntled over Weishaupt's tyranny. Cossandey, Grunberger, and Renner went before the Court of Inquiry on September 9, 1785, where they 75

supplied valuable information, such as membership lists, and revealed their aims and goals, which they consolidated into the following six points: 1. Abolition of the Monarchy and all ordered government. 2. Abolition of private property. 3. Abolition of inheritance. 4. Abolition of patriotism. 5. Abolition of the family, through the abolition of marriage, all morality, and the institution of communal education for children. 6. Abolition of all religion. The aim of these points was to divide the people politically, socially, and economically; to weaken countries and create a one-world government. They testified that “all religion, all love of country and loyalty to sovereigns, were to be annihilated...� The government pardoned all public officials and military leaders who publicly admitted membership. Those who didn't, and were discovered to be members, lost their rank and standing, were removed from office, and openly disgraced and humiliated. Weishaupt was supposedly preparing to set his plans into motion for the French Revolution, which was slated to begin in 1789. In July, 1785, he instructed Zwack to put their plans in book form. This book contained a history of the Illuminati, and many of their ideas for expansion and future endeavours. A copy was sent by courier (identified as Jacob Lanze) to Illuminati members in Paris and Silesia. However, after leaving Frankfurt, as Lanze rode through Regensburg (another source says it was Ratisbon) on horseback, he was struck by lightning and killed. The authorities found 76

the document and turned it over to the government. Another source indicates the possibility that he may have been murdered, and the documents planted on him to shift the blame. Xavier Zwack, a government lawyer and prominent member whose name was on Renner’s list, had his house in Landshut illegally searched by the police in October 1785 and his papers seized. He was dismissed from his position. Many books, documents, papers and correspondence were discovered including over 200 secret letters written between Weishaupt and Areopagite members. The following year more information was taken from the houses of Baron Bassus and Count Massenhausen. Among the confiscated documents were tables which contained secret codes and symbols, calendars, geographical locations, insignias, ceremonies of initiation, recruiting instructions, statutes, a partial roster of members, and nearly 130 seals from the government which were used to forge state documents.40 The leaders of the Order who appeared before the government’s Court of Inquiry testified that the organisation was dedicated to the overthrow of church and state. However, these revelations and the publication of their documents did little to alert the general public because of their unbelievable claims. New measures were deemed necessary so the leaders of the Order were arrested and formally interrogated, then forced to renounce the Illuminati.

By 1786 the government gathered all of the confiscated documents and published them in a book called “Original Writings of the Order and Sect of the Illuminati” which was circulated to every government and crowned head in Europe, including France, to warn them of the impending danger. 40


On August 16, 1787, Dalberg issued his final proclamation against the Illuminati: anyone found guilty of recruiting members was to be executed, while those who were recruited, would have their property confiscated and then be deported. Zwack, who was banished, sought sanctuary in the Court of Zweibrucken, where he was later appointed to an official position in the principality of Salm-Kyburg. He contributed to the Illuminati movement in Holland. He was later summoned by Dalberg, as the government tried to deal with the problem of fugitives who might attempt to regroup. Zwack fled to England. On November 15, 1790, another Edict announced anyone found to be an active member was to be put to death. The following year a list of 91 names of alleged members was compiled. They were hunted down and banished. In the midest of all this, the apparent demise of the Order was taken in its stride by Weishaupt who wrote: “The great care of the Illuminati after the publication of their secret writings was to persuade the whole of Germany that their Order no longer existed, that their adepts had all renounced, not only their mysteries, but as members of a secret society.” Weishaupt’s strategy had always been prepared for this eventuality as he states: “By this plan we shall direct all mankind. In this manner, and by the simplest means, we shall set in motion and in flames. The occupations must be allotted and contrived, that we may in secret, influence all political transactions ... I have considered everything


and so prepared it, that if the Order should this day go to ruin, I shall in a year re-establish it more brilliant than ever.”41 The German Union has been cited as proof of this ability to regroup under new false fronts. A theory of the John Birch Society. Dr. Charles Frederick Bahrdt (1741-1793), an Illuminati member, Mason, and German theologian who was the professor of Sacred Philology at the University of Leipzig took advantage of the Illuminati's apparent demise by recruiting several of its members in 1787. Bahrdt, the son of a minister, called his group the “German Union for Rooting Out Superstition and Prejudices and Advancing True Christianity”. What true actually signified is anyone’s guess. 41

In 1785, Bahrdt had received an anonymous letter containing the plans for the German Union which was signed “From some Masons, your great admirers.” That same year, he was visited by an Englishman who urged him to establish the Union promising to link it with the British Masonic structure. In 1787, he received another letter containing more details. Bahrdt had done some religious propaganda work for Weishaupt, “to destroy the authority of the Scriptures,” and it was commonly believed that it was Weishaupt who was directing the activities of the Union behind the scenes. The German Union appeared to be a Reading Society, and one was set up in Zwack's house in Landshut. In respect to this kind of literary society front Weishaupt wrote: “Next to this, the form of a learned of literary society is best suited to our purpose, and had Freemasonry not existed, this cover would have been employed; and it may be much more than a cover, it may be a power engine in our hands. By establishing reading societies, and subscription libraries, and taking these under our direction, and supplying them through our labours, we may turn the public mind which way we will ... A literary society is the most proper form for the introduction of our Order into any State where we are yet strangers.” In a pamphlet entitled “To All Friends of Reason, Truth and Virtue”, Bahrdt wrote that the Union’s purpose was to accomplish the enlightenment of people in order to disseminate religion, remove popular prejudices, root out superstition, and restore liberty to mankind. Near the end of 1788, Frederick Wilhelm, the King of Prussia, worried about its growth and commanded Johann Christian von Wollner, one of his ministers, write an opposing view to Bahrdt's pamphlet, called the “Edict of Religion”. Bahrdt responded by anonymously writing another pamphlet of the same name ridiculing it. In 1789, a bookseller by the name of Goschen wrote a pamphlet called More Notes Than Text, on the German Union of XXII, a New Secret Society for the Good of Mankind in which he revealed that the group was indeed a continuation of the Illuminati. The German Union membership initially consisted of just 17 young men, and about five of Bahrdt's friends. Knigge helped him to develop the structure, which was divided into six grades: Adolescent, Man, Elder, Mesopolite, Diocesan and Superior. A “Society 79

To hide their subversive activities, the highest members of the Order began to masquerade as humanitarians and philanthropists. The Order moved their headquarters to London, where it began to grow again. Weishaupt told his followers to infiltrate the lodges of Blue Masonry and to form secret circles within them. Only Masons who proved themselves as Internationalists and were atheists were subsequently initiated into the Illuminati. (e) The limited Jewish influence on Weishaupt The Jewish link to Adam “Spartacus” Weishaupt is well known, but not necessarily an influence on his own personal bent to radicalism. His parents, who were Jews, had clearly been a limited influence on his thinking, as they died when he was an infant. After he was taken into the care of his godfather/grandfather he was converted to the Roman Catholic Church. Instead of attending the yeshiva then, Weishaupt attended monastery schools and later a high school run by the Society of Jesus. 42 It appears the Jewish influence was less of an influence on his radicalism than his dabbling in Freemasonry, Occultism and Rationalist philosophies

of the 22” named the “Brotherhood” constituted its inner circle. They planned to have magazines and pamphlets published, but by 1788, Bahrdt still only had 200 members. The German Union represented Weishaupt’s “corrected system of Illuminism”, but never really got off the ground because of its openness, which provoked hostile attacks from the government and members of the clergy. In the end, Bahrdt left the group and opened up a tavern known as “Bahrdt's Repose”. The German Union ceased to exist after he died in 1793. 42 The Society of Jesus is a male religious congregation of the Catholic Church. The members are called Jesuits. The society is engaged in evangelisation and apostolic ministry in 112 nations on six continents. Jesuits work in education (founding schools, colleges, universities and seminaries), intellectual research, and cultural pursuits. Jesuits also give retreats, minister in hospitals and parishes, and promote social justice and ecumenical dialogue.


as a young man, which caused him to then abandon even his Christian faith. The apparent Jewish influence on his radicalism appears weak, unless one supposes he was in fact a covert malevolent believer. Anti-Semites want to say his Jewishness was the reason he was a radical. This once prominent Jesuit (they claim) was still a Jew and a believer in Talmudic Judaism, a religion that encouraged a vile loathing of Christians and historically a subversive, revolutionary spirit.43 The argument may well rest on the historical view of the conversos (many of whom were forced to convert or converted voluntarily) as subversives. This view gave rise to the Inquisition centuries earlier. Because many of the leading Jesuits of that time were in fact Jews, they reason, they were acting as a 5th Column to subvert as of old. The argument rather presupposes malevolent intent by all, irrespective of genuine conversion, because of Jewishness. It omits too the fact many Jews were forced to conversion in order to save their own lives. Those Jews who refused often fled the country to avoid persecution in any case. This, however, need not excuse all who did convert. The Jewish infiltration theory is justified by J. Nadal Morey who notes Jesuits took pleasure in admitting those of Jewish ancestry amongst their ranks. “In 1491 San Ignacio de Loyola was born in the Basque province of Guipuzcoa, Spain. His parents were Marranos and at the time of his birth the family was very wealthy. As a young man he became a member of the Jewish Illuminati order in Spain. As a cover for his crypto Jewish activities, he became very active as a Roman Catholic. This does not fit with his personal banning of Jesuits in the Order nor his very clear disdain for them even if intellectually some of their ideas were adapted. 43


On May 20, 1521 Ignatius (as he was now called) was wounded in a battle and became a semi‑cripple. Unable to succeed in the military and political arena, he started a quest for holiness and eventually ended up in Paris where he studied for the priesthood. In 1539 he had moved to Rome where he founded the “Jesuit Order,” which was to become the most vile, bloody and persecuting order in the Roman Catholic Church. In 1540, the current Pope Paul III approved the order. At Loyola’s death in 1556 there were more than 1000 members in the Jesuit order, located in a number of nations.” The theory tends to suppose malevolent intent in their guise as Jesuits. But this view runs counter to the ethics expected of orthodox believers, both Jewish and Christian.44 Generally, then, subversion of host nations would have been contrary to the ethos of God’s commands. The Jesuit Order in its founding was very much Jewish (all five of its founding members have been claimed to be Marrano Jews) but it need not be suggestive of any radical imperative that sought the political subversion

Ignatius of Loyola founded the society after being wounded in battle and experiencing a religious conversion. He composed the Spiritual Exercises to help others follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, not for military usurpation. In 1534, Ignatius and six other young men, including Francis Xavier and Peter Faber, gathered and professed vows of poverty, chastity, and later obedience, including a special vow of obedience to the Pope in matters of mission direction and assignment. Ignatius's plan of the order’s organisation was approved by Pope Paul III in 1540 by a bull containing the “Formula of the Institute”. 44

The members of the society were supposed to accept orders anywhere in the world, where they might be required to live in extreme conditions. Accordingly, the opening lines of the founding document declared that the Society was founded for “whoever desires to serve as a soldier of God” (todo el que quiera militar para Dios), to strive especially for the defence and propagation of the faith and for the progress of souls in Christian life and doctrine.” Whilst Jesuits are thus sometimes referred to colloquially as “God's Soldiers”, “God's Marines”, or “the Company” (alluding to Ignatius’ history as a soldier) the order was not a covert military brigade of Knights. The Society participated in the Counter-Reformation and later in the implementation of the Second Vatican Council. There is little doubt as an order they worked in the world and were not expected to wear formal habit as an order. They modernised the Middle Ages emphasis on fasting with an emphasis on introducing health guidelines. However Loyola’s military activities were rescinded and his mystical conversion and apostolic mission did not denote the activities of a warlike revolutionary. 82

of a nation, or a strategy bent on global domination, unless global domination be viewed as a purely religious mission of conversion around the world.45 Notably Christianity has this as an important component of its mission, as does Islam. Judaism, however, is notable for its lack of proselytising to induce conversion. The assumption is that Jewishness equates in some sense to subversion through fake conversion to implement political radicalism; a strategy again bent on furthering Jewish interests. But this appears to be a slur on Jews and Judaism generally. The historian Henry Kamen’s “Inquisition and Society in Spain in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries” questions whether there were even strong links between conversos and Jewish The specific issue here is whether subversion was affected for Jewish interests and not whether the conversos, bent on practising conversion and proselytising to others, was considered subversive in itself. The latter claim is not specific to Jews in any case, who do not proselytise to induce conversion. A case could be made in a broader sense however that seeking to convert itself is an act of subversion. In this, the act of free choice is always the determinant. Christians generally view the power of the Holy Spirit to have worked upon the individual, and an acceptance of Jesus Christ as the Messiah necessarily requires the individual to make a decision to accept Him into their life as a matter of free choice. This cannot be done by coercion or force of outside human influences they wish to claim. 45

The deepest revelation concerning the canonical texts of Jesuit Philosophy is that the history of mankind has been on a path since the beginning of time, which ultimately seeks unity with the Divine. In this, fighting for detachment is essential for any genuine self-development. This requires competence and discernment to adopt a regime of self-discipline. Once we detach ourselves from the temporal, we are able to discern our truer nature and desires, the Divine unity in all things. and the deeper paradox between life and death and good versus evil. To further this aim, the early Jesuits were preachers and catechists who devoted themselves to the care of the young, the sick, prisoners, prostitutes, and soldiers; they were also often called upon to undertake the controversial task of confessor to many of the royal and ruling families of Europe. The society entered the foreign missionary field within months of its founding when Ignatius sent Saint Francis Xavier, his most gifted companion, and three others, to the East. More Jesuits were to be involved in missionary work than in any other activity, save education. By the time of Ignatius’ death in 1556, about 1,000 Jesuits were already working throughout Europe and in Asia, Africa, and the New World. By 1626 the number of Jesuits was 15,544, and in 1749 the total was 22,589. 83

communities as has been claimed. Whilst Yitzhak Baer wants to state, “the conversos and Jews were one people”, emphasising the racial lineage. Yet one need not suppose this identification prompted acts that transcended purely religious sensibilities. In this, Kamen tends to downplay the racial bond and emphasises the unique situation of the conversos when he claims, “Yet if the conversos were hated by the Christians, the Jews liked them no better.” In this he documents that: “Jews testified falsely against them [the conversos] when the Inquisition was finally founded.” This is suggestive, therefore, of conversos not being in cahoots with at least those Jews as part of some wider Jewish covert plan of subversion, either racially or religiously. It emphasises their roles as religious mavericks, at odds in some respects with the edicts of the Catholic Church and Judaism, but they were religiously minded Christians nevertheless. According to the Catholic Encyclopaedia, Weishaupt’s world view was a project of: “illumination, enlightening the understanding by the sun of reason, which will dispel the clouds of superstition and of prejudice.” It was unwelcomed by the Catholic Church, but sought itself to redress the deficiencies of organised religion: “At a time, however, when there was no end of making game of and abusing secret societies, I planned to make use of this human foible for a real and worthy goal, for the benefit of people. I wished to do what the heads of the ecclesiastical and secular authorities ought to have done by virtue of their offices.”46

Schneider, Heinrich (2005) [1947]. “Quest for Mysteries: The Masonic Background for Literature in 18th Century Germany”. Kessinger Publishing. p. 24 (n.49). 46


Encyclopaedia references vary on the goal of the order: some such as New Advent saying the Order was not egalitarian, or democratic internally, but sought to enforce the doctrines of equality and freedom throughout society; while others, like Collier’s, have said the aim was merely to combat religion and foster rationalism in its place. His objectives in either case (based on discovered documents) clearly involved the propagation of covert, subversive revolutionary activism, but the extent of this influence and its success to this end and whether it endured after it officially demised is less clear and will probably never be completely known or measured. What can be said with certainty is Weishaupt used Freemasonry not only as a departure for his own “purer” brand, but to harvest recruits for his own quasi-masonic revolutionary society. His goal of “perfecting human nature” through re-education sought to achieve a communal state with nature, free of the influence of government and organised religion. It was then a highly subversive, anti-establishment endeavour. In this, he sought (along with Zwack and Knigge) to present the system as superior to masonry after reorganising the ritual structure. He also downplayed Masonic ideas of nationalism, theism and its loyalties. He sought to greatly expand its reach and influence by emphasising the virtues of internationalism.

The concern for maintaining secrecy however

effectively limits anything other than a speculative assessment of how truly effective, or far reaching, its ideas and influence actually was. The Illuminati doctrine is often classified as an Enlightenment philosophy, but lies outside Immanuel Kant’s definition as a humanistic evolution by the individual out of his “self-imposed immaturity” through daring to “make use of his own reason, without the guidance of another”. 85

Whilst the humanism is emphasised, Kant’s philosophical system argues that faith in a personal, omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent God is a necessary consequence of being moral. This rational endeavour had little to do with the personal feeling of faith or superstition, but emphasises individual liberty nevertheless. Illuminism, however, was an anti-theistic concern. Much was couched in the tenets of superstitious ritual, even if it denounced superstition and traditional religious practise itself. A great deal of dogmatic instruction and control as to what initiates should read and think was also required; a more general characteristic of religious cults and indeed political totalitarianism. 47

To draw this extensive analysis of the Illuminati to a close, the contradiction for believers in the seeking to blame Weishaupt’s Jewishness for his subversive activities, reveals it only as an ill-informed, anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. Clearly, as Weishaupt abandoned his faith and became a dabbler in occult philosophies, opposing the dogma of “organised” religion, there is no reason to blame Jews or Judaism more specifically. Jewishness was an irrelevant factor of his parentage and childhood, which bore little influence on his own world view as an adult. Religious sensibilities were cast aside and new gods embraced. In this, neither did Weishaupt seek to fool anyone with the deceit of being a fake

Riedel has commented that this approach to illumination, or enlightenment, constituted a degradation and twisting of the Kantian principles. He writes: 47

“The independence of thought and judgement required by Kant… was specifically prevented by the Order of the Illuminati’s rules and regulations. Enlightenment takes place here, if it takes place at all, precisely under the direction of another, namely under that of the Superiors.”- Dr. Wolfgang Riedel, “Aufklaerung und Macht', in Die Weimarer Klassik und ihre Geheimbuende, ed. by W. Mueller-Seidel and W. Riedel, Koenigshausen und Neumann, 2002, (p. 112). 86

Christian. He renounced orthodox religion and yet clearly sought to implement political subversion. This ran counter to the principles of Judaism and Christianity. It generally expressed a tendency to embrace a philosophical and political perspective, viewed as both immoral and dangerous. But neither was Illuminism a positive offshoot of those Enlightenment thinkers that founded so much that was good about the values of the US Constitution. (f) The Illuminati in America Augustin Barruel’s “Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism” (1797) and John Robison’s “Proofs of a Conspiracy” (1798) publicised the theory that the Illuminati had survived and represented an ongoing and live international conspiracy. This included the claim not only that it was behind the French Revolution, but also sought to cause the American revolution. Both books proved to be very popular, spurring reprints and citations by others. A prime example of this being “Proofs of the Real Existence, and Dangerous Tendency, Of Illuminism” by Reverend Seth Payson, published in 1802. Some of the response to this was critical, for example Jean-Joseph Mounier’s “On the Influence Attributed to Philosophers, Free-Masons, and to the Illuminati on the Revolution of France”, but such books whilst disputing the ideas also gave much to a broader understanding of the Order.48

Barruel's contemporaries soon rejected his book. Mounier, a member of the National Assembly during the beginning of the French Revolution, insisted the Revolution broke out because of the failure of the established authorities to handle a number of crises that occurred. He blamed the parliaments of France for attempting to become rivals of the monarch and the spirit of intolerance in France. Mounier believed the Revolution was a result of social and political tensions and he did not believe there was a planned conspiracy. Joseph de Maistre, a well-known counterrevolution theorist, also did not accept Barruel’s theory. He wrote a short rejection of the Memoirs in which he termed Barruel’s claims “foolish” and “false”. Maistre rejected the idea of the Freemasons being partly responsible, perhaps because he was 48


The works of Robison and Barruel influenced opinions in the United States.

In New England, Reverend Jedidiah Morse and others gave

sermons against the Illuminati. Their sermons were printed and the concern of their influence was even followed in newspapers. Concern died down in the first decade of the 1800s, although it revived in the AntiMasonic movement of the 1820s and 30s. Some historians today believe that the Illuminati reached America through the Freemasons, and there is no doubt that Washington also believed the doctrines of the Illuminati were present there; as can be seen in two letters written in response to Reverend G. W. Snyder who had written on Aug. 22, 1798 of a book that “gives a full Account of a Society of Free-Masons, that distinguishes itself by the Name of ‘Illuminati’, whose Plan is to overturn all Government and all Religion, even natural.” In the first Washington letter dated September 25th 1798 he states: “Sir: Many apologies are due to you, for my not acknowledging the receipt of your obliging favour of the 22d. Ulto, and for not thanking you, at an earlier period, for the Book you had the goodness to send me I have heard much of the nefarious, and dangerous plan, and doctrines of the Illuminati, but never saw the Book until you were pleased to send it to me. The same causes which have prevented my acknowledging the receipt of your letter have prevented my reading the Book, hitherto; namely, the multiplicity of matters which pressed upon me before, and the debilitated state in which I was left after, a severe fever had been removed. And which allows me to add little more now, than thanks for your kind wishes and favourable sentiments, except to correct an error you have run into, of my Presiding over the English lodges in this Country. The fact is, I preside over none, nor have I been in one more than once or twice, a member himself, and did not believe that the 3000 Illuminati were as powerful or widespread in their influence as Barruel had made them out to be. 88

within the last thirty years. I believe notwithstanding, that none of the Lodges in this Country are contaminated with the principles ascribed to the Society of the Illuminati. With respect I am &c.”

In response, Reverend Snyder sent Washington a copy of the book “Proofs of a Conspiracy”, in which John Robison claims to have exposed Freemasonry as being infiltrated by the Illuminati. 49 In a second letter dated October 24, 1798 Washington writes: “Revd Sir: I have your favor of the 17th. instant before me; and my only motive to trouble you with the receipt of this letter, is to explain, and correct a mistake which I perceive the hurry in which I am obliged, often, to write letters, have led you into. It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am. The idea that I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of seperation). That Individuals of them may have done it, or that the founder, or instrument employed to found, the Democratic Societies in the United States, may have had these objects; and actually had a seperation of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned. My occupations are such, that but little leisure is allowed me to read News Papers, or Books of any kind; the reading of letters, and preparing answers, absorb much of my time.”

John Robison, “Proofs of a conspiracy against all the religions and governments of Europe, carried on in the secret meetings of freemasons, Illuminati, and reading societies” , George Forman, New York, 1798. 49


It is notable in the first Washington reply that he is keen to clarify his own non-involvement with English Freemasonry and his presence “once or twice” in Lodges “within the last thirty years.” Washington also told the Reverend that he didn't share his opinion about the Illuminati's presence in America through English Masonic Lodges; but he was convinced that Illuminati’s “diabolical tenets” and Jacobin’s “pernicious principles” had reached America through individuals, or in the “Democratic Societies”, a fact that was too self-evident even to be queried. He tends to speak of these separately and emphasises the ideological influence, but he does also query whether either is truly susceptible of separation. Some writers have agreed with Washington and noted similarly that the goals behind such societies were effectively the same as the revolutionary organisations in France. Societies such as the Jacobin Club, or the Girondists of the Society of the Friends of Truth (Amis de la Verité), also known as the Social Club (Cercle social) which Marx in “The Holy Family cites as an influence.50 These may have been fronts for the Illuminati, or The Society of the Friends of Truth was established by Nicholas Bonneville and Claude Fauchet, who announced its birth in the popular press on 21 February 1790. The original purpose of the French revolutionary club was to become a “clearinghouse” for correspondence between scholars from all over Europe. In the spirit of its founders, the club wished to cultivate a “public mandate” under which its activities would be governed. Thus, its newsletter, Mouth of Iron (La Bouche de fer), solicited letters from readers to comment on political affairs and to issue denunciations of counter-revolutionary plots. 50

The club was actually launched in the month of October 1790, when the sessions “of the Universal Confederation of the Friends of Truth” at the Cirque du Palais-Royal started. Before an audience that ranged from five thousand to eight thousand people a week, Claude Fauchet, self-appointed “Attorney of Truth”, lectured on Rousseau’s The Social Contract. The club also formulated political theories on democratic government, ultimately dismissing direct democracy in favour of a system that resembled a popularly elected dictatorship that could be dismissed by the citizens whenever its actions became insupportable. The Social Club also advocated steps toward a more equitable distribution of wealth, always with an eye to Rousseau’s ideals, but the club did not support land reform. 90

working in close cahoots with them. In respect to the Jacobins, the debate was open as to whether their tenets and principles could even be “separated”. In respect to others, a cited meeting between Weishaupt and Robespierre during his travels in France -a key figure in the creation of the Jacobin Club- is often viewed as significant to prove this collaboration. Concerning the Illuminati influence in America, many Jacobins certainly went there, and tried to stir a second revolution as Washington suggests. After overthrowing King Louis XVI in France, the Jacobins sent an ambassador to America, Edmond-Charles Genêt, to build support for the French Revolution. Washington, preferred, however, to keep America neutral. A factor in his lack of support for Thomas Payne during his imprisonment in Luxembourg Prison in 1793. In fact, all the Founding Fathers –except Franklin and Jefferson- were appalled by the violence of the French Revolution. But Genêt was determined to involve America, even if it meant overthrowing Washington and his new government. A proof of the extent to which Genêt would go can be proved in a letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, in which he says: “You certainly never felt the terrorism excited by Genêt in 1793. When 10,000 people in the streets of Philadelphia, day after day, threaten to drag Washington out of his house and affect a revolution in the government, or compel it to declare war in favour of the French Revolution.” 51 Jefferson, however, was a firm supporter of the Jacobins and Genêt and was not concerned about blood spilling in France to achieve the goal.


Lester J. Cappon, “The Adams Jefferson Letters”, pp. 346-347. 91

Indeed, he even states he would have preferred to see half of the earth desolated than see the French Revolution fail. 52 Nevertheless, there are still problems associating Jefferson to any secret society based less on his political beliefs but on his actual membership of lodges, clubs and societies. This is actually the opposite case with respect to Benjamin Franklin, who seems to have belonged to many. Jefferson’s membership to any secret society remains unproved, and it is an issue that is still widely debated to this day. The only way to irrefutably confirm if an important historical figure of political influence was a Freemason for example is through the membership records of the lodge he was initiated in, and it is a plain fact that there is no record of Jefferson ever being initiated in any American lodge, whatever circumstantial evidence surrounds him. Nor is he listed on any record with an association to Illuminism in America. However, what is not clear is whether he was initiated into the Grand Orient of France (to which Franking and other key Jacobin and French revolutionary figures also belonged) during his role as the American ambassador in France from 1785 to 1789. It is a matter Thomas Jefferson, who served as minister to France for three years (1785-89) described the events as "so beautiful a revolution". He also affirmed a hope it would sweep the world. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton even confirms that Jefferson helped start the French Revolution, and wrote in a letter to a friend dated May 26, 1792 that he: "…drank freely of the French philosophy, in religion, in science, in politics. He came from France in the moment of fermentation, which he had a share in inciting." 52

Jefferson himself affirmed in a letter he wrote to Brissot de Warville in Philadelphia dated May 8, 1793 that he was “eternally attached to the principles of the French Revolution.” In 1987, during a trip to the United States by Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and his wife on visiting the Jefferson Memorial, referred to Jefferson as “one of the world's greatest thinkers.” It is interesting to note that during the Communist revolution (1917) Nikolai Lenin said: “We, the Bolsheviks, are the Jacobins of the twentieth century...” 92

of fact, that Jefferson offered his residence in France as a meeting place for the French rebels. He was also reported to have attended meetings at the Lodge of the Nine Sisters in Paris, part of the Grand Orient of France.53 The same lodge believed to have been utilised as a meeting place to organise strategy for the French Revolution. 54

William R. Denslow, “10,000 Famous Freemasons, Volume II, Transactions of the Missouri Lodge of Research”, Ovid Bell Press Inc., Missouri, 1960. 53

In 1787, the Bavarian government published in Munich all the details of the conspiracy, under the title “Einige Originalschriften des Illuminaten Ordens (The Original Writings of the Order of the Illuminati)". Copies of the entire conspiracy were sent to the heads of Church and State in Europe, but the warning was ignored. The Illuminati order then vanished; though it’s not clear what happened to more than 2000 adepts recruited over a period of 10 years throughout Europe. What is a fact is that not all the members were arrested; not even in Germany (i.e. Ernest II, nor Weishaupt himself). The assumption, being in respect to the French Revolution, that many were still active agents., However, even if they weren’t being marshalled by the Illuminati, all the key figures from the French Revolution (either Freemasons or founders of the Jacobin Club) appear conspicuously to broadly share Weishaupt’s revolutionary philosophy (i.e. Lafayette, Robespierre, Louis Philippe II Duke of Orléans, etc.). 54


(2) The Jewish Freemason conspiracy (a) Some background Freemasonry’s historic origins can be traced to local fraternities of stonemasons, which from the end of the fourteenth century regulated their qualifications. However, even here there is no clear mechanism by which these local trade organisations became today’s Masonic Lodges. The earliest rituals and passwords largely hail from “Speculative Masons”, who did not practise the craft, but who met to debate the meaning of philosophical mysteries, as they were understood at that time, around the turn of the 18th century. As such, they were a milieu of their time. 55 The operative lodges that arose first in England and Scotland around then, do show continuity with the rituals developed in modern lodges, but even in these, there is not necessarily worldwide uniformity. Such “Speculative Masons” chiefly hailed from the well-educated and affluent classes such as merchants, scholars and politicians, as they do to this day. There was no specifically Jewish favouritism in this particularly. In fact in some respects it was rather non inclusive. Masonic rituals and the principles they represent have often striven for a coordinated or universal approach, but have met with varying degrees of success.56 Coordination to present a united network has generally been a It is clear the institutions, rites, and principles of a secret society devoted to the promotion of fraternal feeling and a moral order existed among Masons. In its modern form it appears to have arisen in London in 1717, and thence spread through the British Isles to the Continent, reaching North America about 1729. 55


problem. Disparity in fact was more of a feature between various lodges around the world. For example, the ritual form on which the Grand Orient of France was based was abolished in England in the events leading to the formation of the United Grand Lodge of England in 1813. However, the two jurisdictions did continue in “amity” or mutual recognition, until events of the 1860s and 1870s drove a wedge between them. Another example of this tendency were the events of 1868 onwards, when the Supreme Council of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of the State of Louisiana was recognised by the Grand Orient de France, but regarded by the older body as an invasion of their jurisdiction. The resolution of the Grand Orient the following year that neither colour, race, nor religion could disqualify a man from Masonry prompted the Grand Lodge to withdraw recognition, and it persuaded other American Grand Lodges to do the same. Yet disagreements such as these also suggest there was no coordinated attempt to subvert, nor can they readily be considered as forming an effective united front for any widespread Jewish subversion network, let alone an effective global Illuminati subversion network, that might have sought influence via the more established Freemason fraternities around the world. 57 The minutes of the Lodge of Edinburgh (Mary's Chapel) No. 1 in Scotland do show a continuity from an operative lodge in 1598 to a modern speculative Lodge. By this measure, it is reputed to be the oldest Masonic Lodge in the world. However, universalism is less of a feature of Freemasonry than nationalism and these were determined in the main by the political, social and cultural influences in which they were placed. 56

Today there are three strands of Freemasonry in France, which extend into the rest of Continental Europe:• Liberal (also adogmatic or progressive) – Principles of liberty of conscience, and laicity, particularly the separation of the Church and State. • Traditional – Old French ritual with a requirement for a belief in a supreme being. (This strand is typified by the Grande Loge de France). • Regular – Standard Anglo-American ritual. 57


(b) The Jewish presence in lodges Jews had been involved in Masonic lodges in the early 1700’s in England, but their influence had been limited. Preceding this, Jews more generally had not been permitted to participate in many of the ordinary activities of life, let alone climb the social ladder via gentleman’s clubs. When the Enlightenment concept of the universality of all people took hold however, it brought about a society where people’s religious beliefs did not affect their rights as citizens. Due to this new sensibility, Jews were gradually permitted to exercise the rights of citizenship and to pursue their lives as they wished. Some educated Jews viewed joining Freemasonry as part of their “emancipation” from the old legal and social exclusions. Many society leaders were Freemasons and joining such a fraternity tended to prove they were being accepted. They could also use the opportunities presented by their participation in such organisations with Christians, to prove the two could prosper by mutual association. Freemasonry’s Enlightenment philosophy of the brotherhood of all people in principle indicated Masonry would accept Jews as equal members. However, in general practise, Masonry as a movement did not always welcome Jews. For example, although a Jew, Edward Rose, became a Mason in a London lodge in 1732, this event excited attention and led to other lodges generally debating whether they should permit Jews at all.

The term Continental Freemasonry was used in Mackey's 1873 Encyclopaedia of Freemasonry to “designate the Lodges on the Continent of Europe which retain many usages which have either been abandoned by, or never were observed in, the lodges of England, Ireland, and Scotland, as well as the United States of America.” Today, it is more frequently used to refer to only the Liberal jurisdictions typified by the Grand Orient de France itself. Disparity in any case has historically often created a diffusion of a universal and coordinated influence. 96

Eventually, significant numbers of Jews did join English Masonry and were welcomed. French Masonic lodges, and those in different countries affiliated with the French Grand Orient during the Napoleonic occupations, also admitted Jews. After the revolution in France, the number of Jewish applicants to the Dutch Freemasonry lodge La Bien Aimee also increased. However, the Dutch generally had mixed feelings about Jewish emancipation and membership, as they considered they might take over. Consequently, La Bien Aimee agreed to admit: “nine gentlemen of the Jewish Nation and Religion ... [under the] stipulation that none of these Gentlemen of the Jewish nation and Religion ... now or consequently will ever be able or permitted to be nominated, elected and even less appointed to any administration of the lodge.” 58

It is probably not surprising that the country with the longest history of anti-Jewish prejudice in Freemasonry, reflecting its views in society, is Germany. Most lodges there did not permit Jews to be members, and they even questioned visiting Masonic brethren about their religion at the doors of their lodges. They barred Jews, even if they were Masons of good standing in other lodges abroad. This caused lodges in England, the Netherlands, and the United States to protest, but they did not retaliate against visiting German Masons, nor did they seek to lift the limitations attached to their membership. 59 German officials feared secret societies as potential sources of subversion, so the Prussian government became involved in Masonry as a means to MK Schuchard “Restoring the Temple of Vision: Cabalistic Freemasonry and Stuart Culture”, Leiden (2002) p.535. 58

Today, some parts of French Masonry are officially neutral about religion and do not even require a belief in God. In Scandinavia, however, Masonry is officially Christian and as a consequence does not accept members of the Jewish faith. 59


monitor it. The restrictions generally undermine any notion that German Freemasonry, or the Illuminati that recruited from it, could have been majority Jewish, or provided a front for a more organised, specifically Jewish subversion network invisible to government surveillance. Weishaupt’s Jewish parentage clearly didn’t prevent him from joining a lodge in Bavaria. Presumably he presented himself as a Christian, a theist or an Enlightenment advocate of some kind, before leaving. In this, the attitude of the future Kaiser Wilhelm I (the patron of the three Berlin Grand Lodges for many years) is instructive. Wilhelm decided that Jews could be permitted, but only if there was unanimous agreement. Since one of the Grand Lodges was known to be adamant against accepting Jews, this forced the tolerant lodges to conveniently defer admittance period, without exacting blame. Various claims were made by those who wanted to keep Jews out of Masonry entirely. Some said Masonry was a Christian institution and Jews could not become members unless they converted. Some said only Christians could possess the good character necessary to achieve Masonic ideals. Others said Masonry used Christian symbols and prayers, but Jews could become Masons if they simply complied with requirements: such as swearing on the Christian Gospels and eating pork at Masonic meals (both violations of halacha) without having to convert. However, there was also the catch 22 argument that if a Jew voluntarily complied with the practices, he then showed he was contemptuous of his own religion. He therefore displayed a bad character and was deemed unworthy to be a Mason in the first place. Another argument was that Jews preferred to mix with their own kind anyway and should not try to push their way into Masonic lodges where they were not wanted, would feel uncomfortable, and would only make others uncomfortable in turn. Finally, there was the 98

most obvious Judaeo-phobic perspective: the Jewish religion was inherently evil, or that Jews themselves were in some sense racially and morally evil and could never be permitted in Masonry, even if they genuinely converted. The Illuminati, whilst originating from Weishaupt, was clearly not inspired by Judaism or even “Jewish thinking” simply because Weishaupt was born a Jew. Equally the limited Jewish presence in Freemasonry, heralded to prove a Jewish dominated influence, is another simplistic slur. Anti-Jewish conspiracy theories tend to beef up the Jewish financial connection, particularly when speaking of the Rothschilds, but the particular influence of Jews across the Lodges appears if anything, a rather tolerated later presence, rather than one that initiated and inspired the Order. The immorality of such a presence is in any case too often assumed by such authors as Nesta Webster, who found a link to the Jews via Talmudic Judaism and Cabbalistic Occultism, which were considered to be the prime elements in the practise of their “wicked” initiation rituals. But such rituals were not reflective of Judaism specifically; either in its more mainstream, let alone Kabbalistic traditions. In any case, Christian Cabbalism too was in the ascendency and popular in esoteric circles at this time. It had previously exerted an influence on such notables as John Dee in the Elizabethan era, but owed just as much to the influence of Neoplatonism, occult philosophies and alchemical symbolism, as much as it did to pure Jewish tradition. Later in the 19 th century, the syncretic Luciferian philosophy (“Theosophy” or “Perennial” Philosophy) of the Blavatsky School popularised such holistic ideas, enabling it to achieve even mainstream prominence with the general public of the British Empire. The syncretic approach to religion and religious ritual, however, 99

typically tended to form new perspectives, which adapted and reconceptualised the beliefs and traditions of the past. The Masonic rituals were similar in this and incorporated supposed Egyptian and Greek rituals from Mystery traditions with Chivalric code, Templarian influences, Christian Cabbalism and theurgic and “craft” symbolism. A number of traditions were used, along with biblical references, but resulted in something new. Indeed, this reconceptualised newness, helped to make Masonry almost a fashionable association amongst gentlemen of a certain class and education, fascinated by worldly travel, during the 18 th and 19th centuries. The origins of Masonry, then, had less to do with pure or authentic tradition, and more with a rebranded fusion of past and present philosophies, that were exerting a new and increasing influence. (c) Freemasonry’s supposedly Jewish imperative and rituals The causes of the French Revolution are speculated upon in Augustin Barruel’s “Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism”. Volume One deals with the “philosophes” behind the Revolution, led most notably by Voltaire who “consecrated his life to the annihilation of Christianity”.


The first volume centres on “philosophes” and examines the anti-Christian conspiracy that was spread most notably by the Jew hating Voltaire in 1728. Barruel returned to the principal texts of the Enlightenment and found reasons to draw close links between these “philosophes” and the anti-Christian campaigns of the Revolution. Here he argued the philosophes had created an age of pretend “Philosophism”, which they used in their battle with Christianity. Their commitment to liberty and equality were actually commitments of “pride and revolt”. The Enlightenment philosophers led people into illusion and error and refers to them as “Writers of this species, so far from enlightening the people, only contribute to lead them into the path of error”. Voltaire particularly, Jean le Rond d’Alembert, Denis Diderot, and Frederick II, the King of Prussia, planned the course of events that led to the French Revolution. They began with an attack on the Church where a “subterranean warfare of illusion, error, and darkness waged by the Sect” attempted to destroy Christianity. The influence of the philosophes should not be underestimated he said. They created the intellectual framework that put the conspiracy in motion and controlled the ideology and goals of the secret societies. Barruel appears to have read the work of the philosophes and his extensive quotes show a deep knowledge of their beliefs. This is unusual among the 60


Volume Two criticises Montesquieu’s “The Spirit of Laws” and Rousseau’s “Social Contract”, whose revolutionary writings, he claimed, had crystallised the anti-monarchical feelings within the Jacobins and also prompted revolt.61 Volume Three focuses on the influence of the Freemasons and the Illuminati.62 The fourth volume is an attempt to unite

enemies of the Enlightenment, who rarely distracted themselves by reading the works of the authors they were busy attacking. He criticises Philosophism because the application of the ideas expressed in these books had: 61

“given birth to that disquieted spirit which fought to investigate the rights of sovereignty, the extent of their authority, the pretended rights of the free man, and without which every subject is branded for a slave - and every king a despot”. He believed that the influence of Voltaire and Rousseau had been a causal factor in the French Revolution. He agreed with the revolutionaries as they themselves placed the remains of Voltaire and Rousseau in the Pantheon to pay homage to them. The philosophes, he argued, had created a lasting influence that endured through their writings and continued to promote anti-monarchical feelings within the Jacobins and the revolutionaries thereafter. The destruction of monarchies in Europe led to the triumph of the Jacobins as they trampled: “underfoot the altars and the thrones in the name of that equality and that liberty which summon the peoples to the disasters of revolution and the horrors of anarchy”. Barruel equated the rejection of monarchy with a rejection of order. As a result, the principles of equality and liberty and their attacks against the monarchy were attacks against all governments and civil society. He presented a choice to his readers between monarchy and the “reign of anarchy and absolute independence”. These groups were believed to have constituted a single sect that numbered over 300,000 members who were “ zealous for the Revolution, and all ready to rise at the first signal and to impart the shock to all others classes of the people”. Barruel surveyed the history of Masonry and maintained that its higher mysteries had always been of an atheist (anti-Christian) and republican cast. He believed the Freemasons kept their words and aims secret for many years, but on August 12, 1792, two days after the fall of the French monarchy, they ran through the streets openly announcing their cause. The cause was encapsulated in the cry “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity” and the aim was the overthrow of the French monarchy and the establishment of the republic. Barruel claimed he heard them speak these words in France, but that in other countries the Masons still kept their secrets. 62


them all in a description of the Jacobins and their influence in triggering the French Revolution. 63 Barruel’s book is representative of the criticism of the Enlightenment, which spread throughout Europe during the Revolutionary period. He concludes that the hard-core revolutionaries, the Jacobins, were responsible for the Revolution and these revolutionaries were heavily influenced in their ideas by the philosophes of (chiefly) Voltaire, the Freemasons and the Illuminati. The Freemasons had founded the Jacobins, it is claimed, but were then betrayed when they attained power. Weishaupt’s Illuminati are specifically culpable for Barruel, probably due to the publication in October 1786 by the Bavarian police of the Illuminati dossier that was said to reveal their culpability and concern to overthrow throne and altar. Before his death, Edmund Burke had largely given his support to the first volume, having passed on before the second and third volumes had been The division of the group into numerous lodges or cells ensured that if the secrets of one lodge were discovered, the rest would remain hidden. He believed that it was his job to warn all governments and people of the goals of the Freemasons. Barruel described in detail how this system worked in the case of the Illuminati. Even after Johann Adam Weishaupt, the leader of the sect, was discovered and tried in court, the proceedings could not uncover the universal influence of the Illuminati and no steps were taken against the group as a consequence. The majority of the secret societies could always survive and carry on their activities afterwards because of this type of cellular organisation. The Illuminati, as a whole, functioned to radicalise and destroy throne and altar. They refined the secret structure that had been provided by the Masons basic framework. For Barruel, the final designs of the coalition of the philosophes, the Freemasons and the Illuminati were achieved by the Jacobins. These clubs were formed by “the adepts of impiety, the adepts of rebellion, and the adepts of anarchy” working together to implement their radical agenda. Their guiding philosophy and actions were the culmination of the conspiracy as they directly wanted to end the monarchy and the church. Barruel believed that the only difference between the Jacobins and their precursors was that the Jacobins actually brought down the church and the throne and were able to institute their basic beliefs and goals, while their precursors only desired to do these things without much success. 63


written. The “philosophes” outlines the nature of the strategy as being chiefly concerned with subverting Christian morals. In this, it referred to the anti-Christian principles that were generally shared by philosophes, Freemasons and the Illuminati as: “the error of every man who, judging of all things by the standard of his own reason, rejects in religious matters every authority that is not derived from the light of nature. It is the error of every man who denies the possibility of any mystery beyond the limits of reason if everyone who, discarding revelation in defence of the pretended rights of reason, Equality, and Liberty, seeks to subvert the whole fabric of the Christian religion.”64 As a derogatory term, “Philosophism” became a powerful tool of antirevolutionary, anti-Jacobin rhetoric. In this, more specifically for Catholics, Freemasonry was considered to play its part as an attack on Jesus Christ. Barruel’s thesis has led to claims by Dr E.M. Jones in “The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit” (chapter 12 p.54 ff.) that Freemasonry was not just a cause of the French Revolution, but driven by a Jewish imperative more generally, due to its anti- Christian, Talmudic elements.65 In this, he cites Barruel’s exposition of the theological ritual. Revolution is characterised as an attack on Christ, and one that originated in the lodges, where it was portrayed as a necessary preliminary to the Masonic recovery of the name of Jehovah:


Barruel, Vol. 1, chap. 1, 4.

In his work Barruel nowhere blames the Jews, whose emancipation was perhaps hastened as a result of the Revolution. However, in 1806, Barruel did circulate a forged letter, probably sent to him by members of the state police opposed to Napoleon Bonaparte's liberal policy toward the Jews, calling attention to the alleged part the Jews played in the conspiracy he had earlier attributed to the Freemasons and the Jacobins. 65


“In his first degree he receives the Masonic science only as descending from Solomon and Hiram, and revived by the Knights Templar.-But in the second degree he learns that it is to be traced to Adam himself, and has been handed down by Noah, Nimrod, Solomon, Hugo de Paganis, the founder of the Knights Templars, and Jacques de Molay, their last Grand Master, who each in their turns had been the favourites of Jehovah, and are styled the Masonic Sages. At length in the third degree it is revealed to him, that the celebrated word lost by the death of Hiram was the name of Jehovah. It was found, he is told, by the Knights Templars at the time when the Christians were building a Church at Jerusalem. In digging the foundations in that part on which the stones, which had formerly been parts of the foundation. The form and junction of these three stones drew the attention of the Templars; and their astonishment was extreme, when they beheld the name of Jehovah engraved on the last.” (Jones, op.cit. p.540). Freemasons are described as “High Priests of Jehovah”. Its purpose being the “recovery of the Lost Name” (op.cit). He claims it proposes a return to the goal of creating heaven on earth, a metaphor for the utopian revolutionary goal. As the adept proceeds up the Masonic ladder, he learns first who is responsible for the assassination of Adoniram and what he is expected to do in response. Christ is the “real assassin of Adoniram” (op.cit. p. 540 ff) Jones claims and: “Christ himself in their eyes is the destroyer of the unity of God, he is the great enemy of Jehovah and to infuse that hatred of the Sect into the mind of the new adepts, constitutes the grand mystery of the new degree which they have called Rosicrucian.” The great thing that has been lost in this is the word Jehovah. The Master then asks the Senior Warden what hour it is. “It is the first hour of the day, the time when the veil of the temple was rent asunder, when darkness and consternation was spread 104

over the earth, when the light was darkened when the implements of Masonry were broken, when the flaming star disappeared, when the cubic stone was broken, when the word was lost.... He thereby learns that the day on which the word Jehovah was lost is precisely that on which the Son of God dying on a cross for the salvation of mankind is consummated the grand mystery of our Religion, destroying the sign of every other, whether Judaic, natural or sophistical. The more a Mason is attached to the word, that is, to his pretended natural Religion, the more inveterate will his hatred be against the author of Revealed Religion.” (op.cit. p.541). The deeper the adept penetrates the higher degrees, Jones claims, the more Talmudic are the mysteries revealed to him. The Rosicrucian, for example, is taught the inscription INRI which was nailed to the Cross means not “Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews”, but rather the “Jew of Nazareth Led into Judea” a reading which deprives Christ of his divinity and reasserts the Talmudic belief that Christ was a common criminal who deserved to be executed for his Messianic claim: “As soon as the candidate has proved that he understands the Masonic meaning of this inscription INRI, the Master exclaims, My dear Brethren, the word is found again, and all present applaud this luminous discovery, that-He whose death was the consummation and the grand mystery of the Christian Religion was no more than a common Jew crucified for his crimes.”66

To be initiated into the higher degrees, Jones claims (op.cit), the adept must agree to become “an assassin of the assassin of Adoniram”. He must be willing to assassinate Christ and his representatives on earth. The revolutionary intent of Freemasonry, therefore, becomes clear when the adept is informed that he must be willing to kill the king. In this,


Barruel (op.cit p.314). Jones (op.cit. p. 541 ff). 105

mysticism and symbolic ritual is said to be synonymous with political revolution. Freemasons: “looked upon the Revolution as that sacred fire which was to purify the earth and these credulous adepts were seen to second the Revolution with the enthusiastic zeal of a holy cause.” (Jones, op.cit). When the adept is introduced to the degree of Knights Kadosh, “all ambiguity ceases” he claims (op.cit). The Freemason is the: “assassin of the assassin of Adoniram, which means it is his duty to kill the king, one of Christ’s representatives on earth, the other being the pope.” (Jones, op.cit).

The English lodges had already carried out their Masonic duty by killing the king (Charles I) reasons Jones (op.cit) by deposing his heir during the English Civil War (1642-1660), but the French had not. The adept therefore learns he must assassinate the King of France, because he is the successor of Philippe le Bel, who in turn “deposed” Jacques de Molay.67

67 Molay was the 23rd and last Grand Master of the Knights Templar, leading the Order

from 20 April 1292 until it was dissolved by order of Pope Clement V in 1307. Though little is known of his actual life and deeds except for his last years as Grand Master, he is one of the best known Templars. An elaborate myth of the Order arose in the Masonic Lodges of the 1700’s. Some claimed heritage from entities in history, ranging from the mystique of the Templars to the builders of Solomon’s Temple. The stories of the Templars' secret initiation ceremonies also proved inspirational for Masonic writers who were creating new works of pseudo-history. As described by modern historian Malcolm Barber in The New Knighthood: “It was during the 1760s that German masons introduced a specific Templar connection, claiming that the Order, through its occupation of the Temple of Solomon, had been the repository of secret wisdom and magical powers, which James of Molay had handed down to his successor before his execution and of which the eighteenth-century Freemasons were the direct heirs.” Jacques de Molay's goal as Grand Master was to reform the Order and adjust it to the situation in the Holy Land during the waning days of the Crusades. As European 106

During the initiation of the Knights Kadosh: “the candidate is transformed into an assassin. Here it is no longer the founder of Masonry, Hiram, who is to be avenged, but it is Molay the Grand Master of the knights Templars and the person who is to fall by the assassin’s hand is Philippe le Bel, King of France, under whose reign the order of the Templars was destroyed .... When the adept sallies forth from the cavern with the reeking head, he cries Nekom (I have killed him) .... At length the veil is rent asunder. The adept is informed that till now he has only been partially admitted to the truth; that Equality and Liberty, which had constituted the first secret on his admission into Masonry, consisted in recognizing no superior on earth, and in viewing Kings and Pontiffs in another light than as men on a level with their fellow men, having no rights to sit on the throne, or to serve at the altar, but what the people had granted them.”

The “Jewish assassinators of Christ”, king and pope, Jones claims, justify killing Louis XV, as the former king of France Phillip IV sought to destroy the Knights Templar. In this, they partly seek to exact their revenge for the death of Jacques de Molay, the last Grand Master of the Order. Jones’ argument is elaborate. Yet this is not a logical progression befitting of an organisation that was, as Barruel supposes, influenced by Enlightenment philosophy and thus placed reason above faith. It also requires for Jones thesis to work a pro Talmudic, anti-Christian imperative associated with those slain.68 Revenge could then logically be support for the Crusades dwindled other forces sought to disband the Order and claim the wealth of the Templars as their own. King Philip IV of France, deeply in debt to the Templars, had Molay and many other French Templars arrested in 1307 and tortured into making false confessions. When Molay later retracted his confession, Philip had him burned upon a scaffold on an island in the River Seine in front of Notre Dame de Paris in March, 1314. The sudden end of both the centuries-old order of Templars and the dramatic execution of its last leader turned Molay into a legendary figure. Anti- Jewish theorists in fact have made the fallacious claim that the Templars were formed by 12 Jewish Elders. No historical evidence proving this ludicrous claim can be cited and so isn’t. The Knights Templar initially arrived in the Holy Land on a mission to reclaim their treasure the theory goes, which they were successful in rediscovering, 68


justified and the pre-revolutionary king and pope slain in turn, befitting of his assumed “Jewish imperative”. This, however, is reasoning illogical and biased in the extreme, and is one that does not corroborate with historical interpretation based on recorded testimony and writings. The logical deduction of Jones’ reasoning concerning the symbolism and rites (if it is to actually make sense) requires the Templarians to be in sympathy with Talmudic imperatives, if as he states we are to be the assassinators of the king, because Philip IV slew Molay and we are in turn the “assassinators of Christ”. But this reasoning hardly rings true for the Templarians and would in any case be contrary to their Christian ethos, in spite of charges of heresy having been brought against them. 69

and as a consequence became extremely wealthy. This was counter to their impoverished status at this time. The Templars' impoverished status did not last long however irrespective of this and was largely due to having a powerful advocate in Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, a leading Church figure and a nephew of Andre de Montbard. He spoke and wrote persuasively on their behalf, and in 1129 at the Council of Troyes, the Order was officially endorsed by the Church. With this formal blessing, the Templars became a favoured charity throughout Christendom, receiving money, land, businesses, and noble-born sons from families who were eager to help with the fight in the Holy Land. Another major benefit came in 1139, when Pope Innocent II’s papal bull Omne Datum Optimum exempted the Order from obedience to local laws. This ruling meant that the Templars could pass freely through all borders, were not required to pay any taxes, and were exempt from all authority except that of the Pope. The Jewish Elders theory has been cited by Tim Wallace-Murphy and Christopher Knight, who claim the knights were part of a wave of European royalty descended from Jewish Elders that had fled the Holy Land around 70 A.D, when it was invaded by the Romans. Articles such as the “Grand Prior of the International Order of Gnostic Templars” by Mark Amaru Pinkham recapitulate the claim and cite Christopher Knight, whom Pinkham mistakes for a historian, without documentation or evidence. Pinkham asserts Knight’s claim that the Templars were descended from families of Jewish elders who fled Jerusalem during the diaspora of 70 A.D, after the Romans destroyed the Second Temple. Twenty-four of these exiles he alleges founded the “Rex Deus” or “Star” families, privy to the secret wisdom of God. A second article cites Helena Blavatsky’s Isis Unveiled to claim that the Templars were privy to the secret truth about Jesus. The five charges of heresy brought by Philip against the Templars included “spitting on the cross” which was supposedly required during initiation into the Order. Whilst 69


The facts of history are broadly these. Philip the Fair expelled the Jews and sought to destroy the Templars; events that occurred in 1306 and 1307 respectively. The connection in this was not so much that they were all Jews, but simply that Philip was in debt to both groups and saw them as a dual threat as a “state within the state”. 70 With the Jews and Templars gone, Philip appointed royal guardians to collect the loans made by the Jews, and the money was passed to the Crown. The scheme, however, did not work well. The Jews were regarded to be good businessmen who satisfied their customers, while the king’s collectors were universally unpopular. By 1315 however, and in no small part because of the clamour of the people, the Jews were invited back with an offer of 12 years of guaranteed residence, free from government interference. 71 In respect to the Templars, the Jewish connection is certainly spurious, being based on an association with Solomon and incursions in Jerusalem. this might suggest anti-Christian tendencies, the September 2001 copy of the Chinon Parchment in the Vatican Secret Archives explicitly confirms that in 1308 Pope Clement V absolved Jacques de Molay and other leaders of the Order including Geoffroi de Charney and Hugues de Pairaud after their forced confessions (extracted under torture on Philip IV’s orders) had denied Christ. Another Chinon parchment dated 20 August 1308, addressed to Philip IV, stated that absolution had been granted to all those Templars that had confessed to heresy “and restored them to the Sacraments and to the unity of the Church.” The charges appear to have been trumped up for monetary and political reasons: a tactic similarly employed by him earlier in his claims against the Pope Boniface VIII. Whilst the Templars appeared to be anti-king then, they were most certainly not anti-Pope (being the first commercially accepted Papal Order), nor were they anti-Christian: a requirement of Jones’ interpretation for the symbolism to make sense, and in line with his claim of a Talmudic, pro-Jewish imperative underlying Freemasonry. Julien Théry, "A Heresy of State: Philip the Fair, the Trial of the ‘Perfidious Templars’, and the Ponticalization of the French Monarchy", Journal of Religious Medieval Cultures 39/2 (2013), pp. 117-148. 70

In 1322, the Jews were expelled again by the King's successor, who did not honour his commitment. 71


In reality they were known as the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon, otherwise known as the Order of Solomon’s Temple (French: Ordre du Temple or Templiers) or simply as The Knights Templar.72 They were among the wealthiest and most powerful of the Western military orders, but clearly their imperative and faith was Christian as opposed to Jewish. They were not some covert, malevolently pro Jewish military sect, who actually hated Jesus and loathed the king, in spite of Philip’s charges of heresy because of some supposedly antiChristian ethos. 73 In respect to Freemasonry the symbolism is syncretic. It synthesises a variety of influences that cannot simply be claimed to be pure and reflective of one tradition or literary source, let alone one promoting an underlying Jewish ethos, or a Talmudic imperative more specifically. Even their own rituals were based on a pseudo-history. Concerning Philip

Since at least the 18th century, Freemasonry has incorporated the symbols and rituals of several medieval military orders in a number of Masonic bodies, most notably, in the “Red Cross of Constantine”, derived from the Military Constantinian Order, the “Order of Malta”, derived from the Knights Hospitaller, and the “Order of the Temple”, derived from the Knights Templar; the latter two featuring prominently in the York Rite. One theory on the origins of Freemasonry claims direct descent from the historical Knights Templar through its final fourteenth-century members, who took refuge in Scotland and aided Robert the Bruce in his victory at Bannockburn. This theory is usually deprecated on grounds of lack of evidence, by both Masonic authorities and historians alike. It was often a ploy to spread the success of new Lodges by speculating connections and local associations. Christian conversion often restored to this by spreading claims of Jesus having visited England, Joseph of Arimathea having visited Glastonbury, or Mary Magdalene having visited France. 72

King Philip IV of France, deeply in debt to the Templars, was originally in favour of merging the Orders under his own command, thereby making himself “War King”. Molay, however, rejected the idea. Philip was already at odds with the papacy, trying to tax the clergy, and had been attempting to assert his own authority as higher than that of the Pope, a claim Molay opposed. For this, one of Clement's predecessors, Pope Boniface VIII, had attempted to have Philip excommunicated, but Philip then had Boniface abducted and charged with heresy in turn. The Templar charges of heresy (such as spitting on the cross) similarly appear to have been trumped up for financial and power purposes. 73


IV’s reasons for persecuting both groups himself, it seemed to owe less to differences in religious belief, and more to a personal desire to exert political power and exact money. At any rate, for Jones (op.cit p.541 ff.), Freemasonry is the crucial link between the supposedly ancestral Jewish hatred of Christ and a Jewish revolutionary spirit manifest throughout history. Freemasonry, in this, is directed or informed by a quintessentially Talmudic and “Cabbalistic” impulse he claims. In respect to the latter, he again cites Barruel and states: “Freemasonry derives its magic from Cabala. Like Julian the Apostate and John Dee, the Freemason looks upon the communication with, and apparitions of the Devils, whom he invokes under the appellation of Genii, as a special favour, and on them he relies for the whole success of his enchantments .... The Cabalistic Mason will be favoured by these good and evil Genii, in proportion to the confidence he has in the power, they will appear to him and they will explain more to him in the magic table, than the human understanding can conceive.” (op.cit p.542). As Jones asserts: “Nor is the adept to fear the company of the evil Genii" as Julian the Apostate did when initiated into the Eleusinian mysteries because it is only from these "Genii or Devils" that the adept can learn the occult sciences that will infuse into him the spirit of prophecy. He will be informed, that Moses, the Prophets, and the three kings, had no other teachers, no other art, but that of Cabalistic Masonry, like him and Nostradamus.” Ultimately, for Jones that magic is Jewish. After admission to the higher mysteries, the Masonic adept is told: “You have then the same sentiments toward the Christian which the Jews have. Like them, you insist on Jehovah, but to curse Christ and his mysteries.” (p.543).


What then are the facts of the matter? Barruel brought together hitherto unknown sources that exposed the intentions of the philosophes and later theorised an association with the Masons. He also exposed the rhetoric of Freemasonry by analysing their rituals in detail, exposing them for the first time publicly. His understanding of such ritual as being Talmudic or Kabbalistic, in the authentic Jewish sense, in this was undoubtedly limited, but neither was his concern to prove such a claim as Jones attempts. Nowhere does Barruel make any references to having read the Zohar or Talmud himself, but significantly, nowhere does he try to implicate Jews in these specific writings. In this too, Jones, whose scholarly erudition and writings are impressively researched, has an anti-Semitic agenda, a poor stance for a Christian, even a Catholic one tending to universalism. It is a perspective, moreover, that fails to consider the implications of the syncretic approach Masonic ritual utilised, which displays a development alien to any pure religious tradition, let alone Jewish mysticism specifically. A tradition which itself gave rise to Christian Cabbalism in turn. An evolution far more relevant to magical practises paralleling the rituals of “John Dee”. Christian Cabbala reinterpreted Kabbalistic doctrine to a distinctly Christian perspective, linking Jesus Christ, His atonement and resurrection, to the Ten Sefirot. It linked the upper three Sephirot to the hypostases of the Trinity and the last seven to the lower or earthly world. This “would make Kether the Creator (or the Spirit), Hokhmah the Father, and Binah—the supernal mother—Mary”, an arrangement which places


“Mary on a divine level with God, something the orthodox churches have always refused to do”.74 Furthermore, it was Christian Cabbala which sought to transform Jewish Kabbalah into a dogmatic weapon to compel Jews to Christian conversion. A concern that would be self-defeating to advance Jewish imperatives. It started with the 12th century Catalan philosopher Ramon Llull, whom Harvey J. Hames called “the first Christian to acknowledge and appreciate kabbalah as a tool of conversion”. 75 Neither was Llull a Jewish Kabbalist himself. Later, Christian Cabbala became mostly based on the 15th century writings of Pico della Mirandola,


whose syncretic world-view combined

Platonism, Neoplatonism, Aristotelianism, Hermeticism, Gnosticism and Kabbalah; Johann Reuchlin whose De Verbo Mirifico, “speaks of the miraculous name of Jesus derived from the tetragrammaton” 77; and the See Walter Martin, Jill Martin Rische, Kurt van Gorden: The Kingdom of the Occult. Nashville: Thomas Nelson 2008, p. 147ff. 74

Also Rachel Pollack: The Kabbalah Tree: A Journey of Balance & Growth. First edition, second printing 2004. St. Paul, MN: Llewellyn Publications 2004, p. 50, accessed on 28 March 2013.[ Hames, H.J, “The Art of Conversion: Christianity and Kabbalah in the Thirteenth Century”, Brill: Leiden, 2000. 75

Pico's Heptaplus, a mystico-allegorical exposition of the creation according to the seven Biblical senses, elaborates on his idea that different religions and traditions describe the same God. “On Being and the One” (Latin: De Ente et Uno), has commentaries on several passages in Moses, Plato and Aristotle. It attempts to reconcile Platonic and Aristotelian writings on the relative place of being and the One. 76

77 Jehovah is a Latinization of the Hebrew

‫ ְי ֹהוָה‬, one vocalisation of the Tetragrammaton ‫( יהוה‬YHWH), the proper name of the God of Israel in the Hebrew Bible. The consensus among scholars is that the historical vocalisation of the Tetragrammaton at the time of the redaction of the Torah (6th century BCE) is in fact Yahweh. The historical vocalisation was lost because in Second Temple Judaism, during the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE, the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton came 113

early 16th century writings of Paolo Riccio, who more than others fused it with astronomical research and astrological speculation.

to be avoided, being substituted with Adonai (“my Lord”). The Hebrew vowel points of Adonai were added to the Tetragrammaton by the Masoretes and the resulting form was transliterated around the 12th century as Yehowah. The derived forms Iehouah and Jehovah first appear in the 16th century. “Jehovah” was first popularised in the English-speaking world by William Tyndale and other pioneer English Protestant translations such as the Geneva Bible and the King James Version. It is still used in some translations, such as the New World Translation and Young's Literal Translation, but it is does not appear in most mainstream English translations, as the terms “Lord” or “LORD”: used instead, generally indicating that the corresponding Hebrew is Yahweh or YHWH. Syncretism is a feature of the name and what it denotes, but these are later developments. Jehovah being a hybrid form derived by combining the Latin letters JHVH with the vowels of Adonai (c.1100 CE). “...Jehovah...implies, even in its Kabbalistic sense, an androgynous nature. YHVH, or one of a male and female nature. It is simply Adam and Eve, or man and woman blended in one, and as now written and pronounced, itself as a substitute.” (Theosophical Glossary, p. 156). The Gnostic Gospels, an influence on Christian Cabbala, exalt Mary Magdalene as the Goddess and exalt the Mother Goddess as creator of the world by adding to the name of God, YHWH. “The root YHWH is radical of HWH, he-vau-he, meaning ‘being’ or ‘life’ or ‘woman’ which were interchangeable concepts in the ancient Middle East. These identical letters in Latin are E-V-E: Eve. So, the central or inner meaning of the Tetragrammaton is Eve, the Mother of All Living. In the Gnostic Gospels the concept is also conveyed that the Wisdom of God, or the Divine Spirit and Mother, is believed the real creator of the world. Allegedly her son, who was called the demiurge, stole his power from his mother and with it created the world. The early Gnostics thus believed the demiurge was the God, whom the orthodox Christians adored, not the true God or Supreme Being, which they symbolized as Iao. “The Tetragrammaton had two versions. EHYH, the lesser-known one, comes from Hayya, another one of Eve’s many names, which designates the Goddess in her special connection to women in childbirth. On Samaritan phylacteries the male and female versions of the Tetragrammaton were intertwined. These developments most likely were speculations based on the Kabbalah where the ‘ineffable name’ of God provided the means by which all the powers of the universe could be controlled. Further Kabbalistic thought holds that the name YHWH contained all the Forces of Nature, and since some thought it could be divided this was an indication that God had lost His Shekina, his feminine part or the Great Mother, who, as believed by mystics, had to return before there would be peace or harmony in the universe. 114

By the 17th century, Christian Cabbala had become blended with European occultism, some of which carried with it Gnostic, alchemical and Neoplatonic influences, but the main imperative of Christian Cabbala by that time was largely dead. A few attempts have been made to revive it in recent decades, particularly in relation to Neoplatonic interpretations of the first two chapters of the Gospel of John, but it has not entered into mainstream Christianity. This evolution was absorbed in Masonic ritual, but it certainly lacks a purely Jewish context. In the preliminary stages of Freemasonry, there are references to Judah Templo, the constructor of a model of Solomon’s Temple, who visited England in the reign of Charles II. A coat of arms, said to have been used, or even painted by him, greatly resembles that adopted later by the Freemasons of England.78 The society claims affiliation with the ancient craft of working masonry and by this means traces much of its symbolism and ritual to the building of the First Temple by Solomon. In respect to this, G. Oliver, in his “Antiquities of Freemasonry” (London, 1823), even attempts to show that Moses was a grand master. However, there is no clear evidence to show any lineage that can be traced to the Speculative Masons. The limited Jewish presence too in lodges rather undermines all this supposed Jewish influence, or the creation of the ritual particularly. The higher grades of the order suggest a Jewish influence connected with the legend of the death of Hiram “Abif”, an adaptation and misunderstanding of II Chron. (ii. 13). According to Masonic legend, he was killed by three workmen on the completion of the Temple, and the


“Transactions Jew. Hist. Soc. Eng,” ii. 115

mystery of his death is represented in the Masonic rites. This may possibly go back to the rabbinic legend that while all the workmen were killed, so that they should not build another temple devoted to idolatry, Hiram himself was raised to heaven like Enoch.79 In the early stages of Freemasonry, however, nothing was said of Solomon


and nothing is

said of the Hiram legend in the earliest printed constitution of 1723.81 This suggests again it is a later development. 82


Pesiḳ. R. vi. 25a, ed. Friedmann.

80Fort, 81

“Early History and Antiquities of Freemasonry”, p. 181, Philadelphia, 1875,

R. F. Gould, “History of Freemasonry”, iv. 365

According to early Masonic manuscripts, Freemasonry’s origins can be traced back to Adam, who was said to be the “first Mason”. The apron of Masonry supposedly represents the fig leaves worn by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. The knowledge received by Adam after eating from the forbidden tree, was carried on by his son Seth, and then Nimrod (who was responsible for the Tower of Babel), the great-grandson of Noah. 82

Dr. Albert Mackey (33rd Degree), in his Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, refers to the “York manuscript, No. 1” that contained information from a parchment dating back to 1560. This identifies Babylon as the true originator. He also cited the Cooke Manuscript “The Legend of the Craft” (1420), which is said to be the second oldest Masonic manuscript. This reveals that Nimrod taught the craft of Masonry to the workers at the Tower of Babel, but when God diversified and confused their language, and the scattered peoples created nations as a consequence, these secrets were said to be lost. The development of this in Illuminism and later Socialism being the idea that the diverse nations of the world therefore had to be wielded into one, or ruled in some collective sense by a one world government. This being contrary to God’s plan. King Solomon’s building of the Temple is a biblical indication that Freemasonry was revived, but it has little to do with Judaism. Mackey said that the “Masonic Lodges were initially dedicated to King Solomon, because he was our first Most Excellent Grand Master.” However, Martin L. Wagner revealed in An Interpretation of Freemasonry that: “[The] name Solomon is not the Israelitish king. It is the name in form, but different in its meaning. It is a substitute ... a composite, Sol-om-on, the names of the sun in Latin, Indian and Egyptian, and is designed to show the unity of several god-ideas in the ancient religions, as well as with those of Freemasonry.” Hiram Abiff, the Syrian Master Mason and architect of Tyre, was said to be hired by Solomon to build the Temple. He was killed by three Fellow-Crafts, when he would not 116

On Judaism’s influence in Freemasonry the technical language, symbolism, and rites do indeed incorporate Jewish terms like “Urim and Thummim”, “Acharon Schilton,” “Rehum”, “Jachin”, “Ish Chotzeb” (comp. I Kings v. 18), but these more likely to have been derived, without any Jewish intermediation, from commentaries lifted by Christian orientated Masons, or non- Jewish readers based on citing Old Testament sources. Many of these terms are derived from the Christian biblical account of the building of Solomon’s Temple (I Kings v.), and the two pillars Jachin and Boaz take a predominant position in Masonic symbolism. In the Scottish Rite, the dates of all official documents are given according to the Hebrew months and Jewish era, and use is made of the older form (Samaritan or Phoenician) of the Hebrew alphabet. The impostor magician Cagliostro is reputed to have introduced some of the terms into his “Rite of Misraim” based on this, but this again only shows the manner in which it was popularly diversified. 83

reveal the secret Masonic word (so they could get Master's wages in foreign countries), which was engraved on a gold triangle he wore around his neck. Solomon found the triangle, and had it placed in a secret vault under the Temple. Abiff later became a Christ-like figure to the Masons. Similarly Mackey claims that: “Hiram represents a popular Syrian god against whom the champions of Jehovah (the Jews) strove ceaselessly.” Another Mason, Daniel Sickles, correlates him with an Egyptian god, and Pierson's “Traditions of Freemasonry” claims he actually represented all of the pagan sun gods. This is corroborated by Mackey's “Lexicon of Freemasonry”. What this does is to relate the message that it was the sun god who was the builder of the Temple. This makes this Temple symbolic and also distinguishes it from the Jewish Temple. Pike, in his “Morals and Dogma” claims the “Temple of Solomon presented a symbolic image of the Universe; and resembled, in its arrangements and furniture, all the temples of the ancient nations that practiced the mysteries.” “Count” Alessandro de Cagliostro (aka Giuseppe Balsamo), was reputed to be a Sicilian Jew because he was born and raised in the old Jewish quarter of Albergheria in Palermo, Sicily. Goethe disputes this Jewish lineage however, although the history of Cagliostro is shrouded in rumour, propaganda, and mystery. Some effort was 83


Modern anti-Semites, especially among the Roman Catholics (like Dr Jones) attempt to identify Freemasonry with Jewish traditions to suppose subversive, revolutionary imperatives. Some go so far as to state that the whole movement is even ruled by five or six Jews plotting secretly as its head, an elite cabal, which acts by virtue of some unbroken lineage even in the modern era.

expended to ascertain his true identity when he was arrested because of his possible participation in the Affair of the Diamond Necklace. Goethe relates in his “Italian Journey” that the identification of Cagliostro with Giuseppe Balsamo was ascertained by a lawyer from Palermo, who upon official request had sent a dossier with copies of the relevant documents to France. Goethe met the lawyer in April 1787 and saw the documents and studied Balsamo’s lineage: Balsamo’s great-grandfather Matteo Martello had two daughters: Maria, who married Giuseppe Bracconeri; and Vincenza, who married Giuseppe Cagliostro. Maria and Giuseppe Bracconeri had three children: Matteo; Antonia; and Felicità, who married Pietro Balsamo (the son of a bookseller, Antonino Balsamo, who had declared bankruptcy before dying (age 44). The son of Felicità and Pietro Balsamo was Giuseppe, who was christened with the name of his great-uncle and eventually adopted his surname, too. Felicità Balsamo was still alive in Palermo at the time of Goethe's travels in Italy, and he visited her and her daughter. Cagliostro himself stated during the trial following the Affair of the Diamond Necklace that he had been born of Christians (of noble birth) but abandoned as an orphan on Malta. He claimed to have travelled as a child to Medina, Mecca, and Cairo and upon returning to Malta to have been admitted to the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, with whom he studied alchemy, the Kabbalah, and magic. He was said to be one of the greatest occult practitioners of all time by some Royalty of Europe but labelled a charlatan by others. He was derided as the “Prince of Quacks” by Thomas Carlyle. By his own account he was initiated into the Illuminati at Mitau (near Frankfurt) in 1780, in an underground room. He later said that an iron box filled with papers was opened, and a book taken out. From it, a member read the oath of secrecy, which began: “We, Grand Masters of Templars...” It was written in blood. The book was an outline of their plans which included an attack on Rome. He discovered that they had money at their disposal in banks at Amsterdam, Rotterdam, London, Genoa, and Venice. He claimed to have found out that the Illuminati had 20,000 lodges throughout Europe and America, and that their members served in every European court. Cagliostro was instructed to go to Strasbourg, France, to make the initial contacts necessary for the instigation of the French Revolution. Identified as a Grand Master of the Prieure de Sion, it has been claimed he was the liaison between them and the Illuminati. He was arrested in 1790 in Rome for subversive activities. 118

One specific instance of Jewish influence mentioned by them is the introduction of the degree of “cohen” by one Martinez Paschalis. There is, however, no evidence that he was even a Jew. Mackey in the “Encyclopedia of Freemasonry” states only that he was a German, who made himself acquainted with “Jewish” Kabbalism during his travels in the East.84 It is also claimed that Stephen Morin, founder of the Scottish Rite in America, was a Jew, but there is no evidence to support this either. It is very likely that M. M. Hays and Isaac da Costa, who derived the degrees from Morin, and introduced them into South Carolina about 1801, were Jews; yet so far, the only evidence of a mainstream Jewish influence rests in the fact that this particular branch appears to have been introduced into South Carolina by them simple because they were more tolerating of their presence and influence. A coordinated Jewish influence then appears weak, whilst there is even doubt about this affiliation. Freemasonry itself was introduced into South Carolina as early as 1736 (De Saussure, “History of Freemasonry in South Carolina”, p. 5,

The Rite of Elected Cohens or Priests was divided into two classes. The first represented the fall of man from virtue and happiness, and the second, his final restoration. It consisted of nine degrees, namely: 1. Apprentice 2. Fellow Craft 3. Master 4. Grand Elect 5. Apprentice Cohen 6. Fellow Craft Cohen 7. Master Cohen 8. Grand Architect 9. Knight Commander. 84

Paschalis first introduced this Rite into some of the Lodges of Marseilles, Toulouse, and Bordeaux, and afterward, in 1767, he extended it to Paris, where, for a short time, it was rather popular, ranking some of the Parisian literati among its disciples. It has now ceased to exist. Paschalis was a German, born about the year 1700, of poor but respectable parentage. At the age of sixteen he acquired a knowledge of Greek and Latin through the study of philosophical and poetic texts. He then travelled through Turkey, Arabia, and Palestine, where he made himself acquainted with the Kabbalistic learning of the Jews. He subsequently returned to Paris, where he established his Rite. Paschalis was the Master of Saint Martin, who afterward reformed his own Rite. After living for some years at Paris, he went to Santo Domingo, where he died in 1779. 119

Charleston, 1878). The Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite, with its additional thirty-third degree, appears to have been instituted in 1786 at Charleston, though the actual organisation of the higher council was not implemented until 1801. But the Jews who received their degrees directly or indirectly from Morin never appear to have reached any higher degree than the twenty-fifth, of the Rite of Perfection, as can be seen from the following genealogy derived from Steven’s “Cyclopedia of Fraternities” (p. 50, New York, 1899): “All the later stages had gone out of Jewish hands before 1801. It is also claimed that the Jews introduced freemasonry into Rhode Island.” The most conspicuous high level Jewish presence on the continent has been in France. One of the branches of the craft, the Supreme Council of the Orient, had Adolphe Crémieux as its Sovereign Grand Councillor from 1868 to 1880. He introduced the practise of having the S.G.C. confirmed by the lodges, instead of being arbitrarily selected by his predecessor. In Germany, however, for a long time, Jews were barred entirely; a stance that continued throughout the 17th and 18th centuries. The Amsterdam Grand Lodge protested to the Grand Lodge of Germany against this continuing refusal to admit some of its members because they were of the Jewish faith in the 19th century. Indeed, from 1868 to 1876, the question of the affiliation of Jewish members was discussed with some intensity. Although in the latter year the majority of the lodges favoured the affiliation, the requisite two-thirds majority was not obtained. This was in contrast to England, where Jews were more welcome and a number of lodges still exist formed exclusively of Jews.


(d) Jewish terms and ideas in Freemasonry The following list contains the chief technical terms of Freemasonry which are connected with Jewish ideas and expressions: • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Abaddon. Abda (I Kings iv. 6). Abif. Adonal (see God, Names of). Adin Hiram (see Adoniram). Ahiab (I Kings iv. 3). "Ahiman Rezon" (title given to the book of constitutions of the Grand Lodge of Ancient York, supposed to be Hebrew for "the Law of the Selected Brethren"). Aholiab. Bagulkal (significant word in the higher degrees, supposed to be Hebrew). Bel (used erroneously to represent the Tetragramination). Bendekar (I Kings iv. 9). Bereith. Breastplate. Cedars of Lebanon. Cherublm. Chesed. Cohen. Dedication of the Temple. Emeth. Enoch. Ephod. Ephraimites. Ezel (I sam. xx. 19). Gabaon (see Gibeon and Gibeonites). Gedaliah. Giblim (I Kings v. 18). Haggai. High Priest. Hiram Abif (architect of Solomon's Temple). Hiram, King of Tyre. Holy of Holies. Horns for the Altar. I Am What I Am. Immanuel. 121

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Jachin. Jacob's Ladder. Jah. Jehoshaphat (place where the lodge is built). Jehovah. Kabbala. Kadosh. Kamea (“amulet”). Lebanon. Levites. Maacha (I Kings ii. 39). Manna, Pot of. Melchizedek. Melech. Miter. Mizraim, Rite of. Naamah. Peleg (supposed to be the architect of the Tower of Babel; twentleth degree of the Scottish Rite). Pentalpha (see Solomon's Seal). Rabbanaim. Rabboni. Sabbaoth. Sanhedrin. Seal of Solomon. Sephiroth. Shaddai. Shamir. Shekel. Shekinah. Shem Hamphoresch. Shiboleth. Shield of David. Signet of Zerubbabel. Tabernacle. Temple. Tetragrammaton. Tomb of Adoniram. Tubal Cain. Twelve-Lettered Name. Two-Lettered Name. Zabud (I Kings iv. 5). 122

• • • •

Zadok. Zedekiah. Zeredatha. Zerubbabel.

The majority of the above names and terms, derived from Mackey's “Lexicon of Freemasonry”, are mostly used in the higher degrees of the Scottish Rite, sometimes erroneously, as can be seen by referring to the separate items in this Encyclopedia.85 Whilst many of these terms are not necessarily indicative of Masonry being Jewish or full of Jewish individuals inspiring the rituals, there are common themes and ideals in Masonic and Jewish rituals, even if much of the symbolism and words are adapted in a new context. Common themes in some lodges are: • Belief in God or some kind of Supreme Being, prayer, charity, and acting respectfully to all people. These are essential elements of Freemasonry, as well as Judaism (with caveats),but other religions too. 86 • Masonry and Judaism, as well as other religions and statements of ethical standards, teach that we must discipline ourselves and control In support of the above consult: A de la Rive, Le Juif dans La Franc-Maçonnerie, France, 1895; A. Tilloy, Le Peril Judeo-Maçonique, Paris, 1897;D. M. Hormalin, Ha-Yehudim weha-Bonim haḤofeshim, New York, 1894; Addis and Arnold, Catholic Dictionary. 85

In most jurisdictions a Bible, Quran, Talmud, Vedas or other appropriate sacred text (known in some rituals as the Volume of the Sacred Law) will always be displayed while the Lodge is open (in some French Lodges, the Masonic Constitutions are used instead). In Lodges with a membership of mixed religions it is common to find more than one sacred text displayed. A candidate will be given his choice of religious text for his Obligation, according to his beliefs. UGLE alludes to similarities to legal practice in the UK, and to a common source with other oath taking processes. See “What promises do Freemasons take?”. United Grand Lodge of England. 2002. Retrieved 2007-05-08. 86

In keeping with the geometrical and architectural theme of Freemasonry, the Supreme Being “G” is referred to in Masonic ritual by the titles of the Great Architect of the Universe, Grand Geometrician or similar, to make clear that the reference is generic, and not tied to a particular religion's conception of God. See King, Edward L. (2007). “GAOTU”. Retrieved 2007-04-09. This was originally a very popular philosophical idea in Platonic and neo-Platonic philosophical schools. 123

desires. Jewish Masons follow rituals in synagogues and in Masonic lodges to help them develop this ability. The Catholic contemplative tradition is rich in these ideas also however, particularly in the Carmelite traditions of St Teresa of Avila and St John of the Cross. • Judaism and Masonry give the greatest respect and support for freedom of individuals. Judaism teaches that everyone is capable of good or evil and attempts to help us use our free will to choose the righteous path. Masonry teaches that those who are morally fit can find “light” in Masonry, if they desire it of their own free will. The concept of exercising free will, to accept the law and atone for past transgressions, is what Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are all about. The Augustinian theodicy however also makes much of the issue of freewill as a moral choice though out Christian theology. The entry of evil into the world is generally explained as punishment for sin and its continued presence due to humans’ misuse of free will alone. • Light is an important symbol in both Freemasonry and Judaism.87 Contrast the holiday of Hanukah with the use of light in Masonry, where it represents the Divine Spirit, religious freedom, and rededication of the Temple in Jerusalem and of the spiritual Temple within us all. Light symbolism is, however, a common theme in many religions such as Diwali, the Christian celebration of Christmas and Eid and even had associations with Greek and Roman Mystery schools.88 • One of the fundamental symbols of Masonry is the Temple of Solomon and the Second Temple, which also figured as the central part of the Jewish religion. King Solomon, one of the greatest figures in Jewish history, is also one of the most important figures in Masonic rituals. The One of the major sourcebooks of Masonic doctrine is “Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Masonry”, written in 1871 by Albert Pike, and considered to be the “Masons guide for daily living.” In it, he writes: “Masonry is a search after Light...” 87

David Allen Rivera “Final Warning: A History of the New World Order Illuminism and the master plan for world domination” (1994) notes that In ancient Greece, there were organised groups or guilds (like our unions) such as the 'Dionysiacs', and in Rome the 'Collegium Muriorum', who he also claims “built the temples and stadiums”. These groups he claims: “...were the forerunners of the Masons were the draftsmen, builders, carpenters, and craftsmen who erected the huge cathedrals, castles, abbeys and churches during the Middle Ages. Because they 'lodged' or lived together during the construction this is where the term 'masonic lodge' was originated.” 88


wisdom of Solomon, however, is also recognised in the Christian tradition simply because of his appearance in the Bible.

Although there are commonalities, the syncretic nature of Freemasonry did not downplay the use of New Testament prayers, references to Saints, the cross as a religious symbol either; although it is stated that the cross is being used as a symbol of religion in general, rather than the Christian specifically. The likelihood then of Masonry being a purely Jewish inspired movement is very unlikely. Some Masonic organisations, the Swedish being the most prominent, even require aspiring members to specifically swear in support of the Christian faith. 89 In these lodges, Jews must deal with these references to other religions by either remaining quiet, or not participating in those parts of Masonry at all.

As a consequence, although there is some evidence of Jewish ideas and influence in Freemasonry, it can hardly be claimed to have presented a united front for either religious or secular Jews to work revolutionary subversion deliberately or effectively. Neither can it be said to have derived from Jewish ideas, values and sensibilities free of intermediary influences. This can be proven by citing the dispute that arose during the Lausanne Congress of Supreme Councils of 1875, which prompted the The Swedish Rite is a variation or Rite of Freemasonry that is common in Scandinavian countries and to a lesser extent in Germany. It is different from other branches of Freemasonry in that, rather than having three main degrees and seemingly-endless side degrees and appendant bodies, it has an integrated system with ten degrees. It is also different in that, rather than moving through the offices or 'chairs', progress in the Swedish Rite is based on moving through the ten degrees. The fundamental difference is the Swedish Rite's position on religious affiliation: Masonry as recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England requires a belief in God, but accepts candidates of any theistic religion, whereas Swedish Masonry is specifically Christian, and requires a Christian trinitarian belief in all its members. Nonetheless, the main Swedish Rite constitutions are all recognised as regular by the United Grand Lodge of England and stand in full amity. 89


Grand Orient de France to commission a report by a Protestant pastor to conclude that Freemasonry was not even a religion. It should not, therefore, require religious belief. The new constitutions in respect to this Lodge read: “Its principles are absolute liberty of conscience and human solidarity.” Whilst such chief principles tie them to revolutionary ideals, there is little that ties them to Jewish religious tradition specifically. Whilst this would not disqualify or lessen the likelihood of emancipated atheistical Jews with Enlightenment sensibilities seeking to join, their mainstream presence was certainly curtailed by a more general anti-Jewish distrust and made the use of lodges an impractical and ineffective means to wield power as a consequence.

(e) Leon de Poncins’ two theories for why there was a Jewish presence in Lodges Leon de Poncins proposed two theories explaining the connection between Jews and Freemasonry.90 According to the first: •Jews have entirely created masonry to corrupt the nations of Christian civilisation and to propagate behind this veil the general revolution which is to bring about the domination of Israel. It is simply a tool and a means in the hands of the Jews. In support of this he quotes the article of Dr. Isaac M. Wise, published in the Israelite of America, 3 August 1866 that states: Léon de Poncins. (3 November 1897 – 18 December 1975) a French aristocrat, and traditional Catholic journalist and essayist. He authored numerous books and articles advancing a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory. His explanation for most of the major revolutionary political upheavals of modernity was the influence of certain secret societies with an anti-Christian agenda — as well as a "occult war" waged by those possessing a diabolical kind of "faith". 90


“Masonry is a Jewish institution, whose history, degrees, charges, passwords and explanations are Jewish from beginning to end.” The other theory suggests the lodge, good at its inception, was corrupted when the Jews joined it. According to this theory: • Jews joined the lodge during the years preceding the French Revolution and founded secret societies themselves. There were Jews with Weishaupt and Martinez de Pasqualis, 91 who organised numerous groups of Illuminati in France and recruited many adepts, whom he initiated into the dogma of reinstatement. This rather tends to blur the distinction between the Illuminati and Freemasons that Weishaupt himself had left to found the new organisation. The begging questions also being: if Jews were admitted, but similarly limited in numbers, as was their ability to exert influence in lodges, how could subversion be implemented effectively? Why too were they not warmly received immediately by the Jewish elders, who were either the originators of the movement, or had extensively infiltrated it at some point? In respect to the first theory it requires the lodges and their rituals would always have been led by Jews at the higher degrees. Lodges would need to be coordinated to implement strategy for their benefit, but a tendency to disparity and not universalism in beliefs and practise undermines the belief in a coordinated or united Jewish presence. Neither does the

Jacques de Livron Joachim de la Tour de la Casa Martinez de Pasqually (1727?– 1774) theurgist and theosopher. He was the founder of the l'Ordre de Chevaliers Maçons Élus Coëns de l'Univers - Commonly referred to as the 'Elus Cohens' in 1761. He was the tutor, initiator and friend of Louis-Claude de Saint-Martin and JeanBaptiste Willermoz, and therefore regarded as the originator of Martinism. His Jewish and national origins are unproved, although many anti-Jewish sources spuriously claim him to be a Portuguese Jew, with little documented evidence to support the claim. 91


evidence of limiting them, debarring them, or at least restricting their influence, lend any more credible support to the second conspiracy theory- that of infiltration. Indeed, they could have implemented revolutionary activity far more safely from the harbour of the synagogue, where such pretence need not even have been necessary, and where their presence would have gone unnoticed. Why the elaborate charade, when their cover would have been more effectively hidden as atheist subversives amongst religious believers of their own kind? Or why not simply subvert the Church directly as fake converts, or even pose as non-Jewish government officials? A number of secular Jews of course may have sought admission in the lodges, but this need not suppose a subversive “Talmudic” imperative suggestive of the rituals themselves being inspired, influenced or originating from them. It is not even Barruel himself who sustains a specifically Jewish influence via Freemasonry, as he largely argues in volume 3 that the Illuminati took over existing lodges. However, even this explanation is not without faults, given the number of lodges that would have needed to be subverted, and the time that would take.92 If German Illuminism was responsible for the Abbé Augustin Barruel (October 2, 1741 – October 5, 1820) a French publicist and Jesuit priest. He is now mostly known for setting forth the conspiracy theory involving the Bavarian Illuminati and the Jacobins in his book “Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism” published in 1797. In short, Barruel wrote that the French Revolution was planned and executed by secret societies. 92

The Illuminati, the theory goes, had secretly spread to France by 1787 (five years after they had planned it), through French orator and revolutionary leader Count Gabriel Victor Riqueti de Mirabeau (1749-1791, Order name “Leonidas”) who had been indoctrinated by Col. Jacob Mauvillon while he was in Berlin on a secret mission for King Louis XVI of France in 1786. Mirabeau introduced Illuminati principles at the Paris Masonic Lodge of the Amis Reunis (later renamed “Philalethes”), and initiated Abbe Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Perigord (1754-1838, a court cleric in the House of Bourbon. The most trusted members were brought into the “Secret Committee of United Friends” (a group of the same name originated in 1771 as an occult group). The 128

French Revolution, Weishaupt, von Knigge and others would have had to complete the takeover in six years following the 1781 Masonic convention in Wilhelmsbaden, a daunting task for a relatively small and newly formed secret organisation. It does not however discount the influence of the initiations took place at the Illuminati's Grand Lodge, about 30 miles from Paris, in the Ermenonville mansion owned by the Marquis de Gerardin. The famous impostor Saint Germain (1691/1712-1780, or 1784/5) presided over the initiation ceremonies. Germain was thought by some such as D.A. Rivera (op. cit) to be a Portuguese Jew, who was a member of the Philalethes Lodge. He is claimed to have been “a Mason, a Rosicrucian, and belonged to several other occult brotherhoods”. However, throughout his adult life he deliberately spun a confusing web to conceal his actual name, views and origins, using different pseudonyms in the different places of Europe that he visited. He personally confessed to be a son of Francis II Rákóczi, the Prince of Transylvania, which again may or not be true. He apparently changed his identity due to persecution by the Hapsburgs. Phineas Taylor Barnum, “The Humbugs of the World”, 1886 notes of his supposed Jewish lineage: “The Marquis de Crequy declared that St. Germain was an Alsatian Jew, Simon Wolff by name, and was born at Strasbourg about the close of the 17th or the beginning of the 18th century; others insist that he was a Spanish Jesuit named Aymar; and others again intimate that his true title was the Marquis de Betmar, and that he was a native of Portugal. The most plausible theory, however, makes him the natural son of an Italian princess and fixes his birth at San Germano, in Savoy, about the year 1710; his ostensible father being one Rotondo, a taxcollector of that district.” Other accounts claim he was raised by the last Medici, Gian Gastone; and was educated at the University of Siena. His own claims were often fabricated. He even told people that he had lived for centuries and knew King Solomon. He was arrested in London in 1743 for being a Jacobite spy and he took credit for establishing Freemasonry in Germany. As an impostor he posed as Comte Bellamarre, Marquis de Montferrat, and Chevalier Schoening. Preposterous claims have been made about him more generally, making it difficult to verify real historical sources. Myths, legends and speculations about St. Germain began to be widespread in the 19th and early 20th centuries. He even puts in an appearance as an occultist in Pushkin’s “Queen of Spades”. They include beliefs that he is immortal, the Wandering Jew, an alchemist with the "Elixir of Life", a Rosicrucian, and that he prophesied the French Revolution. He is said to have met the forger Giuseppe Balsamo (Cagliostro) in London and the composer Rameau in Venice. Some groups even began to honour Saint Germain as a supernatural being called an Ascended Master. Madame Blavatsky and her pupil, Annie Besant, both claimed to have met the Count who was traveling under a different name.


Illuminati itself to influence as a separate, but covert organisation in its own right. Revolutions generally have been sparked by a small band of organised individuals and these need not necessarily have been even very great in number.

(f) The limited influence of Freemasonry on revolution Barruel goes out of his way to absolve English lodges of any responsibility for the French Revolution, which in itself undermines a coordinated front or network theory. In volume I, Barruel had already blamed the lodges under Philip d’Orleans for the French Revolution: “This conspiracy only existed among the numerous lodges of the Grand Orient in Paris, directed by Phillippe d'Orleans; they were one of the major causes of the French Revolution.”93

On the other hand, Barruel offers only a glowing testimony of English Freemasonry: “England in particular is full of those upright men, who, excellent Citizens, and of all stations, are proud of being Masons, and who may be distinguished from the others by ties which appear only to unite them more closely in the bonds of charity and fraternal affection.”94

This, then, shows differing attitudes and ideals in both the French and English lodges. The English lodges being considered good citizens and moral exemplars, whereas the Continental were, at least for Barruel,


EM Jones The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit p.536.


Schuchard (op.cit) p590. 130

subversive. Undercutting a Jewish influence are the German Freemasons also, who fostered an attitude that wanted to exclude Jews entirely. An attitude that Illuminism fostered too in its Jesuit distrust. For Barruel, the llluminists might well have infused this revolutionary spirit among the brethren. But it may equally have prompted other Masons to secede from Masonry as soon as they perceived it to be infiltrated by those anarchic, revolutionary principles.

The Jewish

Conspiracy theory, however, requires consistent support. It also requires Jews occupy the higher degrees which they did not but which, according to Jones, enabled Lodges to be suffused with a particularly Jewish hatred of Christ and his Church as virulent as the hatred in the Jacobin clubs. A cynic might suppose Barruel

deliberately portrayed English

Freemasonry in a falsely positive light because he was beholden to the English: Whigs like Burke, who granted him asylum and supported him financially while he wrote his book. A bias that skewed his real understanding.

At one point, Jacob rejects Barruel’s distinctions claiming, “I know of no record suggesting that French freemasonry was perceived to be markedly different in its fundamental practices and ideals from Dutch, or British or Belgian, or American masonry .... When the young Jean Paul Marat visited the Amsterdam lodge in 1774 he would have discovered discourses and ceremonies comparably familiar.”

This universalism is suggestive, as it could implicate Freemasonry as a whole in global revolutionary aims. It suggests it exerted subversive moral and political influence in other revolutions such as the American (17651783) and in any future possible uprisings in England. In respect to 131

political ideals however, Jacob accepts Barruel’s dichotomy between English and Continental Freemasonry: “18th Century England provides little evidence that Freemasonry was ever perceived as a threat to established institutions of either church or state.” She continues: “In some places on the Continent, Masonry was perceived as subversive of monarchy, social hierarchy, the Catholic church and indeed all forms of organized religion.”

She thus admits the political ideas, which supported the status quo in England, were nevertheless subversive on the continent. Jones argues, Freemasonry was not subversive in England, because the subversion had already taken place under Cromwell (op.cit p.537). In France, however, revolution had yet to be sparked. In this, the philosophes that inspired were an influential subversion, not just politically, but religiously and morally. The revolutionary imperative, for Jones, was similarly enthused with Helvetius’ ethos that passion was good and that to moderate the passions was to “ruin the state”. Women were taught “Modesty is only an invention of refined voluptuousness: that morality has nothing to apprehend from love, for it is the passion that creates genius, and renders man virtuous.” The social ramifications would be echoed in an attack on Christian institutions that echo later political revolutions which would: • Inform children “the commandment of loving their father and mother is more [a] work of education than of nature.” • That in respect to marriage “the law which condemns them to live together becomes barbarous and cruel on the day they cease to love each other.” 132

This subversion extended to King Louis XV, who: “without morals was soon surrounded by ministers destitute of faith, who could have seldom deceived him, had his love for religion been stimulated by practice.” Barruel says the subversion of morals was caused by an “inundation of bad books”, but he doesn’t specify where they came from. In this he was probably unaware of the role Rousset de Missy and the Dutch Huguenots played in bringing subversive English ideas into France claims Jones (op.cit). Barruel mentions the Whig radicals, but fails to link them with Whig policy in England. He prefers instead to link the conspiracy to the moment: “Collins, Bolingbroke, Bayle, and other masters of Voltaire, together with that Sophister himself, had propagated their impious doctrines against the God of Christianity.” (op.cit p.136). Barruel also says Voltaire got his ideas in England, but that they weren't subversive there. He had largely misunderstood them and then placed them into an alien foreign context wholly inappropriate to them. “This is not the place to observe what a multitude of errors these assertions contain: the chief is that of having converted into a principle what he had observed in England, without considering that often what has conducted one nation to Liberty, may lead another into all the horrors of Anarchy, and thence to Despotism.” (op.cit. p.86).

Whereas for Jones (op. cit) the simple explanation was that the Whigs were using the lodges to promote revolution in France, not at home. The English had already killed their king and deposed his heir. They probably wanted to put a pro-Whig, pro-English, pro-Protestant monarch on the French throne, just as they had put William of Orange on the English throne. 133

The subversion of morality led naturally to the hegemony of passion, and when passion got out of control, he claims, revolution occurred: “The French revolution is in its nature similar to our passions and vices: it is generally known, that misfortunes are the natural consequences of indulging them; and one would willingly avoid such consequences: but a faint-hearted resistance is made; our passions and our vices soon, triumph, and man is hurried away by them.” This excess of passion, however, had not been characteristic of the English revolutionary imperative, which had in large part been influenced by the Puritans that sought a reformation of the Church. An imperative that had been initiated on much more faith based and rational grounds. Jones’ thesis rests on an excess of passion that sparked a revolutionary zeal and identifies a particularly Jewish catalyst that channelled and justified it. This is certainly a revolutionary zeal alien to the Puritan ethos, but rather negates the Puritan influence as a chief concern nevertheless. 95

Puritanism’s role in English history during the first half of the 17th century directly led to revolution. The English Civil War was first defined as a “Puritan Revolution” by Samuel Rawson Gardiner in the 19th century. Anti-Catholic feeling was stoked by John Pym, a significant and alarmist politician at the time of the Grand Remonstrance of 1641; but revisionist historians such as Kevin Sharpe have cast doubt on the simple outlines of this description. The idea of an excess of passions to stoke revolutionary zeal of course is the common sense simplistic view, but hardly fits with the fervour of the Puritan ethos in England which was much more complex. 95

Historically, the word “Puritan” was considered a pejorative term that characterised Protestant groups as extremists, similar to the Cathars of France, who practised purity and sexual abstinence. According to Thomas Fuller in his Church History, “Puritan” as a term dates from 1564. Archbishop Matthew Parker of that time used it and “precision” synonymously with the same sense of the modern term “stickler”. In modern times, the word “puritan” still denotes one who is “against pleasure” but is ardently ascetic in their bearing and tastes. The “Puritan” movement referred to the desire and goal of purifying the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church from within, in contrast to “Separatists” such as the Pilgrims, who believed that the established churches could not be reformed and the only hope was to set up separate churches. In this sense, the term “Puritan” was coined in the 1560s, when it first appeared as a term of abuse for those who found the Elizabethan Religious Settlement of 1559 inadequate. The term Puritan, therefore, was not simply intended to refer to those who sought stricter purity of morals through a 134

Taken on its own terms Barruel's conspiracy theory shows the Illuminati were not the prime or sole cause of the revolution in France.96 As he states: “In order to prove a real Conspiracy against Christianity, we must not only point out the wish to destroy, but also the secret union and correspondence in the means employed to attack, debase, or annihilate it. When, therefore, I name Voltaire and Frederic, Diderot and D'Alembert, as the chiefs of this Antichristian Conspiracy, I not only mean to shew that each individual had impiously written against Christianity, but that they had formed the wish, and had secretly concurred in that wish, to destroy the religion of Christ; that they had acted in concert, sparing no political nor impious art to affectuate that destruction; that they were the instigators and conductors of those secondary agents whom they had misled; and followed up their plans and projects with all that ardour and constancy which denotes the most accomplished Conspirators.” (op.cit. chapter 2, p.16) In this he identifies Philosophism as influencing secondary agents to activism as something akin to “useful idiots”. But considering his first three volumes, Barruel offers contradictory positions and different culprits over time. Any rigorous reasoning, or consistent conclusions of the culprits are similarly at odds. Whilst the Jacobins, the Illuminati, Masonic lodges and prominent Freemasons are all identified as the culprits to spark revolution, it would be naive also to imagine that they dispassionate bent, but also those who ardently sought a reforming attitude towards established churches in line with their views on what true Christianity should entail. The idea of personal Biblical interpretation through the Holy Spirit was central to their beliefs and shared with most Protestants at that time. Puritans sought both individual and corporate conformity to the teaching of the Bible, with moral purity pursued down to the smallest detail, as well as ecclesiastical purity to the highest level. They believed that man existed for the glory of God, that his first concern in life was to do God's will, and this vouchsafed the gift of future happiness. They believed Jesus Christ was the centre of public and personal affairs and was to be exalted above all other names. Historically Barruel's analysis of Illuminism had an unintentional impact. It became an inspiration for cultural revolutionaries from Shelley to Freud, who used its Enlightenment principles as the basis for new sensibilities on how to control people without their tacit compliance at a subconscious level. Such techniques similarly informed mesmerism, hypnosis, psychoanalysis, and, thence through Freud's nephew, Eddy Bernays, formed the basis of public relations and advertising. 96


conspired to bring it about together in some coordinated effort, that could entirely accept the philosophism of such contrary figures such as Voltaire and Rousseau without reservation. Even the Illuminati and Freemasons often found themselves divided internally on questions of belief, values and practise that showed internal dissent.


(3) The Jewish French Revolution conspiracy (a) The influence of the Philosophers Edmund Burke was one of the first to suggest that the philosophers of the Enlightenment were responsible for the French Revolution, and his argument was taken up by many historians: including Tocqueville and Lord Acton. Philosophers then, as Barruel notes, undoubtedly provided the ideas, but these chief contributors were not Jewish. The bald truth in this (as will be shown with respect to Voltaire in the next section) was that at least some of the chief figures were in point of fact anti- Jewish. Questions of culpability often come down to those responsible framing those they hate. The collapse of the old regime was also the consequence of other factors: economic problems, social unrest, conflicting ambitions of groups and individuals. However, in respect to what was thought, what was said, and what was advocated, the most influential figures were those that shaped moral and political theory. They were, therefore, primarily the philosophers of the Enlightenment. 97 The weakness of the theory however The first volume of Barruel examines the anti-Christian conspiracy and identifies Voltaire as a chief intellectual figure. Voltaire "consecrated his life to the annihilation of Christianity" he affirms. He thence returned to the principal texts of the Enlightenment and found reasons to draw close links between the philosophism of the time and the anti-Christian campaigns of the Revolution. Here, he found that the philosophers had created an age of pretend philosophy, which they then used in their anti-Christian battle. Their commitment to the principles of liberty and equality were really commitments of “pride and revolt”. The proponents of the Enlightenment therefore led people into illusion and error. 97

Voltaire, Jean le Rond d’Alembert, Denis Diderot, and Frederick II, the King of Prussia, are identified as planning the course of events that led to this. They began with an attack on the Church where a “subterranean warfare of illusion, error, and 137

is that many of those thinkers differed in their values and ideas of what should be done, even if they were placed under the rubric of “Enlightenment philosophes”. Whilst there was disagreement between Enlightenment philosophers, they were reflective of the disparate social, political and economic factors that contributed to the Revolution itself. Unlike the English and American Revolutions, the French Revolution went through a series of phases. The ideologues repudiated one theory only to later adopt its antithesis (a historical pattern similarly noted by Hegel and Marx) yet were included under the rubric of the disparate “philosophes” that constituted revolutionary values. The first phase of the French Revolution was dominated by the ideas of Montesquieu, chiefly in L'Esprit des Lois, published in 1753. Montesquieu claimed that a liberal constitutional monarchy was the best system of government for a people who valued freedom. He justified this on the grounds that, by dividing the sovereignty of the nation between several centres of power, it provided a permanent check on despotism. Montesquieu suggested that the English had achieved this by sharing sovereignty between the Crown, Parliament and the law courts. The French, therefore, would need to make use of their own already established institutions and estates: the Crown, the aristocratic courts, the Church, the landed nobility and the chartered cities. darkness waged by the Sect” attempted to destroy Christianity. The influence of the philosophes could not be underrated according to Barruel. They created the intellectual framework that put the conspiracy in motion and controlled the ideology of the secret societies. Unlike his understanding of Jewish Kabbalism or Judaism however, Barruel appears to have read the work of the philosophes. His direct and extensive quotes shows a deep knowledge of their beliefs, unusual among the enemies of the Enlightenment, who rarely distracted themselves by reading the works and authors they were attacking. 138

Unsurprisingly, Montesquieu gives a conspicuous share of the sovereignty to the aristocracy: the class to which he himself belonged. He favoured both the noblesse de robe in the courts and the noblesse de race on the land. Some of the most active in the earliest stages of the Revolution, therefore, were the aristocrats, who identified the cause of national freedom with the interests of their own estates. When the French Revolution began, Louis XVI encouraged the nobles to implement what the Whig nobles of England had also done in 1688: replace an absolute monarch with a constitutional monarch. The Comte de Mirabeau was the leading orator among the revolutionists during this phase, and he was very much a disciple of Montesquieu in his demand for a constitutional monarchy. Intellectually, Mirabeau believed that the only way to ensure freedom was to divide sovereignty, but he did not agree with Montesquieu as to which estates in France should have a share. Despite being a nobleman himself, Mirabeau was out of sympathy with most of his compatriots. Indeed, one big difference between the French liberal noblemen who were prominent in the early stages of the French Revolution: figures such as Lafayette, Condorcet, Liancourt, Talleyrand, as well as Mirabeau, in contrast to the English Whig aristocrats of 1688, is that they did not represent the views of a large section of their own class. Montesquieu’s ideal of devolving a large share of national sovereignty on to the peerage and the Church had been rendered unrealisable by the attitude of the First, the ecclesiastical, and the Second, or the noble Estates when the Estates-General first met in May 1789. The privileged orders proved more inclined to hold on to their privileges than to accede to the powers Montesquieu had wished them to have. Instead, then, it was less 139

privileged groups represented in the Third Estate (the commons) who demanded to share the sovereignty of the nation with the Crown. Nevertheless, while the idea of shared sovereignty continued to inform the struggle, Montesquieu remained the most important political philosopher of the French Revolution. Even those who invoked the name of John Locke, as the great theorist of Liberalism, did not move far from Montesquieu’s conception. Montesquieu saw himself as Locke's successor. He even expressed the wish to adapt Locke’s general principles to the particular conditions of France. But there was one element of Locke’s thinking that Montesquieu was less enamoured with, and that was Locke’s theory of the natural rights of men to life, liberty and property. The French revolutionists made much of this, because of the importance given to these principles in the American revolution of 1776. 98 Such ideals, however, dissipated with the king’s flight to Varennes, which made it fairly obvious that he did not want to share his sovereignty with the legislature. The failure, thereafter, of liberal monarchists to patch up the constitution, provided the catalyst for those who had no desire for the people to share sovereignty with the Crown. Thus, the theory of divided sovereignty came to be overthrown in favour of the theory of undivided sovereignty, and the constitutional monarchy gave way to a republic: Montesquieu in effect yielded to Rousseau. Lafayette, having taken part in person in the American war of independence, and Condorcet, who had been made an honorary citizen of New Haven, were among those who proclaimed support for the principles as early as August, 1789. However, as later critics pointed out, a “declaration” has no force in law, and the proclamation made no material difference to the institutions and procedures by which the constitutional monarchy was governed. The division of sovereignty between the Crown and the legislature was still thought of as the central achievement of the Revolution in 1789. 98


As Rousseau replaced Montesquieu, his conception of the meaning of liberty took hold.99 Where Montesquieu had understood freedom as being unconstrained in doing what one chooses to do, as long as it is lawful, Rousseau defined freedom as ruling oneself, living only under the rule of law, but one which one has enacted oneself. It was, therefore, characterised by a new spirit of individualism and Romanticism. In Rousseau’s new philosophy of freedom, there was no question of the people dividing and diminishing sovereignty, because the people were to keep sovereignty in their own hands. His conception of a constitution required the nation effectively became sovereign over itself and was safeguarded by the people and for the people. The key distinction in this from the Constitutional values of America being the pre-eminence afforded to the latter of “nature’s God” as the originator, cause and context of those rights and laws. The second phase of the French Revolution can be dated from September 1792, or Vendemiaire of Year One, to Napoleon’s coup d'etat in November 1799, or 19 Brumaire of Year Eight. This is the republican phase, for which Rousseau furnished the terminology of revolutionary discourse. Unlike Montesquieu, Rousseau was idolised and venerated with a passion. The adulation was great: his body being disinterred from its grave in Ermononville, taken in a solemn procession to Paris, and then placed in the Pantheon.

The broad influence wielded by Rousseau (1712-1778), whose philosophy and thinking marked the end of the Age of Reason heralded the birth of Romanticism. It was unequalled in European intellectual history until Karl Marx a century later. He dramatically shifted political and ethical thinking in an entirely new direction, transforming music and the arts and, perhaps most famously, advancing a philosophy pursuant to which emancipation and freedom were attainable goals for the individual and the masses. 99


In “The Social Contract”, Rousseau outlined his Republican ideas in more detail than in his more popular writings “Confessions”. A book written to make himself known as a “man of the people”, one who had not only proclaimed his love of virtue and freedom, but someone who demonstrated that love in a virtuous philosophical life should be preeminent. This entailed a constant struggle against oppression. He was thus the plebeian par excellence among philosophers: Jean-Jacques the martyr and champion of the poor, but he also provided arguments which served the Revolution.100 Robespierre used the language of “The Social Contract”, but tended to distort it for political ends, exploiting several of Rousseau’s ideas in the course of his reign of terror. However, the fall of Robespierre did little to discredit or curb Rousseau’s popularity. Whereas the perversion of the Cromwellian ethos and his transformation into a tin pot dictator had left the English with a hatred of republican government, the execution of Robespierre did not instil a similar distaste in France. The idea that the nation might be sovereign endured, effectively ensuring no subsequent French king would feel secure after the virtues of republicanism took root in the minds of the people. When the first republic was brought to an end by Napoleon, his coup d'etat did not mark the end of the revolution, but only its passage to the third, or imperial, phase. Again, he had to look no further for his ideas than to those provided by the Enlightenment. These were found in Voltaire, and his


Rousseau said a people could only be free if it ruled itself. He acknowledged however that a man could be forced to be free. In this, he proposed a civil religion, which should be established to take the place of Christianity. He authorised the head of the republic to overrule the dictates of private consciences, together with the use of state powers to suppress immorality as well as crime.


doctrine of enlightened absolutism. This theory, like that of Rousseau, kept the sovereignty of' the state undivided, but in Voltaire’s case it was not transmitted to the people, but preserved by a “Philosopher king” or dictatorial monarch. Like Montesquieu, Voltaire proclaimed himself to be a disciple of the English philosophers, having visited England contemporaneously. He described England in much the same terms, as the homeland of liberty. Again, like Montesquieu, Voltaire named Locke as the Prince of English philosophers and his influence on him is also clear. Voltaire’s own “Traite sur la tolerance”, for example, echoes the arguments of Locke’s “Letter for Toleration”. The differences however are also clear. Voltaire did not join Montesquieu in subscribing to the theory of divided sovereignty and constitutional government, as set forth in Locke’s “Two Treatises of Government”. In this, Voltaire was far more attracted to the political ideas of Francis Bacon, the English philosopher of progress and utopianism. Voltaire admired Bacon’s view that science represented mankind’s salvation. His contribution came with an added emphasis on its utility. Science, he suggested, was not just an intellectual exercise to give us knowledge, but a practical enterprise to give us mastery over the natural world. Once men knew how nature worked, they could exploit nature to their advantage, overcome scarcity by scientific innovations in agriculture, overcome disease by scientific research in medicine, and generally improve the life of man by all sorts of developments in technology and industry. It was Voltaire, then, like Bacon, who conceived of an idealised, scientifically orientated, new world order.


The Baconian vision appealed to Voltaire, but achieving it practically required abolishing traditional metaphysical speculation and idle theological disputes. Next, came the repudiation of old-fashioned legal and political impediments to affect the efficient organisation of a “progressive” state. Bacon was quite simply in favour of an enlarged royal prerogative at the expense of the rights of the Church, Parliament and the courts. Voltaire approved of this. Bacon had, conceived of a plan (as Plato had under Dionysius II) of fostering the desire of James I to become an absolute monarch, so that he himself might enact the role of a philosopher mentor, whispering in the ear of a king who would empower the ideas into applied political actions. Bacon failed, as did Plato in respect to Dionysius II of Syracuse, but Voltaire was more than sympathetic to his effort. For Voltaire, the Baconian plan seemed to him to have a better chance of success in France, because France experienced an altogether more beneficent absolute monarchy under the Bourbon kings of the 17th century. While one can readily understand his admiration for Henri IV; it is less easy to understand his veneration for Louis XV, the persecutor of the Protestants and the oppressor of dissent. It has been suggested that Louis XV appealed to the aesthetic side of Voltaire’s imagination, which saw the king as demiurgic craftsman imposing unity and order on the irrational chaos of society. In any case, Voltaire saw no threat to freedom in the centralised power of a royal government. On the contrary, he considered (based on the French experiences of the past) that the great enemies of liberty were in fact the Church and the institutions controlled by the nobility, including the parliaments. By suppressing, or disempowering such institutions, a strong central government could enlarge the citizenry’s liberty. Montesquieu’s 144

doctrine of power checking power to produce freedom through equilibrium was thus jettisoned. For Voltaire, a single power that could be trusted was all that was required, not a counter-balance of powers, but rather an absolute control of those powers, which he failed to consider if left uncontrolled would always menace freedom. The idea of the “Philosopher king” dates back to Plato (5th century B.C.). In the 18th century, several European monarchs were persuaded by Enlightenment philosophy to try to enact this role: the Empress Catherine of Russia, the Emperor Joseph of Austria, as well as several lesser princes. Frederick of Prussia was the one who approached Voltaire in person and invited him to join his Court at Potsdam. It was a doomed enterprise however. Voltaire found, like Plato, that he was unable to control the mind of a king who considered himself a philosopher already, and who wanted no advice on training from a serf, but only sought agreement, compliance and praise. The French kings took no interest whatsoever in Voltaire’s ideas: but Napoleon did. Once Napoleon had seized power, he made the Baconian/Voltairean project his own. He could fairly make the claim to be something other than simply a military dictator. He introduced what he thought was “scientific” government. He gave his patronage to those intellectuals who saw themselves as the heirs of the Enlightenment: to Destutt de Tracy, Volney, Cabanis and Daunou, who were exponents of what they called the “science of ideas”. He furthered the creation of such essentially Baconian institutions as the Polytechnique, the lycees, and the several ecoles normales. He made education a central feature of imperial policy and instilled the values of the state in these schools.


Napoleon, however, modified the Voltairean theory of enlightened absolutism in directions that Voltaire himself would probably not even have approved of. Napoleon introduced a democratic element by making his despotism plebiscitary, something which the earlier phases of the French Revolution had made almost inevitable as well as necessary. Voltaire had never cared much for democracy, because he considered the majority of people to be hopelessly unenlightened, but once the people had been brought into the French political arena, Napoleon saw that there was no way of pushing them out. Voltairean idealism thus gave way to pragmatic politics. The people had only to be persuaded to let themselves be led, and the heroic Napoleon, of course, proved something of a genius in presenting the case for justifying this. Voltaire, had he lived, might have admired Napoleon for his educational programmes, but he would not have admired Napoleon’s reestablishment of the Catholic Church, let alone his numerous military campaigns that brought both admiration and repulsion in turn. It was Frederick’s wars which did most to alienate Voltaire. Undoubtedly Napoleon’s wars would have pleased him no more; especially as his conquests only seemed to diminish, rather than increase his attachment to the ideals of science and freedom. Rousseau once prophesised that the island of Corsica would one day produce a leader who would astonish the world. Napoleon owed much to his success, adopting the policies of Voltairean enlightened despotism, while dressing them in republican language and trappings that were inspired by Rousseau. It was not a genuine synthesis however, because it took the substance from one, and offered a mere façade of the other, but it enabled Napoleon to achieve all the popularity he needed in France, so 146

that his dictatorial European Empire could only be overthrown by a coalition of foreign governments and armies at Waterloo and his internment to St Helena.

(b) The Enlightenment Philosophers’ different attitudes to the Jews Barruel claimed Voltaire got the idea for his anti-Christian revolutionary imperative in England. Culpability, as originally conceived in volume one, therefore largely rested with the English philosophers, as much as Voltaire et al. Voltaire was inspired by his visit to London to: “extol the English truths. That is, the impieties of Hume; and when he thought himself authorized to write, that in London Christ was spurned.” (Jones op.cit. p.546). The conspiracy to annihilate Christianity began in 1728, when Voltaire returned from London to France and announced: “Let the real Philosophers unite in a brotherhood like the Freemasons; let them assemble and support each other and let them be faithful to the association.” (Jones, op.cit.). Barruel says Voltaire’s “most faithful disciples inform us that he had his determination” to consecrate his life “to the annihilation of Christianity” “when in England”, even if he spent many years “ruminating alone his hatred against Christ” (Jones op.cit.).

For Jones, this anti-Christian

imperative is somehow linked with the anti-Christian imperative of the Talmudic Jews, whose ethos he views as infiltrating or running revolutionary organisations like the Illuminati and being given easy access to the Freemasons particularly in England. However, contra Jones, it 147

appears to be an irony that Voltaire one of the chief ideological forces to trigger the French Revolution has himself been charged as anti-Jewish. The question of Voltaire's anti-Semitism has been an object of controversy for more than two centuries. The discussion began in Voltaire’s own lifetime, when Isaac de Pinto wrote to Voltaire to complain of his aspersions on the Jews. Voltaire answered that anyone could be whatever he pleased, even a Jew, provided he was a philosopher. This exchange has been quoted to this very day as proof that Voltaire himself was not antiJewish, amidst claims he was at war with both Judaism and Christianity. He wanted to purge all men, of whatever persuasion, from these superstitions through philosophy, the argument goes, in order to make them more “enlightened”. However, in a book published in 1968, entitled “'The French Enlightenment and the Jews”, the chief characteristic of the anti- Semite is one that holds that (irrespective of what Jews might believe) their inherent character is innately fixed and nasty. Two citations can suffice to show Voltaire guilty of this. In his “'Letter of Memmius to Cicero”' (1771) Voltaire, in the pose of an ancient Roman reporting on the Jews, wrote: “They are, all of them, born with raging fanaticism in their hearts, just as the Bretons and the Germans are born with blond hair. I would not be in the least bit surprised if these people would not someday become deadly to the human race.”

In the next year, writing the essay “One Must Take Sides”, he ridiculed the major religions in turn, but he was meanest to the Jews:


“'You have surpassed all nations in impertinent fables, in bad conduct and in barbarism. You deserve to be punished, for this is your destiny.”

This is hardly the rhetoric of a man who thinks that Jews are just another people in need of enlightenment. It is the talk of a “noble Roman”, his favourite self-definition, who had no patience with a race he considered inferior. The defenders of Voltaire have continued to argue that he was not personally anti-Semitic, but only guilty of some rhetorical excess. That is not how those who were arguing for and against the emancipation of the Jews, both in his own time and in the next several generations read him. Jacobins such as Jean Francois Rewbell in the 1790s and the Socialist Pierre Proudhon in the next generation are among the many figures, especially of the Left, who justified their arguments against the Jews by citing Voltaire.101 Such figures were not quarrelling with Judaism specifically; they were attributing innate wickedness to the Jewish character. This then is objectionable racism. It is a phobia of Jews specifically, and the kind of attitude which opened the door to the later horrors of the 20th century Holocaust. Rousseau’s works in contrast abound with references to the Hebrew Bible and include The Levite of Ephraim: essentially a free adaptation of the last three chapters of Shoftim, or the Book of Judges. His pro Jewish Some of the great figures of the Enlightenment, with Voltaire in the lead, argued that the Jews had an ineradicably different nature, which few, if any, could escape. The more prevalent, less ideological opinions were those of men such as the Marquis de Mirabeau (the younger) and the Abbé Grégoire, that the defects of the Jews had been created by their persecutors, who had excluded them from society and limited them to the most debasing of economic pursuits, leaving them entirely under the sway of their own leaders and their narrow tradition. With an increase in rights and better conditions, the Jews would improve. 101


sensibilities too are clear to see. In a 1746 manuscript, for example, Rousseau discussed Christian commerce with Jews and examines a 1363 Ordinance by Marechal D’Audeneham concerning the business of Jewish men or women to whom people might pay money. Portraying the Jewish treatment of women in a very positive way, he concludes that Jewish women were equally as skilled as Jewish men in transacting business. He made these notes while gathering information for Madame Louise Marie Dupin for her influential book “On the Equality of Men and Women”.102 French thinkers of the Enlightenment were generally not pro-Jewish, to say the least. Voltaire, the alleged “champion” of the Enlightenment attacked the “raging fanaticism” of the Jews and called them “in many ways the most detestable nation ever to have sullied the earth.” However, Rousseau’s political philosophy contributed in large measure to the emancipation of the Jews, first in France and later across Western Europe. His theories on education had a direct and positive effect on the 19th century Haskalah movement. He not only demanded equal civic rights for Jews, but he also unusually expressed Zionist-like beliefs, hoping that the Jews would be restored to a country of their own. For example, in Emile, Book 4, Rousseau wrote: “I do not think that I have ever heard the arguments of the Jews as to why they should not have a free state, schools, and universities where they can speak free and argue without danger. Then alone can we know what they have to say.” Famous for her intellect and beauty, the aristocratic yet much-beloved Madame Dupin (1706-1795) ran a prestigious Parisian salon attended by the great luminaries of French society, which included some of the best-known writers, poets, and philosophers of the Renaissance, including the young Rousseau, whom she hired as her personal secretary, but who later became her close friend, adviser, and protégé. Rousseau, who was also hired by Dupin to tutor her son, Jacques-Armand, wrote Emile (1762), one of his most famous and one of his most pro-Jewish works for the boy. 102


Remarkably, his solution to the “Jewish Question” was a kind of proto Zionism, as he attributed the Jewish problem, in part, to the Jews’ separation from Jerusalem: “they were punished, dispersed, oppressed, enslaved…none of them comes near that city anymore.” Moreover, Rousseau was very forthright about his admiration for the qualities of the “eternal people”, the Jews, a “unique marvel”, the “divine or human causes of which deserve the study and admiration of wise men.” “The Jews present us with an outstanding spectacle: the laws of Numa, Lycurgus and Solon are dead; the far more ancient ones of Moses are still alive. Athens, Sparta, and Rome have perished and all their people have vanished from the earth; though destroyed, Zion has not lost her children. They mingle with all nations but are never lost among them; they no longer have leaders, yet they are still a nation; they no longer have a country and yet they are still citizens…”

Rousseau viewed Judaism as surpassing Christianity in its emphasis on compassion and judicial justice. He effectively urged modern nations to become more Jewish, as in his “Considerations on the Government of Poland”: “Moses formed and executed the astonishing project of instituting as a national body a swarm of wretched fugitives…. Out of this wandering and servile horde Moses had the audacity to create a body politic, a free people; and while they were wandering in the desert without a stone on which to lay their heads, he gave them that durable set of institutions, proof against time, fortune, and conquerors which five thousand years have not been able to destroy or even to weaken and which even today still subsists in all its strength, although the national body has ceased to exist… 151

To keep his people from dissolving among foreign peoples, he gave it morals and practices incompatible with those of other nations; he overburdened it with distinctive rites, ceremonies…and all the bonds of fraternity that he placed among the members of his republic were so many barriers which kept it separate from its neighbours…. That is how this singular nation, so often subjugated, so often dispersed and apparently destroyed has nevertheless preserved itself up to our times and how its morals, its laws, its rites, continue to exist and will endure as long as the world does.” Broadly, Montesquieu favoured the Jews too, and empathised with their sufferings: “Judaism is a mother who has given birth to two daughters who have struck her a thousand blows... If you do not want to be Christian, at least be human.” But he also spoke rather disparagingly of them at times, in a way that characterised the stereotype: “wherever there is money there are Jews.” The most vehement Judeophobe was clearly Voltaire, whose “liberty, equality and fraternity” value slogan proved to be something of a hypocrisy. In his Philosophical Dictionary, more than a quarter of all the entries concerning Jews insulted them: “the most imbecile people on the face of the earth, enemies of mankind, most obtuse, cruel absurd...” The longest entry of the book is “Jews” and there is written: “The Jews never were natural philosophers, nor geometricians, nor astronomers...” Negating the achievements of Maimonides and Spinoza, his hatred of Jews had the power to twist the reasoning of even this most rational of minds. His bigotry was in evidence too when he writes: “So far away were they from having public schools for the instruction of youth that they have not a term in their language to even express such an institution.” 152

This “great emancipator from superstition” actually approved of the endless persecutions and massacres of the Jews, and even supported the blood accusation: “your priests have always sacrificed human victims with their sacred hands.” It is not acceptable that Voltaire struck at the Jews simply to strike at Christianity, because he attacked the Church openly also. He did not therefore need to do it via the Jews. In this, he shows hypocrisy in a double standard, as he habitually signed his letters “Écrasez l’infâme” (“destroy the infamous”) when referring to the Church, whilst for letters concerning Jews he signed them “Christian gentleman of the very Christian king’s chamber”. “In short, his view was one where: “we find …only an ignorant and barbarous people, who have long united the most sordid avarice with the most detestable superstition and the most invincible hatred for every people by whom they are tolerated and enriched. Still, we ought not to burn them.” Voltaire’s dislike was commonplace among freethinkers generally at this time. As with the Church Fathers, they usually expressed hatred and disdain whenever they referred to the Jews. The English were exceptional in their outlook with respect to this, with the likes of John Locke and John Toland displaying tolerance. Nevertheless, full emancipation in England did not arrive until 1858 when Baron Lionel de Rothschild took his seat in Parliament, taking an oath specially formulated for the occasion.


(c) The Emancipation of the Jews Preceding and during the French revolutionary era, Jews were not granted equal rights. Even when “The Declaration of the Rights of Man” was voted into law by the National Assembly on Aug. 27, 1789, Jews were excluded. The issue of Jewish rights was first debated in three sessions. The first, Dec. 21–24, 1789, was proposed for debate by the Comte de Mirabeau, one of their chief proponents, because he saw that there were not enough votes with which to pass a decree of emancipation. A month later, on Jan. 28, 1790, the “Portuguese”, “Spanish” and “Avignonese” Jews were granted equality. The main argument, made by Talleyrand, was that these Jews were culturally and socially not alien already. The issue of the Ashkenazim remained unresolved. It was debated repeatedly in the next two years, but a direct vote for emancipation could never be sufficiently raised. It was only in the closing days of the National Assembly, on Sept. 27, 1791, that a decree of complete emancipation was finally passed. This was on the grounds that the Jews had to be given equality in order to fully complete the Revolution; for it was impossible to have a society in which all men of whatever condition were given equal rights and status, excepting a minority of Jews. Even so, the parliament on the very next day passed a decree of exception under which the debts owed the Jews in eastern France were to be put under special governmental supervision. This was an appeasement to the anti-Jewish sentiment, which had complained about their avarice. The Jews refused to comply with this act, for they said that it was contrary to the logic of a decree of equality. Opinion thus remained divided, even in the last days, when Jews were being given their liberty.


This division of opinion about the status of the Jews was, to some degree, based on traditional premises. Defenders of the old order like Abbé Jean Sieffrein Maury and Anne Louis Henry de la Fare, the bishop of Nancy, remained in opposition, arguing that the Jews were made by their religion into an alien people who could never truly assimilate. Maury, went further, by quoting Voltaire to help prove that the Jews were bad because of their innate character flaws: a character which in any case could not be changed, whatever was proposed. De la Fare, from eastern France, was joined in the opposition to the increase of Jewish rights by almost all of the deputies from that region regardless of their party. That this would occur had already been apparent in the cahiers from eastern France which, with the exception of one writer under the influence of Abbé Grégoire, were largely anti-Jewish. Of the left-wing figures from Alsace in the revolutionary parliament, the most noteworthy was Jean François Rewbell, but he also remained a staunch opponent, arguing it was necessary to defend: “a numerous, industrious, and honest class of my unfortunate compatriots who are oppressed and ground down by these cruel hordes of Africans who have infested my region.” Equality for the Jews was provisional and limited. It was justified as being tantamount










counterrevolutionary forces he claimed, where the peasant class of the Revolution would only become subjected to the increased danger and exploitation by Jews eager to take their place. The only organisation in eastern France which was publicly in favour of increased rights for the Jews was the moderate, revolutionary Société des Amis de la Constitution in Strasbourg. This group argued that the 155

sensibilities of peasants were being artificially enflamed, but that their hatred of the Jews would dissipate. A policy of economic opportunity would allow the Jews to enter productive occupations and become an economic boon to the whole region. It was argued generally that the Jews, if they were assimilated, and if they were dispersed in manufacture and on the land, would inevitably become good citizens. This general line of reasoning furthered their emancipation. In the first debate on the “Jewish Question” on Sept. 28, 1789, the Jews of Metz asked for protection against the threat of mob outbreaks: there had been outbursts in Alsace during the summer and some Jews had fled to Basle. Stanislas de Clermont-Tonnerre, a liberal noble from Paris, agreed that the existing Jews did merit the hatred against them, but compassionately ascribed what was wrong with the Jews to the effects of oppression. The old claim, that that the Jews themselves could not exist as “a nation within a nation”, served as the inverse claim that they thus could not maintain separatism: assimilation would therefore eventually occur. The emancipation of the Jews in France eventually took place on the basis that: “The Jews should be denied everything as a nation, but granted everything as individuals …” These kinds of views were argued by the Jacobins, who were pro-Jewish, in contrast to the eastern French with their anti-Jewish stance. These so called “moderate” revolutionaries (Voltaire and his admirers could not be counted amongst these) ultimately triumphed by arguing emancipation was a moral necessity: its purpose being to improve the Jews, so that they in turn could be part of the process to regenerate French society.


Throughout the era of the Revolution there was a concern about the degree of Jewish patriotism and a concern to bring about the assimilation of their young into productive occupations. During the first decade of the Revolution, some economic changes were taking place. Jews did participate in the buying of nationalised property, and in particular lent money to the peasants in Alsace, who thus acquired their own farms. This splitting of the estates of the Church and of the nobility into small farms gave the peasantry a stake in the Revolution, but the contribution of Jewish creditors and speculators to this trade (a significant though not dominant presence) earned them no gratitude. It remained a fixed opinion, especially among Jacobins, that the Jews were usurers, and that they were using the new opportunities of the Revolution to become even more powerful. In general, the occupational structure of the Jews changed very little in the 1790s. They continued mostly to be middlemen or peddlers; very few worked in factories, let alone owned land, despite much propaganda and occasional pressure on them to take up farm work. Moreover, there were difficulties about their joining the armies of the Revolution. In many places the National Guard refused to accept Jews; sometimes it even attacked them and made minor pogroms. On the other hand, most Jews tried to avoid military service because of the problems of observing the Sabbath. A few of the sons of the richest families did become officers in the army in the 1790s, but the major military contribution by Jews during the Republican period was in their traditional role as contractors to the army. Jewish financiers were actually


of minor importance here, but their visibility remained high; as such they were the subject of continued vilification.103 Elders continued to dominate the Jewish community in the 1790s. A revolutionary group of Jewish Jacobins in the South did achieve political influence however in 1793–94 in the revolutionary government of Saint Esprit in a largely Jewish suburb of Bayonne. There were a few instances among both the Sephardim and the Ashkenazim of individual Jews who participated in the Enlightenment sensibility. The overwhelming majority, however, both in the French Jewish communities and in those of the papal possessions, Avignon and Comtat Venaissin, which had been annexed to France in 1791, kept their religious traditions intact. It is a significant but oft overlooked fact of those who seek to cast the blame that not a single Jew was guillotined during the Terror (July 1793–July 1794) on the ground that religious exactitude made him an enemy of society. Secularism and the separation of Church and state was preached, although such rhetoric was similarly used by some of the Jacobins of the East to voice anger at the continuing practice of such traditions as Jewish burial.104 During the Terror, many synagogues and other Jewish properties were nationalised and their treasure was either surrendered or hidden, as were books and Torah Scrolls. In some situations, such as in Carpentras in 1794, the Jews most likely were forced to give up their synagogues to the

Jews were involved in the military purchasing directory which was created in 1792, with Max Cerfberr as one of its directors. This body lasted just a few months, but it was at the centre of much controversy during its existence, and thereafter. The Jews who were involved were subject to bitter criticism, but in this affair none were put to death for economic crimes, or for treason. 104 Such practises were viewed not just as antisocial, but seditious, and a further expression of the supposed Jewish trait of hating the entire human race. 103









everywhere, and afterwards, Jews were able to reopen many of their former synagogues, and also to establish new places of worship in communities such as Strasbourg, where they had not had the right to live before the Revolution. Anti-Jewish acts did not stop entirely with the end of the Terror. In November 1794, two Metz Jews were fined for carrying out Jewish burials and four years later five Jews were sentenced in Nice for building tabernacles for the Sukkot holiday. Thermidor was, however, more generally regarded by Jews as a period in which religious persecution had ended.105 The problems of this period were mostly economic, for the civic tax rolls in various communities were not easily met. From the very beginning of the Thermidor, the central government ordered the protection of the Jews against agitation in eastern France. Occasional outbreaks continued, and there were even some attacks on Jews for being in league, supposedly, with what remained of the Jacobins. The anger that had been evoked by the emancipation of the Jews, and their involvement in the events of the first days of the Revolution, was evident during these days of reaction, in spite of no change taking place in their actual legal status.

The Thermidorian Reaction, Revolution of Thermidor, or simply Thermidor refers to the coup of 9 Thermidor (27 July 1794) in which the Committee of Public Safety led by Robespierre was side-lined and its leaders arrested and guillotined, resulting in the end of the Reign of Terror. The new regime, known as The Directory, introduced more conservative policies aimed at stabilising the revolutionary government. 105

Consequently, for historians of revolutionary movements, the term Thermidor has come to mean the phase in some revolutions when the political pendulum swings back towards something resembling a pre-revolutionary state, and power slips from the hands of the original revolutionary leadership. Leon Trotsky, in his book “The Revolution Betrayed”, refers to the rise of Joseph Stalin and the accompanying postrevolutionary bureaucracy as the “Soviet Thermidor”. 159

Jewish emancipation eventually became a legal reality and endured in France, but the economic conflict caused by their moneylending, their religious tradition and their separatism did also. This raised questions prompting an underlying concern for a reform of the religion and an increasing pressure to accommodate the needs of the state: issues which were addressed during the Napoleonic era. In relation to the Jewish Question, Napoleon was the heir of the Revolution, and his victories after 1800 only expanded the sphere of their emancipation. When he fell in 1815, legal equality for Jews ended in much of his former empire, except in France and in Holland. In Prussia, the emancipation of 1812 had been a domestic decision, not forced upon Prussia by Napoleon. Nonetheless, the memory of the equality that Jews once held remained. Even in the many countries where nothing favourable had happened between 1789 and 1815, the example of the French Revolution served as a powerful political force to shape reactions to Jews that either worked in their favour or worked against them. Despite attempts at reaction in the 19th century, the states of Europe increasingly came to contemplate full legal equality for all citizens, including Jews, as a central element of their entering modernity.106 The events of the French Revolution had enormous effects, but they did not lead to immediate equality for the Jews in other parts of Europe. The French-inspired revolutionary Swiss regime of 1798 did not, even during its brief life, show any real desire to give the few Jews in Switzerland legal equality. In the Austrian Empire, the government was fearful of the Revolution, and little was done in the 1790s that went beyond the several decrees of toleration that had been enacted in the spirit of enlightened absolutism by Joseph II in 1781–82. The early years of the French Revolution coincided with the death of Polish independence, leading to its partition in 1795. 106


(d) The appearance of modern Judeophobia Modern Judeophobia was exacerbated by Jewish emancipation. In France, the revolutionaries’ National Assembly debated whether the principle of “Liberty, Equality and Brotherhood” should even apply to Jews. After two years, however, in September 1791, they were granted civic freedom, and Napoleon then saw it as his task to make them good Frenchmen. Incensed by complaints from Alsace about Jewish usury however, Napoleon called for an Assembly of Jewish Notables, holding sessions

Austria, Prussia, and Russia, among whom Poland was divided, were all either actively or passively arrayed against France throughout the 1790s. The influence of the French example, therefore, had no effect on their policy when these countries acquired the largest Jewish community, numbering some 800,000, in all of Europe. There was no change during the 1790s in the legal status of the Jews in any of the independent German principalities, not even those which sided with France in the war. In the most important of the German states, Prussia, despite notable and ongoing assimilation by members of the Jewish bourgeoisie in Berlin, the government refused to make any substantial changes in the regime of exclusion. A new decree that was issued at the beginning of 1790 spoke only of some future time, perhaps in three generations, when "regenerated Jews" might be admitted to civic equality. David Friedlander answered on behalf of the leaders of Berlin Jewry that no changes at all were better than this "new imposition of chains"; what Jews wanted, he boldly added, was that such chains "be completely removed." To be sure, he and his circle were not insisting that equality be attained immediately by all Jews. Like the more successful Sephardim of France at that moment, the men whom David Friedlander led were interested almost entirely in their own rights. They proclaimed that the Jews in Berlin had already become culturally and intellectually the equal of the highest in German society, and they were, therefore, to be treated differently from their brethren in Bohemia or Poland, who were yet to wait until they had suitably prepared themselves by westernisation for freedom. The news from France was reported extensively and with exaltation in Ha-Me'assef for 1790: the Hebrew annual that was supported by this Berlin circle and by like-minded men on both sides of the Rhine and in Central Europe. These accents were soon suppressed in the name of patriotism, as Prussia went to war against France, but the example of equality in France, and of the United States Constitution of 1787, remained an ideal. For Jews everywhere in the 19th century, the battle for emancipation became the central issue of their lives. Everywhere disabilities and exclusions were measured by the standards of the post-revolutionary emancipation in France after 1791. 161

from July 1806 to April 1807. The Assembly was made up of 111 rabbis and community leaders, who had to respond to twelve questions about Jewish habits namely: polygamy, divorce, marrying out, French patriotism, relationship towards the Gentiles, obedience to French law, rabbis’ appointment and authority, forbidden professions, and usury. During the last months of the sessions, 71 Jews, mostly rabbis, were appointed to translate the answers of the Assembly into binding laws. This group were known as the Napoleon Sanhedrin. This same year the first modern Judeophobic myth was born when Barruel claimed that this Sanhedrin had been “brought out to light” after being underground for almost fifteen centuries, during which it had covertly exercised powerful control over Europe. This led as a consequence to the group being dissolved. The term “Sanhedrin” was a misnomer, which could be understood to imply that it had the legal power to enforce its decisions. However, this was clearly not the case, but rather an arbitrary influence to the cause. Pope Pius VII believed Barruel, and in the Papal States and in Germany, the downfall of Napoleon (1815) undid the Emancipation. Those few years had sparked a wave of assimilation amongst Jews, many of whom had sought to enter Gentile society long before doors were more fully open to them. The vanguard of the assimilation centred in Berlin. Hugo Valentin in this respect wrote in his book “Antisemitism” that: “more German Jews were baptised between 1800 and 1818, than in the previous 1800 years put together”. It was at this time that the Jews came to realise Judeophobia was not simply going to be neutralised by a mere governmental decree, nor simply by citing Rousseau’s ideas of equality and freedom. There was rising 162

agitation against Jews in many German towns. In 1819, it reached a new point of violence with the cry “Hep, hep, death to the Jews!” accompanying the riots. The authorities argued that Emancipation should be withheld from Jews at this time, because of the ill-will it caused the masses. In France, several philosophers turned this hatred into a specific perspective. François Fourier (died 1837) established a school of social reform and pursued his aim with passionate dogmatism and intolerance. For Fourier, “commerce was the source of all evils and Jews the incarnation of commerce.” It had been a big mistake to emancipate slaves and Jews. His disciple too, Alphonse Toussenel, wrote in 1845 a twovolume work called “The Jews, Kings of the Epoch”, which served as the inspiration for a conservative, rural Judeophobia, which even developed into a political movement. Toussenel warned the reader that in his book he used “the word Jew in the sense of banker, usurer”, but in any case, he openly supported the persecutions that the Jews had previously suffered more generally as a race. This semantic manipulation allowed him to include under the “Jewish” epithet even Protestant countries. Although it was true that Toussenel was anti-Protestant too, the fact that he blamed the Jews for everything he disliked illustrates a general hatred. He limited himself to reproving Protestant influence, but he did not want to destroy the Protestants as a group. In the same vein, then, it would be an error to suppose he was as anti-Christian as he was anti-Semitic. (e) The “Jews control France” myth The hostile atmosphere in France was the backdrop for another book which was a watershed in Judeophobic history: “La France Juive” by 163

Edouard Drumont (1886). This described France as subjugated to the Jews in the political, economic, social and cultural spheres. In a short time, it ran to over a hundred editions. In 1889, Drumont founded the Anti-semitic League and a few years later he was elected to the chamber of deputies. This paradigm describing Jews dominating the nation has oft been repeated in any number of nations. It was even extended to the spurious idea of global control, in a vain attempt to bolster the significance of the idea, by beefing up the threat. The usual line of fallacious reasoning is to mention the names of Jewish bankers, newspaper editors, top industrialists and so on, and then bundle all this power together by claiming it belongs to the “Jews”. The fallacious reasoning is that Jews occupy key positions irrespective of their abilities or merit out of all proportion to their status (whatever that is supposed to be) and out of all proportion to their numbers. It then claims they are secretly a subversive influence favouring nepotism and coordinating a stratagem or strategies collectively purely for the benefit of “the Jews”. The reason for seeking to benefit their fellow Jews, many of whom they do not personally know, simply due to a racial link is tenuous to say the least.

It invariably

presumes they succeed into deserved positions of power simply due to Jewish nepotism, when often they are in fact disadvantaged as a minority, but succeed nevertheless by sheer ability and hard work.


(4) The Jewish Bolshevik Conspiracy (a) Bolsheviks as “Jewish” Freemasons Lenin became a Freemason whilst abroad in 1908. One of these sources claiming this is a detailed investigation: Nikolai Svitkov’s “About Freemasonry in Russian Exile”, published in Paris in 1932. Moreover, Svitkov asserts, the most important Freemasons from Russia were claimed to be Jewish. These being Vladimir Ulyanov-Lenin, Leon Trotsky (Leiba Bronstein) 107, Grigori Zinoviev (Gerson Radomyslsky), Leon

Mr. Leiba Bronstein (aka Trotsky) became a Freemason in 1897 and later a supposedly high-ranking Illuminatus through his friend Alexander Parvus. He also maintained contacts with B'nai B'rith, a Jewish Masonic order, which it is claimed had previously aided Jewish revolutionaries in Russia. 107

Jacob Schiff, chairman of the banking house Kuhn, Loeb & Co. and a minion of the Rothschilds, it is claimed, took care of the contacts between the "revolutionary movement in Russia" and B'nai B'rith. (Gerald B. Winrod, "Adam Weishaupt - A Human Devil", p. 47.) Leiba Bronstein began to study Freemasonry and the history of the secret societies seriously in 1898 and continued these studies during the two years he spent in prison in Odessa. He took notes amounting to over 1000 pages. “Internationaler FreimaurerLexikon” Vienna/Munich, 1932, (p. 204) suggests that Leiba Bronstein-Trotsky came to Bolshevism and revolutionary activism through this study of Freemasonry. As a People's Commissary for Military Affairs, Trotsky introduced the pentagram - the five-pointed star - as the symbol of the Red Army. This supposedly denoted his interest in Cabbalistic symbols. The Cabbalists had taken over this symbol of black magic from the lodges, who in turn had supposedly preserved its magical significance from ancient Chaldea. With the aid of Alexander Parvus, Trotsky, it has been claimed by some antiSemitic critics, apparently reached the conclusion that the true purpose of Freemasonry was to eliminate nation states and their cultures and to introduce a New “Judaised” world state. This is disingenuous reasoning however, and plays largely on the presumed Jewish Bolshevik association, rather than the political objectives and ideology of Marxist-Leninism as an atheistic political ideology. 165

Kamenev (actually Leiba Rosenfeld), Karl Radek (Tobiach Sobelsohn), Maxim Litvinov (Meyer Hennokh Wallakh), Yakov Sverdlov (Yankel Aaron Solomon), L. Martov (Yuli Zederbaum), and Maxim Gorky (Alexei Peshkov), among others. According to the Austrian political scientist Karl Steinhauser’s “The European Union - the Super Soviet Union (USSR) of Tomorrow” (p. 192) Lenin also belonged to the Masonic lodge Art et Travail. Lenin, Zinoviev, Radek and Sverdlov also belonged to B’nai B’rith suggestive of Jewish

This Freemason-Jewish-Bolshevik link appears disingenuous, but can be found in “The Secret Initiation into the 33rd Degree” where it is claimed: “Freemasonry is nothing more and nothing less than revolution in action, continuous conspiracy.” Here it is stated Bronstein became a convinced internationalist who, through Parvus, came to believe the anti- Orthodox view that the Jewish people were their own collective Messiah and would reach domination over all peoples through the mixing of the other races and elimination of national boundaries. An international republic was to be created, it is claimed, where the Jews would be the ruling element, since no others would be able to understand and control the masses. As an activist concerned with this agenda Leiba Bronstein had become a member of the French Masonic lodge Art et Travail, to which Lenin also belonged, but in addition joined B’nai B’rith, according to the political scientist Karl Steinhauser “EU - the Super Soviet Union of Tomorrow”, Vienna, 1992, (p. 162). Leon Trotsky too became a member of the Jewish Masonic order B’nai B’rith in New York, in January 1917. See Yuri Begunov, “Secret Forces in the History of Russia”, St. Petersburg, 1995, (pp. 138-139). He was already a member of the Misraim-Memphis Freemasonry before this. Trotsky apparently reached a very high position within Freemasonry, since he belonged to the Shriner Lodge, which only Freemasons of the 32nd degree and higher were allowed to join. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Alexander Kerensky, Béla Kun, and other leading politicians have also been claimed to be among these select few. The claim is made by Professor Johan von Leers, “The Power behind the President”, Stockholm, 1941, (p. 148). 166

influence. Researchers specialised in the activities of B’nai B’rith, including Schwartz-Bostunich, also confirm this information.108 Lenin was apparently a Freemason of the 31st degree (Grand Inspecteur Inquisiteur Commandeur) and a member of the lodge Art et Travail in both Switzerland and France.109 It is claimed when Lenin visited the headquarters of Grand Orient on Rue Cadet in Paris, he signed the visitors’ book providing proof of this.110 Together with Trotsky, Lenin also took part in the International Masonic Conference in Copenhagen in 1910. 111 The socialisation of Europe was rather unsurprisingly the topic on the agenda. Alexander Galpern, Secretary of the Masonic Supreme Council, certainly confirmed in 1916 that there were Bolsheviks associated with Freemasonry. The Jewish presence is less emphasised. According to Galpern’s testimony, the Freemasons gave Lenin financial aid to assist in his revolutionary activity. This was certified by a known Freemason, Grigori Aronson, in his article “Freemasons in Russian Politics”, published in the Novoye Russkoye Slovo, New York, 8-12 October in 1959. The historian Boris Nikolayevsky also mentioned this in his book “The Russian Freemasons and the Revolution” (Moscow, 1990). In 1914, two Bolsheviks, Ivan Skvortsov-Stepanov and Grigori Petrovsky, contacted the

. Viktor Ostretsov, “Freemasonry, Culture and Russian History”, Moscow, 1999 (pp. 582-583). 108

Oleg Platonov, “Russia's Crown of Thorns: The Secret History of Freemasonry”, Moscow, 2000, part II (p. 417). 109


Viktor Kuznetsov, “The Secret of the October Coup”, St. Petersburg, 2001 (p. 42).


Franz Weissin, “The Road to Socialism”, Munich, 1930 ( p.9). 167

Freemason Alexander Konovalov for economic aid. Konovalov later became a minister in the Provisional Government. In respect to the influence of Bolshevism and its identification with the Illuminati, Churchill clearly believed: “This movement is not new”. In this, he specifically identifies the Illuminati as a link to Bolshevism and that they were “atheistical Jews”. In this, one presumes, he is in earnest about his conviction and the link with Weishaupt (an atheistical Jew) supposes historic continuity. However, in respect to any Illuminati/ Bolshevik link, via the lodges of Lenin, Trotsky, et al., over a century separates the two movements. The original Illuminati having officially dispersed in 1788. Even activists recruited into the later German Union proved it to be a short-lived organisation. Whilst an ideological influence could certainly be broadly supposed, it need not necessarily be presumed that Bolshevism was simply rebranded Illuminism, or that the Illuminati had simply revived and were behind the scenes influencing the Bolsheviks, or pulling the strings of the Russian revolution. Whilst many have tried to revive the Illuminati in various organisations over the past 200 years, most attempts only ever won over a few members and then promptly died away. The original order was formed at a time when there was a craze for secret organisations, and the group’s popularity is pretty unremarkable for this time, as Reinhard Markner, historian at the University of Innsbruck notes: “The Illuminati managed to recruit quite a large number of influential men - princes and their councillors, high-ranking bureaucrats, university professors and other educators, writers and intellectuals.” 112 Many influential intellectuals and progressive politicians counted themselves as members, including Ferdinand of Brunswick and the diplomat Xavier von Zwack, who was the Order's second-in-command. It attracted literary men such as Johann 112


Nevertheless, it has become the explanation of many theorists who claim that it is still in some way alive and attempting to control the world, even to this day. If the later Bolsheviks were not ideologically influenced in some direct manner by the Illuminati, they certainly shared some common basic principles. This alone made them revolutionary comrades in spirit, even if such similarities arose after the fact. They may even have sought to commemorate this in lodges associated with their name. Yet even if they did, it need not necessarily denote a particularly shared Jewish strategy, even if it had been bequeathed to them by some secret individual who was Jewish, but just so happened to be associated with the Illuminati organisation. Nor need it suppose a Jewish plot simply because some of the leading Bolsheviks just happened to be Jews. Overall, there is a distinct lack of tangible evidence for any Illuminist continuity down the generations exerting a direct influence on Communism. There is only an ideological similarity, drawn most likely from the Enlightenment philosophical traditions that influenced both. Paranoid suspicions have led to theorists making claims of a direct influence and a continuing Illuminati presence, but such claims require concrete evidence. Evidence which is not easily discerned of a secret organisation continually prepared to rename and regroup to avoid detection. The existence of later, weaker, smaller, less influential organisations also causes confusion. As does the overlap of individuals

Wolfgang von Goethe and Johann Gottfried Herder and the reigning dukes of Gotha and Weimar. 169

associated with such secret societies that also wielded influence in organisations such as the Jacobins. Some Neo Nazi organisations today try to justify historic links between the Illuminati and the Freemasons and the Bolsheviks, suggestive of a unified strategy passed down in a coherent and consistent plan down the generations.113 In this, a tendency to conflate Illuminism with Freemasonry occurs, after the former organisation had (at least overtly) died.114 The association of Bolsheviks with Freemasonry is clearly evident, yet need not be enough to suppose Masonry’s religious principles were a front to merely subvert politically. If they were, why would the radical Weishaupt have been so dissatisfied with Freemasonry in the first place? Meeting in lodges suggests a Bolshevik Freemason link, but not necessarily a Bolshevik Illuminati link, unless Masonic lodges had been infiltrated by Illuminati agents and sought to give them harbour and assist them in the cause. In any case, that Freemasonry specifically had an 113 Similar

ideas were published by Nesta H. Webster in such books as “Secret Societies and Subversive Movements”. This includes a chapter that presents some documentary evidence from no-longer-secret police reports that the Illuminati survived into at least the early 1800s. She provides some quotations from Francois Charles de Berckheim, who conducted some investigations into the order in his day and concluded that they were more widespread and stronger than ever. Weishaupt himself is quoted as having said: “Conceal the very fact of our existence. If they discover us, conceal our objective by profession of benevolence. If our real objective is perceived, pretend to disband and relinquish the whole thing, but assume another name and put forth new agents.” This strategy suggests it may well have continued thereafter covertly with its activism, but its influence in filial organisations would in any case have been diminished. Lacking in this would have been the organisational structure necessary to affect significant power. Infiltration of other false fronts simply to continue the project created its own limitations. False front organisations wholly won over to the cause themselves would have taken time to effectively re-establish a new organisational structure of agents not readily identifiable as their own, as well as the re-continuation of the nexus of power. 114


agenda to subvert because some were Bolsheviks is rather a guilt by association assumption. It might simply have been no more than a handy, fashionable and largely private place to meet. Jews, as a common association in this are also identified, but it is clear that any religious sensibilities, let alone racial identification as Jews, was deemed of lesser importance than the political ideology that such activists sought to implement. Revolutionary subversion necessitates an abandoning of the religious ethics of those practising Judaism. Thence only a racial identification remains as the sole justification that unites them. But this in itself falls flat, when other racial types were also activists, but not identified as being of importance.

(b) Further speculations on the ideological similarities James H. Billington’s “Fire in the Minds of Men” documents the ideological links from Illuminism to what became known as communism (which itself diversified into Fabian socialism, cultural Marxism, social democratic liberalism, etc).

In respect to Communism, Karl Marx's

“Communist Manifesto” of 1848 focused especially upon four long-term goals. These were: (1) The replacement of independent nations with global government. This leading to world Communism. (2) The replacement of traditional nuclear families with a non-traditional communal “family”. (3) The replacement of private property with communal property. (4) The replacement of organised religion with atheism. The latter goal has changed somewhat since 1848, as many global socialists are now advancing a populist New Age religion to support their 171

totalitarian New World Order politics in a manner advocated by the UN’s Julien Huxley. This was envisioned as a synthesis of world religions and humanism, but to achieve this an attack on Christianity is notably supposed as a constant. New Age principles have slowly gained popularity within all religious groups worldwide, alongside other trends like “liberation theology” that disguises socialist ideology in religious terms and has subverted many Christian biblical values and principles in the name of charity work and social altruism. Karl Marx readily admitted that communism predated him in his “Communist Manifesto”. He claimed to be merely chosen by his comrades to publish their doctrine to the world, which he did anonymously on the eve of attempted revolutions across Europe. They had already become a pan-European power by 1848, opposed (as Marx stated) by “Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French radicals and German police-spies”. This certainly didn’t happen overnight and would have required decades of growth, planning and past experience. Marx himself in his booklet “The Holy Family” cites Nicolas Bonneville's Cercle Sociale as providing the origins of revolutionary communism. 115In that same paragraph in "The Holy Family," he even credits another of Bonneville's






revolutionary communist ideology to France after 1830. Buonarroti, like Bonneville, were avowed revolutionaries.

Along with reintroducing

In “The Holy Family”, Karl Marx defined the idea of communism as the New World Order. This phrase has since been bandied about by other communists, Fabian socialists, fascists, New Age gurus, and increasing numbers of globalist politicians worldwide. George Bush Senior having been the most prominent President in modern times in that respect. In this usage, it is rather assumed to be a password for a particular and uniformly consist idea of what the new “Order” entails, when it need not necessarily be so. 115


communist ideology to France, as Marx stated, Buonarroti joined the Italian Carbonari, grew its ranks, and helped to reorganise it in a manner whose ranks resembled the Illuminati hierarchy.

(c) Did Churchill’s hatred of Bolshevism mean he was antiSemitic? It can be broadly assumed that for the middle-aged Churchill a revolutionary tendency closely associated with Jews clearly did exhibit historic continuity and that this needed to find its antidote in nationalism. This revolutionary tendency had further become manifest during his time in the dangerous ideology of Marxist Socialism, most specially Bolshevism (Communism or as Lenin termed it “democratic Socialism”) in Russia and Europe. This he claimed: “…has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.” In this, for Churchill, the common issue does appear to be the question of Jewishness and what it should be. There is an ongoing battle raging, where both Zionism (a benevolent nationalism of “commanding character”) and Bolshevism (a wicked globalism/ supra-nationalism or internationalism) are competing for the hearts and minds of the Jewish people. This in itself is complicated with the demands and expectations of national assimilation into a foreign homeland that may have had its influence and grown loyalties over and above these two seemingly conflicting world


views. As well as cultural values and religious practices marked out as Jewish. 116 Gisela C. Lebzelter “Political anti-Semitism in England: 1918-1939”, Oxford: Macmillan (p.181) claimed that Churchill’s analysis failed to

Zionism today is opposed by a wide variety of organisations and individuals. Among those opposing Zionism are some Torah aligned Jews, represented most notably by Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss who (like other Neturei Karta) believes “Zionism is a fundamentally heretical movement which denies the Divine imperative that Jews remain in exile until the day when all mankind will be miraculously redeemed.” Some branches of Judaism (Satmar Hasidic and Neturei Karta Haredi), some AfricanAmericans, many in the Muslim world, Palestinians and many Socialist movements oppose Zionism. Reasons are varied, and include the perceptions of unfair land confiscation, expulsions of Palestinians, violence against Palestinians, and alleged racism. Arab states in particular strongly oppose Zionism, which they believe is responsible for the 1948 Palestinian exodus. 116

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

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

Neo-Zionism and post-Zionism share traits with “classical” Zionism but differ by accentuating antagonist and diametrically opposed poles already present in Zionism. “Neo Zionism accentuates the messianic and particularistic dimensions of Zionist nationalism, while post-Zionism accentuates its normalising and universalistic dimensions”, Steve Chan, Anita Shapira, Derek Jonathan, “Israeli Historical Revisionism: from left to right”, Routledge, 2002 (p.58). Post-Zionism asserts that Israel should abandon the concept of a “state of the Jewish people” and strive to be a state for all its citizens, or a binational state where Arabs and Jews live together, while enjoying some type of autonomy. Another brand termed Zio–globalism (an apparent oxymoron) popular with many anti-Semites evolved from these developments and tends to the view that a Jewish inspired ethnocentric elite acting covertly seeks dominion over the Earth for their own corrupt and dangerous ends. It propagates a view of some Jews being responsible, a Zionist elite, but often tends to apply it generally to the majority of, or even all Jews, along bigoted, racist lines. It generally places undue emphasis on the importance of Jews and their subversive influence in the general scheme of things. 174

acknowledge the role that the Russian oppression of Jews played in some joining various revolutionary movements. He instead identifies: “inherent inclinations rooted in Jewish character and religion.”.117 It is clear, however, that while Churchill accepts the role of the International Jew in the Bolshevik Revolution, he very much downplays the role of the National. In this, then, he is speaking not of all Jews, but makes a clear distinction. Ideological and not racial distinctions are to the fore, but it is a distinction not entirely helped by his use of language. He first appears to be implying that Bolshevism is due to a worldwide Jewish conspiracy amongst a certain kind of Jew. But he then rather appears to back track on this when he goes further and claims Bolshevism is not a “Jewish movement”. A position that appears to place him in a muddle when he claims it yet originated “amongst Jews”. Clearly Churchill’s distinctions free him of any charge of racism against Jews generally. But he fails to see Zionism as a danger in itself, promoting national dissent or even Socialist principles. The role of the “National Jew” (under which Zionism is rather clumsily placed because it is a nationalist

Churchill’s national and international distinction is rather unsatisfactory in respect to its omission of Zionism’s Socialist influenced tendencies. Generally, he tends to the view that that both Zionism and Bolshevism were quintessentially Jewish and reflective of Jewish values in a general more intrinsic sense: 117

“. . . there is much in the fact of Bolshevism itself. In the fact that so many Jews are Bolsheviks. In the fact that the ideals of Bolshevism are consonant with the finest ideals of Judaism”. (The Jewish Chronicle, April 4, 1918). “some call it Marxism I call it Judaism” (The American Bulletin, Rabbi S. Wise, May 5, 1935). Of course, many Jews would equally take exception to these statements. 175

movement) he considers has loyalties fully capable of combatting Bolshevism’s dangerous influence. He concludes that it was: “particularly important... that the National Jews in every country who are loyal to the land of their adoption should come forward on every occasion . . .and take a prominent part in every measure for combatting the Bolshevik conspiracy. In this way they will be able to vindicate the honour of the Jewish name and make it clear to all the world that the Bolshevik movement is not a Jewish movement, but is repudiated vehemently by the great mass of the Jewish race.” In this, the “International Jews” are asserted very much as a minority, but more so it seems to be Churchill’s own voice (rather than Nesta Webster’s) speaking here when he says that “National Jews” should come forward and combat the “Bolshevik conspiracy” in their midst. A conspiracy which he considers needs to be repudiated “by the great mass” which is the majority. In doing so, one feels Churchill wanted his audience to believe that the idea that the Jews were largely responsible for the Bolshevik movement was an idea best quashed. But he does little to assist his cause in citing the later fascist Nesta Webster, or identifying its historic origins as Jewish, no matter what the historic evidence for a partial influence may be.118 But the correct point here is made: Bolshevism should not simply be One has to question Webster as an entirely credible source. During the time cited (1920) Churchill clearly recognises her theory as correct. It appears to be based on her 1919, book “The French Revolution: a Study in Democracy” in which she claimed that a secret conspiracy had prepared and carried out the French Revolution. As she said in her book, “The lodges of the German Freemasons and Illuminati were thus the source whence emanated all those anarchic schemes which culminated in the Terror, and it was at a great meeting of the Freemasons in Frankfurt-am-Main, three years before the French Revolution began, that the deaths of Louis XVI and Gustavus III of Sweden were first planned.” 118

But by 1921 Webster had published “Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, the Menace of Communism” (with Mrs. Katherine Atkinson) and “The Origin and Progress of the World Revolution”. In the latter book, published in 1921, she wrote: 176

viewed as a Jewish ideology. It is simply a dangerous political movement, and when all said and done needs to be rejected and repudiated by the Jewish majority via nationalism and assimilation. This sensible conclusion however, irrespective of the numbers of Jews who might have sought to oppose or dissociate themselves from Bolshevism, clearly had little effect on those prejudiced minds who wanted a scapegoat as an all embracing and convenient explanatory cause. Indeed, as history was too soon to show, this Jewish-Bolshevik association was one myth that would not easily die, and the consequences of such prejudiced wholesale associations with Jews generally contributed greatly

“What mysteries of iniquity would be revealed if the Jew, like the mole, did not make a point of working in the dark! Jews have never been more Jews than when we tried to make them men and citizens.” Generally, in her books, Webster argued that Bolshevism was part of a much older and more secret, self-perpetuating conspiracy, but she waivered as to the culprits. She described three possible sources for this conspiracy: Zionism, Pan-Germanism, or “the occult power.” She stated that she leaned towards Zionism as the most likely culprit of the three. She also claimed that even if the Protocols were fake, they still describe how Jews behave. In the book World Revolution, due to a controversy with Freemasons because of her previous book on the French Revolution, she wrote a note stating “I am in fact indebted to certain disguised British masons for valuable help and advice in my work, which I here gratefully acknowledge”. A little later Webster became involved in several right-wing groups including the British Fascists, the Anti-Socialist Union, The Link, and the British Union of Fascists. She was also the leading writer of “The Patriot”, an anti-Semitic paper. She dismissed much of the persecution of the Jews by Nazi Germany as exaggeration and propaganda. She was a well-known fascist by this time and believed this strategy was essentially Jewish inspired as did Mosley. Her personal religious views too tended like Nazism to occultism and pagan mysticism. But lest Churchill too be charged as an antiSemite by association, it is worth stating Webster’s original view was one that viewed Jewish culpability was simply a smokescreen to hide the Illuminati's real activities. Later however this view changed as her fascist views took hold. She essentially came to believe that Jews were the cause of all major revolutions throughout history and even the initiators of the Second World War.


to lighting the fuse of a more widespread racial hatred in the National Socialist Germany of the 1930s. 119

To labour the point, in respect to Churchill, his distinctions free him of any charge of anti-Semitism, as anti-Semitism requires an attitude of race hatred against Jews more generally, and not simply specific distinctions in respect to a political allegiance. In this it is important to note Churchill’s concern to repudiate Bolshevism as a “predominantly Jewish movement�, even if it originated amongst Jews. This emphasised that it was not indicative of Jewish national loyalties and was counterproductive to the good for the majority of Jewish people. 119

Churchill opposed the restriction on immigration imposed by the Aliens Act of 1903, which tends further to the view that he was not anti-Semitic. In his remarks, it is clear he is attacking a particular section, although primarily due to his citation of Webster he might mistakenly be thought of as exaggerating their numbers, aims and overall influence down the ages. 178

(5) The Jewish Russian Revolution conspiracy (a) Conflicting views concerning the influence of the Jews The identification of Bolshevism as a Jewish movement emerged after WW1. This identification was at a time when neither Bolshevism nor Zionism held great popularity amongst the majority of religiously minded Jews. Neither was this religious sensibility at odds with the patriotism of Russia. Indeed, it strengthened it. Many had actually volunteered to serve the Tsar in the war, and there were at least 400,000 Jews serving in the Russian army in 1914. This impressive figure, however, is less so considering conscription had by this time been enforced and the figures might well have been less reflective of a patriotic fervor to serve due to this. By the end of 1915 in any case 5 million of the 6.5 million Russian Jews had become subjects of Imperial Germany, as a consequence of the defeat of the Tsarist armies. 120 Their future path had been set by a defeat which itself mapped out a darker destiny under the future Hitler regime. When the revolutions of 1917 crippled Russia’s war effort, conspiracy theories spread. Such theories tended to overlook the more widespread Jewish discontent with both movements and identified Jews generally as the common cause. Many in Britain, for example, ascribed the Russian Revolution to an “apparent conjunction of Bolsheviks, Germans and


Isaiah Friedman, “Germany, Turkey and Zionism 1898-1918”, p.253,239. 179

Jews” in a manner accentuating the Jewish influence, but not the Jewish discontent that opposed it.121 The chief factor in this general association appears to have been the large percentage of Jews who had been the inspirers and agents of influence in the Bolshevik movement in its early years. This government elite tended to produce a general, but rather inaccurate view that because a significant number of Jews were key leaders in the Bolshevik movement, the revolution itself was caused by them to fulfil specifically Jewish and not simply political objectives. Moreover, because of this racial ethos, Jews generally supported it and were largely sympathetic to its aims. What are the facts of the matter? History can be prone to multiple interpretations, but what is clear is that although many Bolsheviks (along with Parvus-Helphand, and other conspirators behind the Leninist movement, Karl Radek and Olof Aschberg, etc) were Jewish, many of the chief movers were not, in spite of oft made claims to the contrary. Lenin was only partly so by virtue of his mother’s lineage. Stalin was certainly not. Trotsky was however. But even in this, it is clear that political and not Jewish identification was considered to be the prime motivating factor. Indeed, for Trotsky, like so many of his political comrades, this transcended and even negated any racial or religious sense. As Nora Levin asserts: “Having abandoned their own origins and identity, yet not finding, or sharing, or being fully admitted to Russian life (except in the world of the party), the Jewish Bolsheviks found their ideological home in revolutionary universalism. They dreamt of a classless and stateless society supported by Marxist faith and doctrine that transcended the particularities and burdens of Jewish existence. Such Jews exhibited vehement hostility toward other Jews such as Bundists, Zionists, and observant Jews who proudly proclaimed or 121

David Fromkin, “A Peace to end all peace”, pp.247-248. 180

expressed their Jewishness and became extremely zealous officials in the new regime.” This can be seen when Vladimir Medem, a Bundist leader, asked Trotsky whether he considered himself to be “…either a Russian or a Jew?” Trotsky simply replied: “I am a Social Democrat and only that.” 122 Clearly Trotsky self-identified not as a Russified Jew, but a Russified Bolshevik. In his autobiography, he speaks of his brief, meaningless contact with Hebrew and Judaism. He was aware of national inequalities, the restrictions on Jews, as he was of other minorities, but these issues were lost among a myriad of other political issues in a general bigger picture, coupled with a more universal “intense hatred of the existing order, of injustice, of tyranny.” By rejecting their Jewish heritage, Bolsheviks like Trotsky felt that they had become models for the Jew of the future. They felt that their fellow Jews should emulate them by becoming “Jews by family origin only” and as a result should feel: “no special ties to other Jews or any interest in specific Jewish problems.” Anti-Semitism then, like so many other issues, became collectivised into the more universal theory as: “a disease of capitalism which would disappear with the destruction of capitalism.”

The Jewish Question so important in the life of Russia, had practically no personal significance for Trotsky. Even in his early youth, nationalism and its prejudices only bewildered his sense of reason and aroused disdain. 122


In this, however, it was not a necessarily a Jewish sensibility or concern that was to the fore, and as McMeekin (op.cit) asserts: “neither Max Bodenheimer’s committee of German Zionists, nor the Zionist Executive, nor any kind of organized international Jewish network had much of anything to do with either the February or October Revolution.” 123 This view, however, runs counter to the popular view of the time, where the spread of the International “Jewish” conspiracy in the 1920s was one that held a fairly widespread acceptance amongst the world intelligentsia of the time. 124


Sean McMeekin, The Berlin-Baghdad Express (p.347).

In May 1919, Woodrow Wilson proclaimed the Bolshevik movement was “led by Jews.” In 1919, Arnold Zweig, who was a Zionist and a Communist, wrote “Jewish blood” gave birth to Socialism “from Moses to Lindauer.” 124

Elie Wiesel also wrote: "We have to make revolution, because God told us to. God wants us to become communists ....” In 1848, Adolf Jellinek too wrote, “reactionaries denounce Jews as the perpetuum mobile of the revolution.” In Der Grosse Basar, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a leader of the '68 Revolution, characterised Trotsky as “embodying the essence of the Talmudic Jew.” In 1934, in Katholizismus und Judentum, the Hungarian Jesuit Bela Bangha wrote,..”revolutionary Marxism” corresponded “in its essence to a particular form of the Jewish soul and his intellectual posture ....” In December 1918, the American Literary Digest asked “Are Bolshewiki mainly Jewish?” In June 1920, an article termed “The Jewish Peril” in the Christian Science Monitor referred to an alleged world-wide Jewish conspiracy as demonstrated by the newly discovered and widely believed “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”. On the same day, the Chicago Tribune referred to Bolshevism as "an instrument for Jewish control of the world ...” Neither was this attitude simply consigned to anti-Semites either as even Jews themselves were inclined to make the association. For example, in 1921, A. Sachs wrote, “Jewish Bolshevism has demonstrated to the entire world that the Jewish race is not suffering from degeneracy.” The validity of such assumptions can be tempered with hopes and objectives that yet were not indicative of Bolshevism’s ideological principles as a wholly Jew-centric revolutionary cause. For example, in the November 30, 1917 issue of The Jewish Chronicle, Trotsky was described as “the Avenger for Jewish suffering and humiliation" under the Czars.” A role Trotsky himself would no 182

In this respect, it is not an association that ipso fact denotes racism. It simply denotes a false association in some quarters that because there was a large Jewish presence in the Communist Party, a notion of a purely Jewish conspiracy could be assumed. 125 This is the charge made against some by Churchill in his identification of Bolshevism originating amongst Jews, but it does not consider his caveat that it is not simply a Jewish movement. Saolo prompts a charge of racism by association assuming that: “anti-Semites in and outside Russia glibly equated communism with the alleged Jewish world conspiracy.” His explanation for Jewish predominance in the party basically identifies oppression and higher education levels amongst the Jews, which caused many Jewish intellectuals to be attracted to its professed international ideals, as well as to its Socialist radicalism. An ideology which promised to put an end to the Tsarist “oppression” of absolutism. This sense of oppression might well have caused a disproportionate number of Jews to join the new Bolshevik secret service. But self-identification as an oppressed “class” (proletariat), rather than the view that they were specifically oppressed Jews was the perspective championed here, doubt have queried based on his political, rather than racially centred ideological perspectives. 125 EM Jones “The Jewish

Revolutionary Spirit (op. cit) claims Bolshevism very quickly began to be seen even by Russians as a quintessentially Jewish, rather than simply a political phenomenon. Paranoia rose to such a point that: “ When Zinoviev and Kamenev were nominated for prominent government posts, voices were heard shouting, "Tell us their real names.''' In this takeover of the organisational positions of power many Jews held sway, once the Christian believers opposing the Revolution fell away. In this, Jews took over, just as the Jesuits at Civilta Cattolica had predicted. Solzhenitsyn agreed with the Jesuits' assessment when he claimed that the revolution succeeded because “the Orthodox faith was too weak in us.” 183

irrespective of Russian Tsarist Christian sensibilities that might have identified the activists and revolutionaries otherwise. Certainly, the new revolutionaries acted out of a sense of political fervour and idealism that sought international objectives, but this ideology of internationalism might well have been largely lost on those critics that still saw the activists themselves in national and racial terms. As one Russian exclaimed: “Everywhere I looked I saw, Latvians, Latvians, and Jews Jews Jews. I was never an anti-Semite, but here their number was so obvious.”

The more general Jewish conspiracy theory appears to have flourished in some quarters on the basis of such claims. The rationale for such perceptions being similarly bolstered by the Protocols. Whether the ready acceptance was sustained due to anti-Semitic sentiment, or through a desire to support the Tsarist cause, or both, as Daniel Pipes remarks it was: “primarily through the Protocols of the Elders of Zion that the Whites spread these charges to an international audience.” 126

Cases for Jewish Bolshevism in the main are made by anti-Semitic, neo Nazi and pro-Nazi sympathisers, as well as advocates of New and Alt Right political fringe movements. Not all advocating a Jewish influence are anti-Semites however, but many do advocate a Zio-globalist view that some Jews are somehow seeking to control key institutions, in the media, political spheres, the legislative and banking centres for their own devious purposes. See also Pipes, Daniel (1997). “Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where it Comes From”. New York: Simon & Schuster. But these perspectives often begin from the assumption “guilty as charged how can we prove it”, rather than dispassionately analysing the historical evidence. The evidence in any case can often be interpreted to render a variety of quite different perspectives given the passage of time. Further problems too arise in determining what is and is not 126


In this respect also, as James Webb wrote, it is rare to find an anti-Semitic source after 1917 that: “...does not stand in debt to the White Russian analysis of the Revolution.” 127 Clearly, simply proving the book was a fake was never going to be enough to dissuade racists as to the inaccuracy of their claims. Inauthenticity to this day has generally been overridden by prejudice. It is subtly justified with clever philosophical argument as to its “intrinsic validity”. Additional arguments, therefore, are required, which strive not to be politically or racially biased, but factually based. Evidence not readily available, as impartial evidence free from such aims is generally scant in any appraisal, even when close to the time.

(b) The historical background to the Russian Revolution: conflicting views and impulses concerning the settlement of the Jews To dispute the Jewish, as opposed to the Russian Revolutionary thesis, (an argument that claims Jews primarily acted for revolutionary causes specifically to further the interest of themselves because they were Jewish) the arguments need to focus on the historical background, as well as the issue of the supposed racial profiles of the leading Bolsheviks in the Executive Committee during and after the October Revolution. It needs to re-evaluate the claim that a very large percentage of Jews occupied the

a genuine statement of intent. Fake quotes abound. They are usually propagated for political reasons. See Appendix I. Webb, James (1976).” Occult Establishment: The Dawn of the New Age and the Occult Establishment”. Open Court Publishing, (p.295). 127


Cheka and elite government positions immediately after the Revolution, indicative of some supposed malevolent thirst for absolute power. The pro-Semitic view of history invariable interprets the history of Jews in Europe as having been one of oppression and segregation, and it is this view of the Jews as a persecuted minority in the Russian Empire that largely holds sway today. Thus, during the period from 1881 to 1920, the view that Jews had endured an enforced form of racial segregation in the Pale of Settlement,


as well as sporadic pogroms, was what might be

termed the “modern popular view”, and it was this segregation and “persecution” that ultimately led to two million Jews eventually leaving Russia.129 According to Berel Wein in his “Triumph of Survival: The Jews in the Modern Era 1600-1990”: “Expulsions, deportations, arrests, and beatings became the daily lot of the Jews, not only of their lower class, but even of the middle class and the Jewish intelligentsia. The government of Alexander III waged a campaign of war against its Jewish [citizens]... The Jews were driven and hounded, and emigration appeared to be the only escape from the terrible tyranny of the Romanovs.”

Quite a different interpretation of history is offered by Frank. L. Britton in his “Behind Communism” however. He asserts the Jews were seen from the Tsarist perspective as an enemy capable of overturning or undermining Russian society (and even the culture itself) by their

A region made up of Poland, Belarus, Lithuania and Ukraine. This composed of part of the Russian Empire. 128

“Political Activity and Emigration. Beyond the Pale. The History of Jews in Russia.” (Exhibition by Friends and Partners Project). 129


increasingly subversive presence. From this perspective, the impositions by the Tsarist government are viewed as necessary restrictions: “…designed to protect Russia’s economy and culture from the inroads of the Jew.” Britton notes that whilst the dangers were felt, it was decreed (in 1772) that Jews could settle in Greater Russia, but only within certain areas. This region, or “Pale of Settlement”, extended from the Crimea to the Baltic Sea, encompassing an area half as great as Western Europe. By 1917, seven million Jews resided there; an estimated 50% of the world's total Jewish population. It was here, within the Pale of Settlement, according to Briton’s view that: “…the twin philosophies of Communism and Zionism flourished.” Both movements arose, according to Britton, as an evolution of a Jewish hatred for Christian civilisation and its believers, who were throughout Jewish history viewed as the persecutors of the “chosen race”. Britton goes further in asserting that: “…both movements have spread wherever Jews have emigrated. The Pale of Settlement has been the reservoir from which the world-wide forces of Communism have flowed. It is worth noting that half of the world’s Jewish population now resides in the U.S., and that all but a handful of these are from the Pale or are descendants of emigrants from the Pale.” Whilst travel or residence beyond the Pale was restricted, Jews were more or less free to conduct their own affairs as they wished. As a consequence, by the date of Russia’s first census in 1897, 93.9% of Russia’s Jewish population lived within its boundaries, and only 6% of the total resided in other parts of the Empire.


Interpreting the Pale as more of a managed accommodation by the Tsarist government, in order to contain an increasingly difficult immigrant problem, rather than an enforced segregation, provides a more accurate picture for Britton. He emphasises the high percentage figures of Jews within the Pale as being indicative of their natural tendency to congregate together in a tribal community by their own volition. In respect to the Pale Britton also concludes that: “From the standpoint of Jewish history, the Pale of Settlement ranks as one of the most significant factors of modern times. Here within a single and contiguous area the greater part of Jewry had gathered, and was to remain, for something like 125 years. For the first time Jewry was subjected to a common environment and a common ground of experience. Out of this common experience and environment there evolved the Yiddish speaking Jew of the 20th century.” In respect to the Pale he again adds: “Here too were born the great movements of Zionism and Communism.”

Britton notes the importance of the tribal community or “Kahal” as a “vital habit” of Jewry from ancient times. He considers it important also for establishing and maintaining Jewishness (traditions, culture, religion, etc) within the greater framework of a predominantly Christian society. Emphasising it as an ancient custom in any case, Britton claims it was the natural proclivity of Jews to establish such communities, even when they were not legally compelled to do so. “We have noted also that as the Jew was driven from Western Europe, he brought with him to Poland this ancient custom. The Kahal was an established institution in Poland, and as the Jews settled within the Pale they set up these autonomous communities here too.” 188

However, it is to be noted that this tendency to form a community is not an exclusive trait of Jewishness per se. Neither were Jews exhibiting an unnatural tendency to want to preserve their religious traditions amongst their own people. It is a natural tendency amongst many tribes and races, and one of the prime imperatives of human beings generally as “social animals” to seek to mix with one’s own kind and network to further their advantage. Territorial instincts too are a human trait. The desire to preserve culture amongst the religiously devout is particularly strong in this respect. This noted, a more pro-Semitic publication “The Jewish People, Past and Present” by the Central Yiddish Culture Organisation (CYCO), emphasises the natural tendency of forming the Kahal when it is asserted (p.201): “Wherever Jews have settled, since the beginning of the Diaspora, they have proceeded to create their own communal organisations. Various factors of an internal character—religious, cultural, social, and economic—as well as external factors, have contributed to this factor.” Armed with this Britton can then more specifically claim: “It is virtually impossible to comprehend the character of Judaism without some knowledge of the nature of the Medieval Jewish community… Probably one of the commonest fallacies extant today concerns the true origin of the ghetto. Most history books defer to Jewish sensibilities by giving the Jewish version, namely that the Jewish people were for centuries forced to reside in a special quarter of the city as a result of the bigotry and intolerance of the Christian majority. This is not true, and no scholar of Judaism believes it to be.” Whilst Valentine’s Jewish Encyclopaedia describes the origin of the ghetto as being originally a community that arose by choice, it also acknowledges the compulsory segregation of Jews within it later, without denying its mutual benefits for both Jews and Gentiles: 189

“Already in antiquity the Jews voluntarily occupied special quarters; In the Middle Ages, Jew's streets or Jewries were to be found from the end of the 11th century, but the motive of their concentration was no longer religious or social: trade caused them to settle near the market, or danger made them seek the protection of the reigning prince, the protector also wishing to have them together for the easier collection of taxes. It was not until the 13th century that the Jew's quarter was turned into a compulsory ghetto...The concentration of Jews in ghettos, although unintended, had its good result. It preserved the communal feeling and the traditional Jewish culture.” On this point, Britton goes further claiming these ghetto-communities would have only existed because the Jews wanted them to exist. He points to the statistic that 50% of world Jewry lived in the Pale to support this. But this fails to take into account the fact that not all “birds of a feather flock together”, as 50% did not. Clearly, however, a displaced race with traditions and a preserved history and culture would naturally seek each other out for support, irrespective of the limitations. This is particularly so if one considers the difficulties of establishing a successful life purely as an individual in an alien environment, where persecution of Jews and indeed those perceived as “aliens” invited prejudice and curtailed opportunities. The fact of such a high percentage within the Kahal does point to a desire on the part of at least 50% of world Jewry to mix predominantly with their own kind. Although an equal number clearly did not. In respect to this settlement, they were able to preserve their identity and culture without needing to deny it to get on, whilst it might also have curtailed the unwanted influence of Russian society and its Christianising influence. The disadvantage was that it invited suspicion and a readily identifiable target for prejudice and ridicule.


Valentine’s Jewish Encyclopaedia notes that segregation arose as a compulsion in the Kahal by virtue of its need to sustain and implement the practise of Talmudic law (p 589): “There was as a rule officially recognised authorities in the Jewish communities in Europe during the Middle Ages to regulate their own affairs and to treat as a body with the civil government. Even with no other incentive but that of living up to the requirements of Judaism the Jews of a locality were compelled to organize themselves into a community (Kahal; Kehilla), in order to regulate ritual, educational and charitable institutions. Courts of law were also a necessity, since Jewish litigants were expected to obey the civil code of the Talmud.”

It can be claimed then that the Kahal was not merely a place of enforced segregation, it appears to have been a necessary community within a community, and a place where they maintained their culture, their religion and sense of identity. For Britton, however, the Kahal provided not only the community where Talmudic traditions in law and practise could be preserved, it also enabled the Jews to nurture their “age-long hatred” for Christian civilisation. “For ten centuries preceding the great evictions, in virtually every Christian nation of Europe (and in Mohammedan Spain, Africa, and Asia Minor) these Jews settled into these parasitic Ghettocommunities and here they nurtured and maintained a culture which was quite a thing apart from the culture of the European. When finally they were driven from Western Europe in the centuries preceding the Renaissance, we find them settling and establishing Ghetto-communities in Poland and Russia which have lasted down to the present day. The Medieval Ghetto did not disappear with the ending of the Dark Ages—it was transferred, unimpaired, to Eastern Europe, where the majority of the world's Jews settled.” Concerning this, Britton offers no explanation of how the anti- religious 191

political ideology of Marxism could flourish in the Kahal, when it was simultaneously a community that sustained the values of Judaism. In this he could have distinguished, as David Duke tends to do, the Torah from Talmudic practise and belief. The assumption would be that Talmudic belief is more war-like and anti-Christian in its sensibilities. Talmudic beliefs are still religious however, not secular. Atheist Marxism was essentially incompatible in this important respect. It might even be deemed a threat. Yet it is claimed the Kahal fomented such views, and that both existed simultaneously. Whilst contrarily both Marxism and Zionism flourished within the Kahal. Furthermore, in making this claim, he makes no allowance for the assimilation of the Jews into the western countries or cultures they inhabited as a determining factor. He fails to identify the assimilation and improved education of Jews, and their exposure to the wider European culture, its philosophic traditions and values, as originating, propagating and popularising Marxist ideology. He prefers rather to see the Kahal as a community of choice for the Jews. An essentially “parasitic” community, which nurtured an alien culture dangerous to the host civilisation of Russia, as well as the European culture it similarly considered itself to be part of. This gave rise to the conflicting ideological paradigms that posed a threat and he continues: “The institution of the Ghetto has enabled two basically different cultures and peoples to remain side by side—one Asiatic and Judaic, the other European and Christian—without becoming integrated. It is primarily for this reason that the Jew has remained an alien in spite of centuries of exposure to Christian civilization. And that is why the Spanish Jew remained a Jew first and a Spaniard second, and why the Polish Jew, the Russian Jew, and the German Jew, have given their first allegiance to Judah and rendered a sort of secondhand loyalty to the country of their abode.”


For Britton (contrarily so) the existence of the Kahal strengthened a Jewish bias that negated Russian patriotism. It prompted Jewish exclusivity as a race apart and the by now typical revolutionary spirit of Jewishness, the chief cause for the development of social revolution and unrest. But the weakness of the reasoning for Jewish culpability lies exposed by the question: why didn’t Marxist revolutions also occur in any given number of nations where other Jewish ghettos arose? Or conversely, why did revolution similarly occur in China, Vietnam, Korea, Cuba, etc. where they did not? In respect to pre-revolutionary Russia, as in other uprisings, there were certainly other factors of an economic nature: the popularising of Marxist ideology, and the dissatisfactions of an agrarian underclass. These factors contributed to create the battleground where different cultures and indeed classes met and fought. The revolution was prompted by political, economic, social and cultural factors, that make for a far more complex picture than simply identifying revolution as being due to a Jewish cause.

(c) The issue of assimilation and its influence on the Revolution At first the Imperial government recognised the autonomous Kahal organisations, permitting them to raise taxes and set up courts of law where only Jewish litigants were involved. In addition to the individual communities, there were district Kahal organisations, which at first were permitted to levy local Jewish communities with taxes. In 1786, these privileges were drastically curtailed, and Jews thereafter were obliged to appear before ordinary courts of law. Thence, the Kahal organisation became restricted to matters of a primarily religious and social nature.


Although the pro Jewish interpretation often emphasises the oppression, persecution and enforced segregation by the Imperial government, it is a fact that in spite of it (up until 1881) the Jews prospered greatly. Thence with increasing assimilation, Britton in a barely disguised racist tirade remarks: “Jewry settled in the Russian economy like a swarm of locusts in a field of new corn. Very quickly they achieved a monopoly over Russia's liquor, tobacco, and retail industries. Later they dominated the professions as well. Under the reign of Alexander I many of the restrictions against residence beyond the Pale of Settlement were relaxed, especially for the artisan and professional classes. A determined effort was made to establish Jews in agriculture and the government encouraged at every opportunity the assimilation of Jews into Russian national life.�

Both Marx and Lenin saw the solution of the Jewish Question in terms of the full assimilation of the Jews in their countries of residence. However, both also believed revolution was a necessary step towards implementing the Socialist state. In this respect, however, coercion (in terms of either an enforced assimilation or segregation) certainly appears to have contributed to resentment arising amongst at least some parts of the Jewish populace that contributed to civil unrest. Some may have resented being segregated as Jews from the wider world. Others, alternatively, might have resented being denied their rights in the Kahal amongst the wider Jewish community that clung to religious practise.

But such

resentment rather foils the claim that the Kahal alone helped Bolshevism to flourish and sparked the revolution. Indeed, it could just as credibly be claimed the increasingly enforced assimilation with Russian and European values itself was a subversive influence, assimilation corrupting Talmudic Jews to the more European philosophical values of Marxist atheism. Certainly, the exposure to a more Europeanised culture exerted 194

some kind of influence and certainly appears to have propagated the revolutionary ideals of the 18th and 19th centuries, particularly amongst the new generation. Simultaneously, however, other Jews sought the solution of Zionism as an escape, as they sought to reinvent and bolster the loss of their Jewish identity previously maintained in the Kahal. One interesting trend shows an inverse ratio between Jewish prosperity and Jewish assimilation over the course of the 19th century. As Dr EM Jones asserts in “The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit”: “Jews made more and more money but at the same time became less and less interested in becoming Russians. The Mendelssohnian dream of Jewish Russification that had been imported from Germany during the heady days of the Russian Enlightenment now seemed glaringly outdated. It had been replaced in the Jewish mind by Zionism and Socialism. The halting steps toward assimilation which Russian Jews had made falteringly in the 1850s stopped. Russia’s educational system had failed in its project of integrating Russian Jews into Russian culture. After over 40 years of Enlightened reform, only 67,000 out of over five million Russian Jews spoke Russian, a troubling figure when one contemplated the fact that in 1900 50 percent of the world’s Jews were living in Russia.” 130

The model for the Enlightenment Jew was one admirably characterised by Moses Mendelssohn. His progression to it was characterised by an immersion into the intellectual culture that surrounded him. He arrived in Berlin in 1743 as a 14-year-old unable to speak German. Up until this time he had been steeped only in Talmudic scholarship. After acquiring the ability to read German, he sought to immerse himself in the chief philosophers of the Enlightenment: Spinoza, Newton, Montesquieu, Rousseau, and Voltaire, before making the acquaintance of the philosophers of Berlin, most notably Lessing, who wrote for the Vossische Zeitung. Nicolai. Lessing’s garden served the three men as a haven for discussing literature and philosophy. 130

As a writer Mendelssohn came to publish “Philosophical Dialogues”, followed by “Letters on Sentiment” in 1755, and then an adaptation of the Plato's Phaedo in 1767. Modelled on Plato's dialogue of the same name, Mendelssohn's work possessed some of the charm of the Greek author and impressed the German world with its beauty and clarity. Phaedo was an immediate success, and besides being one of the most widely read books of its time in German was speedily translated into several European languages, including English. The author was hailed as the “German Plato” or the 195

“German Socrates”. He became a frequenter of royalty and mingled with aristocratic friends who favoured his company. It was said that “no stranger who came to Berlin failed to pay his personal respects to him." It was after the breakdown of his health that Mendelssohn decided to “dedicate the remains of my strength for the benefit of my children or a goodly portion of my nation”—which he did by trying to bring the Jews closer to “culture, from which my nation, alas! is kept in such a distance, that one might well despair of ever overcoming it”. To this end he sought to give “them a better translation of the holy books than they previously had” with a German translation of the Pentateuch and other parts of the Bible. “The Explanation” also contained a commentary on Exodus. The translation was in an elegant High German, designed to allow Jews to learn the language faster. Most of the German Jews in that period spoke Yiddish and read Hebrew. The commentary was also thoroughly rabbinic, quoting mainly from medieval exegetes but also from Talmud-era midrashim. Mendelssohn is also believed to be behind the foundation of the first modern public school for Jewish boys, “Freyschule für Knaben”, in Berlin in 1778, publically led by one of his most ardent pupils David Friedländer, where both religious and worldly subjects were taught. Mendelssohn also tried to better the Jews’ situation in general by furthering their rights and acceptance. He induced Christian Wilhelm von Dohm to publish in 1781 his work, On the Civil Amelioration of the Condition of the Jews, which played a significant part in their acceptance. Mendelssohn himself published a German translation of the Vindiciae Judaeorum by Menasseh Ben Israel. The interest caused by these actions led Mendelssohn to publish his most important contribution to the problems connected with the position of Judaism in a Gentile world. This was Jerusalem (1783). It represented a forcible plea for freedom of conscience, described by Kant as “an irrefutable book”. In part, through the efforts of his friend Lessing, he became a Jewish role model for the Age of Enlightenment and achieved a status in Germany that led him to be characterised as a “Jewish Benjamin Franklin”. Like Franklin he too became an archetype of what the Enlightened Man was supposed to be. As EM Jones states op cit p 566): “Mendelssohn became the paradigmatic Enlightenment Jew and a model for Jews who wanted to leave the Polish shtetls of the East behind and become part of German culture. He also became the model Jew for the Germans, who were debating whether to grant the Jews the rights of citizens in the wake of Napoleon's defeat.” Whilst Mendelssohn was not the first European Jew to make a name for himself as a philosopher (as Spinoza preceded him) he was nevertheless the first European Jew to become fully immersed into high German culture. Whether this should be viewed as an assimilation, in the fullest sense, however, is a question of interpretation as to what “assimilation” was supposed to entail. Certainly, he was honoured by both Jew and Gentile alike (unlike Spinoza, who had earlier been expelled from an uncomprehending and critical synagogue). His philosophical principles however yet led him to shun Christian conversion and thus prevented him from fully embracing 196

This rather indicates a fierce independence, with assimilation merely being considered necessary to further self- interest, rather than promote cultural or social improvement. It is not, however, indicative of the Mendelssohnian ethos, and cannot be considered indicative of a general characteristic of selfishness in respect to Jewish motives or actions. Neither does it identify sufficiently the fiercely anti-Semitic values of Marx, let alone the anti-Semitic ethos that historically had pervaded Socialism from its inception. In respect to motivating urges, Mikhael Gershenzon in his article: “The Destinies of the Jewish Nation”, unlike the contemporary Jewish Encyclopaedia, displays the belief that two conflicting urges have always characterised the Jewish diaspora from time immemorial. “One voice constantly “tempted him to blend with the environment - hence comes this ineradicable and ancient Jewish aspiration to assimilate.” Whilst the other voice: “demanded above all things to preserve his national uniqueness.” In these conflicting urges: “The whole story of scattering is the never-ending struggle of two wills within Jewry: the human will against the superhuman one, the individual against the collective…. The requirements of the national will towards the individual were so ruthless and almost beyond human power, that without having a great hope common to all Jewry, the Jew would succumb to despair every now and then and would be tempted to fall away from his brethren and desert that strange and painful common cause.”

the sensibilities of the Protestant Lutheranism and Catholicism prevalent in his time. His position was an intellectual one and deliberate inasmuch as he wished to show that Jewish assimilation into German culture was possible without the necessity to convert to the Christian faith. 197

Contrary to the view that it is difficult to explain why assimilation began precisely at the end of the 18th century, Gershenzon exclaims: “Is it not strange that assimilation so unexpectedly accelerated exactly during the last one hundred years and it continues to intensify with each passing hour? Shouldn’t the temptation to fall apart be diminished greatly nowadays, when the Jews obtained equal rights everywhere?” No, he replies: “It is not the external force that splits the Jews; Jewry disintegrates from the inside. The main pillar of Jewry, the religious unity of the Jewish nation, is decayed and rotten.”

Unlike the view of Britton, who maintains that the Kahal nurtured and strengthened Talmudic ideas and yet simultaneously and rather contrarily fostered political and religious subversion, Gershenzon elucidates that it was the dissolution of faith based practise, principally due to an internal lack of unity amongst the Jewish people themselves, that contributed a factor to revolution. This claim appears to have been born out of history: for as the assimilation process increased and cultural fragmentation and the Jewish identity dissipated, a more prevalent revolutionary spirit became evident. A pattern that continued later in Germany, as well as Russia under the reign of Nicolas I. Assimilation then, and not simply segregation, appears to have propagated amongst many of the newer thinking Enlightenment Jews, a politically derived Marxist atheism.


Marxist-Leninism holds religion to be the opiate of the people, in the sense of promoting passive acceptance of suffering on Earth in the hope of eternal reward. Therefore, Marxist-Leninism advocates the abolition of religion and the acceptance of 131


(d) A decline in the Jewish faith and religious practise This tendency to atheism was not purely a Russian phenomenon, but a western tendency more generally. It was as much a product of the Mendelssohnian model and the cultural milieu of the Enlightenment, than the ideas of Karl Marx. A movement that had in the previous century spread across Europe. It influenced German Jewish intellectuals and through its widespread popular presence, according to Nora Levin: “attracted marginal Jews, poised between two worlds-the Jewish and the Gentile-who created a new homeland for themselves, a community of ideologists bent on remaking the world in their own image.” A shift in faith sensibilities was inevitable given the promptings of assimilation, but was not simply a revolutionary cause attributed to the natural dissipation of Judaism. At the time Jews like Maimon and Mendelssohn were proclaiming their willingness to leave behind the Talmud and the Kahal, Prussians were abandoning historical Christianity too and increasingly began to embrace something more akin to German atheism. Vladimir Lenin, in Novaya Zhizn No. 28, December 3, 1905, as quoted in Marxists Internet Archive: “Religion is one of the forms of spiritual oppression which everywhere weighs down heavily upon the masses of the people, over burdened by their perpetual work for others, by want and isolation... Those who toil and live in want all their lives are taught by religion to be submissive and patient while here on earth, and to take comfort in the hope of a heavenly reward... Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze, in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man.”

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


Romanticism. As a consequence of this new world view, Christians like Christian von Dohm wrote his treatise “On the Civic Improvement of Jews”, calling specifically for their political emancipation. The message of the German Enlightenment, that Mendelssohn characterised so admirably as a role model, meant Jews could not only assimilate, but begin to succeed in Europe and particularly Germany after so many centuries of being outsiders. They no longer had to convert to Christianity to achieve this, as Mendelssohn had shown, but could embrace a more intellectual, philosophically derived world view.



was not simply a Jewish development. It was a role model exemplified in the spirit of Goethe, whose secularism became the intellectuals’ fashionable idea, as much as his Wertherian affectations had become the passionately fashionable pose for many young European men on the first release of that novel. The Enlightenment more generally led (with Goethe’s affirmation) to the Romantic idea of the genius as the secular alternative to the saint, and the secular intellectual elite as a replacement for orthodox religion. 133

132 In

the aftermath of Lavater’s failed attempt to convert Mendelssohn to Christianity, Mendelssohn wrote “Jerusalem Upon Ecclesiastic Power and Judaism” (1783). Here he claimed, rather contrarily, that the Talmud and the religious establishment based on it could be made compatible with the ideas and values of the Enlightenment. In this regard, Mendelssohn adopted the notion of Bildung for a specifically Jewish cause. He sought to do for Judaism what Immanuel Kant in his “Religion within the Bounds of Reason” had sought to do for Christianity. 133 Enlightenment ideals

were clearly a factor in feeding Masonic popularism. Over the course of the 19th century, the religious convergence it represented served as the hub for social interaction, as much as a new religious sensibility. Some Jews certainly accepted this as being part of the inevitable process of defining themselves as a cultural community. Freemasonry successfully competed as the new faith, as it offered a new synthesis of philosophy and several religions that served the newly assimilated communities that increasingly were finding their voice and seeking alternative forms of expression. The chief imperative, until the importance of Marxist atheism took hold, established itself as an opposing paradigm. 200

Accordingly, conversion was less of a necessity for many Jews. Increasingly instead of baptism, the Enlightenment proposed a new alternative: philosophical atheism, or at least some kind of rationalised metaphysical spirituality that no longer looked to the old religious ideals and values of organised religion. Jews now no longer had to convert to Christianity to be accepted, they merely needed to embrace Bildung as defined by Goethe and the other Enlightenment figures. 134

“Bildung” or “education and formation” refers to the German tradition of selfcultivation, where philosophy and education are linked to a process which entails both personal and cultural self-development. This process has a psychological component, being described as a harmonisation of the individual’s mind and heart and a social element: as it is also expressed in a unification of the self, and how one perceives and identifies the self within broader society. This was variously characterised in the literary tradition of bildungsroman. Goethe’s Wertherian values, or the Byronic hero; these being the most widespread imitated examples. 134

In this sense, the process of harmonisation of mind, heart, selfhood and identity was conceived as being achieved through personal transformation, which requires a challenge to the individual’s accepted beliefs. In Hegel’s writings, the challenge of personal growth was conceived as involving an agonising alienation from one’s “natural consciousness” that yet led to a reunification and development of the self. Similarly, although social unity required well-formed institutions, it also required a diversity of individuals with the freedom to develop a broad spectrum of talents and abilities. However, rather than an end state, both individual and social unification was also viewed as a process that was driven by unrelenting nihilism. Romantic and tragic death being the most complete expression. In this sense, education was viewed as involving the crafting of the human being with regard to his/her own humanity, as well as his/her own innate intellectual capabilities. So, the term denoted a process of becoming that can be related to a process of being in the world. The term Bildung also corresponded to the ideal of education in the work of Wilhelm von Humboldt. Thus, in this context, the concept of education was viewed as a lifelong process of human development, a true spiritual craft, rather than mere training in gaining certain external knowledge or skills. Bildung then is seen as a process wherein an individual's spiritual and cultural sensibilities, as well as life, personal and social skills, are in process of continual growth. Bildung is seen as a way to become more liberated, due to higher self-reflection. Most explicitly in Hegel’s writings, the Bildung tradition rejects the pre-Kantian metaphysics of being for a post-Kantian metaphysics of experience that rejects universal narratives. 201

(e) The consequences of enforced assimilation Whilst enforced assimilation has certainly been identified as one cause for the revolution, this cannot be simply viewed as the fault of the Jews. The loss of Jewish faith-based sensibilities, the subsequent embrace of political atheism, a religious and cultural clash of values with the Christian Russian Orthodoxy, as well as economic inequality amongst the Russian classes, were all contributory factors. These were by no means simply confined to Jewish sensibilities, or the Jewish populace, but spread unrest widely amongst the Russian Orthodox, agrarian and intellectual communities. Schisms in many quarters arose, and resentment grew quickly. For those seeking to find a focus in a specifically Jewish cause, the Russian conflict is usually too conveniently contextualised as a clash between the Jewish and Russian identity; an inevitable social and psychological conflict between incompatible cultures, values, religions and peoples. The two conflicting elements of assimilation and separation being viewed as exacerbating a clash between faith and atheism. This, however, is but one part of the picture. The process of enforced assimilation, arose under Alexander’s successor, Nicholas I: a man less inclined to favour Jewry, and one who viewed their inroads into the Russian economy with increasing concern. But it is one which as a

In this manner, fulfilment was achieved through practical activity that promotes the development of one’s own individual talents and abilities. This in turn led to the development of one’s society and thence the society and culture at large. In this way, Bildung does not simply accept the socio-political status quo, but rather conceives of a way to engage in it, critique it and to ultimately challenge the society to change it. It viewed society itself as becoming transformed through the process and power of one’s own highest ideals. 202

consequence also suggests a Russian influence in the move to conflict, and not purely a Jewish impulse or ethos that instigated it. One notable difference under Alexander I had been the exemption by Jews of compulsory military duty by paying a special draft-exemption tax. In 1827 Nicholas abolished this, with the result that Jews were drafted into the Imperial armies. In 1844, Nicholas I further antagonised some sections of Jewry by abolishing the institution of the Kahal, and in that same year he prohibited the traditional Jewish mode of dress, specifying that all Jews should, except on ceremonial occasions, dress in conformity with Russian standards. These measures, and many others like them, were aimed at facilitating the assimilation of Jewry into Russian life to encourage social cohesion. The Tsarist government becoming concerned by the Jew’s failure to become Russianised, but the measures may only have increased the likelihood of conflict in turn. Russians in this felt fear at the possibility of their increased separatism. Indeed, the ancient Jewish custom of maintaining a separate culture, language, mode of dress, etc. was generally viewed with extreme suspicion, but this enforced assimilation too created a sense of fear amongst some in the Jewish community. An example of the conflicting perspectives that were exacerbated can be seen in the Tsar’s bid to “Russianise” the Jews. Unusual efforts were made by the Imperial government to provide free education to the Jewish population, so that by 1804, all schools had given access to them. In fact, attendance for Jewish children was by this time made compulsory. This could be viewed as an unusual privilege in Russia in the early 19th century, as education was generally reserved only for the affluent few. Alternatively, it could be viewed as an attempt to undermine and dissolve 203

the traditions and values of Jewish culture through an enforced programme of conditioning in specifically Russian values.


representing an existential threat to Jewish traditions and culture. The measures may not have been deliberately intended to threaten or vilify. For the Russians, it would have been viewed as a privilege, as even as late as 1914, only 55% of the Gentile population had been inside a school. It appears, furthermore, to have been largely accepted by the Jewish populace themselves, who thrived with the new privileges, whatever the reservations of the more orthodox Rabbis were. Notably too, as a result of the Imperial government’s assimilation programme, Russian Jewry became the best educated segment of the populace in Russia. A factor with unintended consequences, as it contributed to speeding the development of new intellectual ideas and prompting dissatisfaction with the old order by a new generation. The result may have been yet another fact which ultimately culminated in the destruction of the Tsarist government itself. The reign of Alexander II marked the zenith of Jewish fortunes in Tsarist Russia. By 1880 they were becoming dominant in the professions, in many trades and industries, and were beginning to filter into government in increasing numbers. As early as 1861, Alexander II had permitted Jewish university graduates to settle and hold government positions in greater Russia, and by 1879 those in professional occupations were permitted to work and reside throughout the empire. Another interpretation of these events suggests the increasing assimilation may have contributed to Russia’s Jews feeling increasingly rebellious over the remaining restraints which still bound the greater part


of Russian Jewry to the Pale of Settlement, and which, to some extent at least, restricted their expanding commercial activities. As Britton asserts: “Herein lay the dilemma; the Imperial government could retain certain of the restrictions against the Jews, and by doing so incur their undying hostility, or it could remove all restraints and thus pave the way for Jewish domination over every phase of Russian life. Certainly, Alexander viewed this problem with increasing concern as time went on. Actually, it was a problem capable of being solved.” The assimilation process however froze in its tracks in 1866 with the attempted assassination of Alexander II. An event which led him to lose enthusiasm for liberal causes. As a consequence, he dismissed his “liberal” advisors, and from that time on displayed an inclination toward conservatism. This is not to say he became anti-Jewish exactly, but he did show more firmness in dealing with their increasing presence. In 1879 there was another attempt on his life, and yet another the following year, when his Winter Palace was blown up. In 1881, an assassination plot hatched by Hesia Helfman was successful and so ended an era. The consequences of this event were monumental and contributed to the belief in a predominantly Jewish militant presence. This also contributed to a fear of Jews more generally, as Britton emphasises: “The reaction to the assassination of Alexander II was instantaneous and far reaching. There was a widespread belief in and out of the government, that if the Jews were dissatisfied with the rule of Alexander II—whom the crypto-Jew, D'Israeli, had described as "the most benevolent prince that ever ruled Russia"—then they would be satisfied with nothing less than outright domination of Russia.”

Up until 1881, Russian policy had consistently focused on assimilation in an attempt to “Russianise” the Jews; a necessary step it was thought 205

towards full citizenship and social cohesion. In line with this policy, free and compulsory education for Jews had been introduced: repeated attempts had been made to encourage them to settle on farms, and special efforts had been made to encourage them to engage in crafts. Now Russian policy was dramatically reversed. Hereafter, it became the policy of the Imperial government to prevent what was considered in some quarters as the further exploitation of the Russian people by the Jews, and thus began the conflict that some have characterised as a conflict between the Tsarists and the Jews. All through 1881 there was widespread anti-Jewish rioting all over the empire, and large numbers of Jews who had been permitted to settle beyond the Pale were evicted. In May of 1882 the May Laws (Provisional Rules of May 3, 1882) were imposed. This implemented new government policy that was to shake the empire to its foundations. The Encyclopaedia Britannica (volume 2, 1947, p.76) gives an idea of their effect: “The Russian May Laws were the most conspicuous legislative monument achieved by modern anti-Semitism ... Their immediate results was a ruinous commercial depression which was felt all over the empire and which profoundly affected the national credit. The Russian minister was at his wit's end for money. Negotiations for a large loan were entered upon with the house of Rothschild and a preliminary contract was signed, when ... the finance minister was informed that unless the persecutions of the Jews were stopped the great banking house would be compelled to withdraw from the operation ... In this way anti-Semitism, which had already so profoundly influenced the domestic policies of Europe, set its mark on the international relations of the powers, for it was the urgent need of the Russian treasury quite as much as the termination of Prince Bismarck's secret treaty of mutual neutrality which brought about the Franco-Russian alliance.� Britton (op. cit. p.29-31) tends to view the introduction of the May Laws as largely having been brought upon Jews themselves as a consequence of 206

having entrenched themselves in Russian society. Thus, within a period of 92 years (from the 3rd partition to 1882) the Jews, although constituting only 4.2% of the population, had “infiltrated” to such an extent that the Russian economy was almost bankrupted in the attempt to dislodge them with the equalising May Laws.

Clearly, in this respect, the nation’s

international credit was also affected. Concerning this, Britton (op. cit.) fails to emphasise the anti-Semitic nature of the Laws which caused the economic depression and the withdrawal of international financiers from the Bank of Rothschild. This, in itself, contributed to economic hardship. Neither does he make a case for the Jews being successful, having contributed to the Russian economy, or for them earning their right to be successful, particularly based on the superior education that the people had themselves been afforded by the former Tsar. He only views their presence as being disproportionate and subversive, and the anti-Semitic measures as being merely indicative of how far they had “infiltrated” Russian occupations and exerted undue economic influence in turn. An opposing argument could credibly be made that the withdrawal of Rothschild financing was not due particularly to a specifically Jewish bias towards them either, but a more general disdain by an international banking house not to be seen to publicly endorse absolute and discriminatory laws against some of its by now highly successful and influential Russian clientele. A case too can be made that Rothschild’s and other banks opposed political tyranny in all its forms. This not being indicative of Jewish favouritism particularly, or a revolutionary inclination. More can be said in respect to International banking’s disdain for political absolutism later, where it is clear they objected to the new Soviet regime.


Enmity of Jewry in some quarters toward Tsarism increased considerably after 1881. The May Laws had not only restricted Jewish economic activity but had attempted unsuccessfully to preserve Russia’s cultural integrity. Hereafter, counter measures were introduced, where Jews were only permitted to attend state-supported schools and universities in a ratio proportionate to their population. This was not unreasonable claims Britton (op. cit. p.31): “since Russia’s schools were flooded with Jewish students.” In respect to this, whilst it was true that large numbers of Russia’s population were illiterate, it could also, at least from the Jewish perspective, be seen as another “persecution” by those Jews eager to assimilate and get on with a reversion that seemed unjust. Certainly, more generally, even during this time of relatively limited media exposure, many became informed of this as a “persecution” via the press and in synagogues world-wide. Baron Gunzberg along with a delegation of Jews called on the new Tsar Alexander III on May 23rd in order to protest the May Laws and the perceived discrimination against Jewry. An investigation followed. This led to Tsar Alexander issuing a pronouncement on September 3rd : “For some time the government has given its attention to the Jews and to their relations to the rest of the inhabitants of the empire, with a view of ascertaining the sad condition of the Christian inhabitants brought about by the conduct of the Jews in business matters ... During the last twenty years the Jews have gradually possessed themselves of not only every trade and business in all its branches, but also of a great part of the land by buying or farming it. With few exceptions, they have as a body devoted their attention, not to 208

enriching or benefiting the country, but to defrauding by their wiles its inhabitants, and particularly its poor inhabitants. This conduct of theirs has called forth protests on the part of the people, as manifested in acts of violence and robbery. The government, while on the one hand doing its best to put down the disturbances, and to deliver the Jews from oppression and slaughter, have also, on the other hand, thought it a matter of urgency and justice to adopt stringent measures in order to put an end to the oppression practised by the Jews on the inhabitants, and to free the country from their malpractices, which were, as is known, the cause of the agitations.” 135 In this edict, part of which is cited here, it can be clearly seen that any economic benefit or contribution to the Russian nation is clearly downplayed. Indeed, the Tsar specifically says that the Jews have by their dishonest practises and business dealings largely cheated the country for their own selfish aims. These nefarious activities are seen as having largely contributed to the civil uprisings, which the government had sought to suppress and control. A clear emphasis on the protection of the Jews to free them from “oppression” is made. Whilst the edict stresses that stringent measures and laws would need to be introduced, in order to protect the Russian people from the oppression foisted upon them by the Jews. In this, the charge of the malpractice of the Jews can be clearly seen, but it is one that seeks to free itself of any charge of racial bias. It largely fails, however, as it does not make a sufficient and clear enough distinction between Jews with differing motives. It merely speaks of Jews generally as a race or ethnic group. It rather tends to assume they all think and act

E. W. Latimer “Russia and Turkey in the 19th Century”, A. C. McClury & Co., 1895, (p. 332). 135


the same as a collective and in this blanket assumption an underlying racism is evident.

(f) The emergence of Zionism and Marxism and their conflicting characteristics In the atmosphere of growing civil unrest that accompanied the enforced assimilation, the two movements of Marxism and Zionism began to exert influence on the mindset of certain Russian Jews. However, both movements ironically arose from the more westernised mindset of Enlightenment and Socialist values. Zionism took root in Russia in the 1880s. It represented the national antidote to the more globally orientated Marxism with its precepts of internationalism. Whereas Marxism, for Britton, (op.cit. p.33) arose from that “high priest” Karl Marx, the grandson of a Rabbi, which helped him to identify it as being quintessentially a Jewish world view.

But this fails to take into

consideration the influence of the German Enlightenment136, or even that The influence of the German Enlightenment upon Jewish sensibilities led to a schism of tribal loyalties and new identifications and groups. As EM Jones in “The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit” (p.566) asserts: 136

“Once the German Enlightenment arrived in Russia in the mid-19th century it caused an immediate split among the Jews there into two groups: the Halachic Jews rejected the Enlightenment in favor of the Law and the old ways, which meant of course, a continuing refusal to assimilate; the Maskilic Jews on the other hand accepted the Enlightenment, but in accepting it, they began, far more than those following the old way, to look for the Messiah in political movements, movements which invariably came from German Jews or conversos like Ferdinand Lassalle and Karl Marx. As a result, Russia's Jews were awakened from the slumber of the shtetl by Moses Mendelssohn, but they did not follow Mendelssohn's example. Instead they became progressively more radicalized during the course of the 19th century, until the German Enlightenment culminated in Bolshevism, which, according to Nora Levin, "attracted marginal Jews, poised between two worlds-the Jewish and the Gentile-who created a new homeland for themselves, a community of ideologists bent on remaking the world in their own image.” 210

Friedrich Engels, was himself raised as a Christian Pietist, before finally deferring to atheism. Nor does it consider the conversion of Marx’ father to Christianity, nor Marx’ vehement hatred for many religiously minded Jews personally. In reference to the atheism that originally characterised both these movements, some remarks may be briefly made in respect to the conflict which arose between faith and atheism, as well as between Jewish assimilation and Jewish alienation. Assimilation did not (as has been noted) result in the Christianisation of Jews but led rather to a shift in some towards atheism and a political and class-based perspective which culminated in militant action. It is difficult to be clear of exact percentages. However, by the time of the October revolution, it is highly probable only a minority of the Russian Jews were Bolsheviks; whereas in the early 1900s they had constituted 19% of the party. In contrast, to this, however, at the elections to the Constituent Assembly, more than 80% of the Jewish population of Russia voted for Zionist parties, suggesting the enthusiasm for Bolshevism was not a predominantly Jewish inclination. It is also suggestive of a stronger desire to seek a predominantly Jewish homeland at this time, which held little allegiance to the new political developments in Russia, of which Jewish support had by this time markedly ebbed away. It suggests, therefore, in contrast to a Jewish revolution thesis that advantaged them on its attainment, that Jews, simply put, panicked, felt threatened by the dangerous political developments and wanted out.


Absolutism in this sense, whether it was in terms of a Tsarist or Communist rule, was something they shunned more generally. 137 In this context, Lenin wrote that 550,000 were for Jewish nationalism. “The majority of the Jewish parties formed a single national list, in accordance with which seven deputies were elected – six Zionists’ and Gruzenberg. ‘The success of the Zionists’ was also aided by the Declaration of the English Foreign Minister Balfour [on the creation of a ‘national centre’ of the Jews in Palestine], ‘which was met by the majority of the Russian Jewish population with enthusiasm [in Moscow, Petrograd, Odessa, Kiev and many other cities there were festive manifestations, meetings and religious services]’.” 138

In contrast, other sources viewed the events in both Russia and Palestine as an extraordinary triumph for Jews period. A “coincidence” according to the London Times on November 9, 1917, where two articles: one announcing the outbreak of revolution in Petrograd, and the other the promise of a homeland for the Jews in Palestine (i.e. the Balfour Declaration) were simultaneously published. The claim of it as a “triumph for Jews” more generally emphasises a bias to serve Jewish interests by voting for Zionist parties that might yet exert influence within the political ranks. It largely ignores the orthodox sensibility however. It reinforces a common concern without emphasising conflicting loyalties strengthened by racial lineage alone. A view further strengthened by Chaim Weitzmann in his “Autobiography”, when he stresses all his brothers and sisters were either Zionists or Bolsheviks. M.

This shifting tendency in itself negates the theory of a desire for political control or a Jewish supremacism in respect to Russia and indeed the world. Why if the Russian revolution had been an agenda for Jewish control would they then relinquish such control once it had been successfully achieved? 137


Vladimir Moss “Bolshevism and the Jews”, 212

Heifetz also points to the further coincidence in the arising of the October revolution and the Balfour Declaration that: “A part of the Jewish generation goes along the path of Herzl and Zhabotinsky. The other part, unable to withstand the temptation, fills up the band of Lenin and Trotsky and Stalin. The path of Herzl and Bagritsky allowed the Jews to stand tall and immediately become not simply an equal nation with Russia, but a privileged one.”

For anti-Jewish commentators, the Russian revolution was regarded as one branch of that more general global triumph manifesting Jewish influence, via the opposing ideologies of Zionist and Communist influence, which became evident in the twentieth century in both the East and West, in both Russia and in America, and which met later in the battleground of the Middle East. Opposing this view, however, others tend to emphasise the fact many Jews sought only to leave once the revolution established a new political regime, and that this indicates that the revolution could not have been simply a Jewish concern, as it shows they largely abandoned their advantage immediately on securing political power. Ascertaining the facts definitively and extent of culpability is never easy. Certainly, in respect to the Jewish nature of the Bolshevik leadership, and the ideology of a world revolution in general, the Jewish influence has often been inaccurately over emphasised. Neither was such a view simply confined to “anti-Semites”. As Douglas Reed writes: “The Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party, which wielded the supreme power, contained 3 Russians (including Lenin) and 9 Jews. The next body in importance, the Central Committee of the Executive Commission (or secret police) comprised 42 Jews and 19 Russians, Letts, Georgians and others. The Council of People’s Commissars consisted of 17 Jews and five others. The Moscow Che213

ka (secret police) was formed of 23 Jews and 13 others. Among the names of 556 high officials of the Bolshevik state officially published in 1918-1919 were 458 Jews and 108 others. Among the central committees of small, supposedly ‘Socialist’ or other non-Communist parties… were 55 Jews and 6 others.” Richard Pipes admits: “Jews undeniably played in the Bolshevik Party and the early Soviet apparatus a role disproportionate to their share of the population. The number of Jews active in Communism in Russia and abroad was striking: in Hungary, for example, they furnished 95 percent of the leading figures in Bela Kun’s dictatorship. They also were disproportionately represented among Communists in Germany and Austria during the revolutionary upheavals there in 1918-23, and in the apparatus of the Communist International.” This influence declined, however, and according to Donald Rayfield by 1922 Jews had: “reached their maximum representation in the party (not that they formed a coherent group) when, at 15 per cent, they were second only to ethnic Russians with 65 per cent.” In contrast, the London Times correspondent in Russia, Robert Wilton notes their influence as organisers amongst the elite when he reported: ”Taken according to numbers of population, the Jews represented one in ten; among the commissars that rule Bolshevik Russia they are nine in ten; if anything the proportion of Jews is still greater.”

Concerning their disproportionate numbers in organising roles , Captain Montgomery Shuyler of the American Expeditionary Forces telegrammed from Vladivostok on the makeup of the presiding Soviet government on June the 9th, 1919: “… There were 384 ‘commissars’ including 2 negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen, 22 Armenians, and more than 300 Jews. Of the latter number, 264 had come to Russia from the United States since the downfall of the Imperial Government.” 214

The Jews were especially dominant in the most feared and blood-thirsty part of the Bolshevik State apparatus, the Cheka, which Brendon asserts: “consisted of 250,000 officers (including 100,000 border guards), a remarkable adjunct to a State which was supposed to be withering away. In the first 6 years of Bolshevik rule it had executed at least 200,000. Moreover, the Cheka was empowered to act as ‘policeman, gaoler, investigator, prosecutor, judge and executioner’. It also employed barbaric forms of torture.” For authors such as Britton (op. cit.), et al., therefore, the Jewish domination of Russia as a result of the revolution was so great that it is a misnomer to even speak about the “Russian” revolution as such, as it should more accurately be called the “Jewish” revolution, but the credibility of this theory once analysed can fairly easily be shown to be no more than a dangerous and unfair generalisation.

(i) The credibility or otherwise of a Jewish led Revolution That the Russian revolution was actually a Jewish revolution is indicated by an article by Jacob de Haas entitled “The Jewish Revolution” and published in the London Zionist journal Maccabee (November 1905): “The Revolution in Russia is a Jewish revolution, for it is a turning point in Jewish history. This situation flows from the fact that Russia is the fatherland of approximately half of the general number of Jews inhabiting the world… The overthrow of the despotic government must exert a huge influence on the destinies of millions of Jews (both in Russia and abroad). Besides, the revolution in Russia is a Jewish revolution also because the Jews are the most active revolutionaries in the tsarist Empire.”

But why should the Jews be considered the most likely or active revolutionaries? What was it in their upbringing and history that led them 215

to adopt the atheist revolutionary teachings and actions of Bolshevism any more ardently than the ethnic Russians themselves? A hatred of Christ and the Christians is sometimes identified as a factor for believers in this conspiracy theory. One they also claim is supported by anti-Christian passages in the Talmud. Yet the revolutionaries that began killing thousands of the Tsar’s servants, even before the revolution of 1905, had rejected both the Torah and Talmud, just as the “Russian” Bolsheviks had come to reject the Gospels. Accepting this, the ethics of any religious sensibility has also to be accepted as having been rejected by the chief revolutionaries, one would presume. The explanation of a predominantly Jewish imperative that drove the Revolution, therefore, is one that does not stand up to close inspection. Donald Rayfield, however, seeks to straddle both camps and identify in a qualified sense a Russio-Jewish Revolution when he writes: “The motivation of those Jews who worked for the Cheka was not Zionist or ethnic. The war between the Cheka and the Russian bourgeoisie was not even purely a war of classes or political factions. It can be seen as being between Jewish internationalism and the remnants of a Russian national culture…What was Jewish except lineage about Bolsheviks like Zinoviev, Trotsky, Kamenev or Sverdlov? Some were second- or even third-generation renegades; few even spoke Yiddish, let alone knew Hebrew. They were by upbringing Russians accustomed to a European way of life and values, Jewish only in the superficial sense that, say, Karl Marx was. Jews in anti-Semitic Tsarist Russia had few ways out of the Ghetto except emigration, education or revolution, and the latter two courses meant denying their Judaism by joining often anti-Jewish institutions and groups.” This explains the anomalies of a Jewish presence without tarring them as the sole and knowing instigators. It is one that rejected Jewish culture as much as Jewish religion in formulating the new political consciousness. A consciousness that had little to do with anything intrinsically Jewish per 216

se, but as one that arose and entailed a natural rejection of it. This can be illustrated from the deathbed confession of Yurovsky, the murderer of the Tsar: “Our family suffered less from the constant hunger than from my father’s religious fanaticism… On holidays and regular days the children were forced to pray, and it is not surprising that my first active protest was against religious and nationalistic traditions. I came to hate God and prayer as I hated poverty and the bosses.” Yet neither was this revolutionary spirit simply a widespread view held amongst the majority of Jews. It cannot, therefore, simply be labelled as a product of a quintessentially Jewish value system, that by its nature exacerbates conflict, revolution and war. This position is too often and readily assumed by the anti-Jewish commentators such as EM Jones, Britton and David Duke. But, even assuming the Bolshevik Jews (at least in some quarters) still appeared to sympathise with the Talmud, as they often want to claim, too little is made of the fact it was a distorted perspective. Political radicalism would have altered it to such an extent, that it owed little to anything that could readily be described as carrying on a specifically Jewish value system. 139

The counter argument claims the Jewish influence and its values underpinned a revolutionary spirit and indeed inspired it. Thus in 1905 the Jewish revolutionaries in Kiev boasted that they would turn St. Sophia cathedral into a synagogue. Again, in 1918 they erected a monument to Judas Iscariot in Sviazhsk, and in 1919 in Tambov. The strongest evidence of the continued religiosity of some Bolshevik Jews lying in the claim that when the Whites re-conquered Perm in 1918 they found many Jewish religious inscriptions in the former Bolshevik headquarters; as well as on the walls of the basement of the Ipatiev House in Yekaterinburg- the place where the Tsar and his family were shot. None of this, however, indicates anything other than the reality of the case: that some Jews were revolutionaries and were involved in political activism. It does not demonstratively prove that the Revolution was caused and inspired exclusively by Jews, due to some predominantly Jewish influence, value system, or strategy that has manifest itself in social upheavals, war and chaos throughout the course of history. Nor is it sufficient to say that because Jews just so happen to have been involved in wars or battles in the past, that they have something quintessential within their natures and values that prompts or seeks to exacerbate social conflict. The British have 139


One theory is that while officially rejecting the Talmud, and organised religion generally, the revolutionaries of Jewish lineage may not have entirely overcome the unconscious emotional energy that had once united them through Talmudic Judaism. This manifested itself in a fiercely proud tribalism, older and more passionately felt, by virtue of the fact that the Bolshevik Jews had once truly considered themselves God’s “chosen” people. At the heart of this argument however rests a fundamental bias. It is one that assumes again that there is something warlike and immoral about Jewishness specifically. Tribalism nurtures such an attitude and causes war to occur. It sees positive qualities sometimes in tribalism, but views it only as an imperative to exacerbate war and conflict when it comes to furthering Jewish causes. The tribal imperative to revolution justifies itself with the claim that having fallen away from their special status and having scattered all over the world by the wrath of God, Jews despised their replacement by the Christian peoples. This was fuelled with a special intensity due to their supremacist inclinations. Christian Rome had to be destroyed it is claimed, and Russia as “The Third Rome”, the Rome that now reigned, also had to be destroyed.

been involved in numerous conflicts or wars too, as have the French and untold other nations and tribes. None would wish to suggest that because of this they have an in based proclivity to subvert and destroy exclusively because of this. The same must logically apply to the Jews. The tendency to war, therefore, is simply a human imperative, but one which in any case often is quelled or quashed by the pacifying influence of religion as a civilising influence, even if politicised religion has yet yielded opposite results. 218

The argument requires that the atheist revolutionaries of the younger generation, who took over this resentment and hatred with a passion, still carried the tribal urge within them. It was in some sense an unconscious drive that once awoke manifest malevolence and psychopathic hatred. It tends not to make enough of the loss of faith and the philosophical and political and cultural influences that accompanied it. Nor that even if these imperatives to revolution for power occurred, many appear to have abandoned any advantage gained once it had been achieved. The fusion of politics with faith need not necessarily be exclusive, but a contradiction is apparent if the political ideology that revolutionary activism requires atheism as a prerequisite to achieve the truly awakened class consciousness.


the atheistic prerequisite,


revolutionary theory could not occur within the perimeter of such religious moral guidelines. The issue, then, is usually cast more in terms of an awakened class consciousness purged of the “false” religious sensibility, rather than an imperative caused by a primarily Jewish ethical imperative that would naturally tend to inhibit it. At the heart of this argument that seeks to blame the Jews is also the idea of what Judaism intrinsically entails in practise. As L.A. Tikhomirov wrote: “It is now already for nineteen centuries that we have been hearing from Jewish thinkers that the religious essence of Israel consists not in a concept about God, but in the fulfilment of the Law. Above were cited such witnesses from Judas Galevy. The very authoritative Ilya del Medigo (15th century) in his notable Test of Faith says that ‘Judaism is founded not on religious dogma, but on religious acts. But religious acts are, in essence, those that are prescribed by the Law. That means: if you want to be moral, carry out the Law.” M. Mendelsohn formulates the idea in the same way:


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

The emphasis on law contrasts with Christianity which says: you must believe in a moral truth (such as the new commandment given by Jesus to “love thy neighbour as thyself”) and on the basis of that you must act accordingly. This differs in emphasis from Judaism they wish to claim, which says: you can think what you like, but you have a duty to act according to the law. This is a point of view that critics might claim can so often eclipse moral decision making if law and order breaks down and personal ideology drives actions.

The kind of scenario faced in a revolution. It does,

however, tend to woefully underestimate the moral values conveyed in prohibitive laws as the basis of a religious ethos that defines an individual as who and what they are. Laws that specifically view slaying and murder and killing of one’s fellow men as an immoral act. 140

Thou shalt not kill (LXX; οὐ φονεύσεις), You shall not murder (Hebrew: ‫ ל ֹא ִּת ְרצָ ח‬lo tirṣaḥ) or You shall not kill (KJV), is a moral imperative as much as a legal prohibition included as one of the Ten Commandments in the Torah, specifically Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17. The imperative to not kill is in the context of unlawful killing resulting in bloodguilt. The Hebrew Bible contains numerous prohibitions against unlawful killing, but also contains prescriptive imperatives for lawful killing in the context of warfare, capital punishment, and self-defence. 140

The ancient Hebrew texts make a distinction between the moral and legal prohibition of shedding of innocent blood and killing in battle. Rabbi Marc Gellman explains the distinction between “harag” (killing) and “ratzah” (murder) and notes the different moral connotations. “...there is wide moral agreement (not complete agreement) that some forms of killing are morally just, and killing an enemy combatant during wartime is one of them.” For example, the Torah prohibits murder, but sanctions killing in 220

Those that seek to blame Judaism in this, however, tend to make a distinction between Talmudism and Christianity. They wish to claim that Judaism creates a personality that subjects faith and truth primarily to the imperative of action and only secondarily to morality. Whereas Christianity supplies the moral context as the primary imperative and the act as a secondary cause. That is, for Judaism, it is the action that is first implemented and the moral reasons for doing it can be debated later. In this, revolutionary political activism and religious sensibility can be broadly aligned to the philosophy of Marx, for whom “the truth, i.e. the reality and power, of thought must be demonstrated in action” and to the psychological type of the Marxist revolutionary, who first proclaims that Rome (in this case Russia) must be destroyed through revolutionary action and then looks for the reason that will justify the nihilistic act later. The error, however, is that Talmudic Law is rather less viewed as a moral impediment that would forbid, for example, the slaying of children, particularly the Tsar’s children, who happen to be the enemies of the state. 141

It views Judaism more generally even as a prerequisite to revolutionary

action and slaying, because it proclaims God’s truth (in Jewish minds) is somehow fulfilled best by such actions. These acts, however, are clearly prohibited in specific and particular circumstances that do not necessarily

legitimate battle. The Bible often praises the exploits of soldiers against enemies in legitimate battle. One of David’s mighty men is credited with killing eight hundred men with the spear, and Abishai is credited with killing three hundred men. The 613 Mitzvot extends “lawful killing” to the nations that inhabited the Promised Land, commanding to exterminate them completely. Deuteronomy 20:10-18 establishes rules on killing civilians in warfare. The population of cities outside of the Promised Land, if they surrender, should be made tributaries and left alive (20:10-11). Those cities outside of the Promised Land that resist should be besieged, and once they fall, the male population should be exterminated, but the women and children should be left alive (20:12-15). Of those cities that were within the Promised Land, however, everybody was to be killed. 141


negate a moral content in quite the black and white way they might wish to claim. The moral content and prohibitive context of commandments are too often ignored altogether. War and murder as prime imperatives are too readily supposed the determinant in this. This is done and then justified later as having been a necessary act, in order to secure the solidarity of the” Jewish people”. Their subjection to their rabbinic leaders in this is too often conflated with their loyalty to their political leaders’ values, even when their values and beliefs are in diametric opposition to each other, and it clearly requires breaking commandments and laws in turn.

(j) Lies, damned lies and statistics One of the key planks of the Jewish conspiracy theory rests on an emphasis on the disproportionate number of Jews that wield an influence. To this end, Dr. David Duke in “Jewish Supremacism” notes that of the 384 top commissars and officials in the first Soviet government over 300 were Jewish. This reinforced the call to action at least amongst the Jewish population more generally and motivated the Jewish populace with tribal figureheads. But are Duke’s numbers correct? His claim of a majority Jewish leadership during the first Soviet government has been validated by Vladimir Putin himself, who during a commemoration speech, referenced the decision: “The decision to nationalise this library was made by the first Soviet government, whose composition was 80-85 percent Jewish.” Putin added that the politicians on the predominantly Jewish Soviet government were guided by false ideological considerations and


supported the arrest and repression of not only Russian Orthodox Christians, Muslims and members of other faiths, but Jews of faith also. In this, they tended to group everyone into the same category as religious subversives. Certainly, Jews in relatively large numbers appear to have joined various ideological currents that favoured gradual or revolutionary change within the Russian Empire. Those movements ranged from the far left (anarchists,142 Bundists, Bolsheviks, Mensheviks)143 to moderate left (Trudoviks)144 and constitutionalist (Constitutional Democrat)145 parties. Whereas the Monarchist parties, such as Union of the Russian People, largely expressed anti-Semitic attitudes, and included anti-Semitic comments in their political pamphlets. On the eve of the February Revolution, in 1917, the Bolshevik party had about 10,000 members, of whom 364 were ethnic Jews. 146 Between 1917 and 1919, Jewish Bolshevik party leaders included Grigory Zinoviev, Moisei Uritsky, Lev Kamenev, Yakov Sverdlov, Grigory Sokolnikov, and Leon Trotsky. Lev Kamenev was of mixed ethnic Russian or Jewish Goncharok, Moshe. “Century of Will: Russian Anarchism and Jews (XIX-XX Centuries)”. Jerusalem: Mishmeret Shalom, 1996. 142

Levin, Nora (1988). “The Jews in the Soviet Union Since 1917”. New York University Press: New York (p.13). 143

Ascher, Abraham (1992). “The Revolution of 1905”. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.(p.148). 144

Witte, Sophie (24 March 1907). "Just Before the Duma Opened", New York Times. 145

Political Activity and Emigration. Beyond the Pale. The History of Jews in Russia. (Exhibition by Friends and Partners Project). See also Kara-Murza, Sergey. "Revolutionary (Socialist) Political Forces between February and October." Soviet Civilization. Vol. 1. (The chapter about the growth of Russian political parties during February-October 1917 online) (Russian, translt. available). 146


parentage.147 Trotsky was also a member of the ruling Council of People’s Commissars.148 However among the 23 “Narkoms” or “members” between 1923 and 1930, only five were Jewish.149 Generally, most of the leading Communists who took control of Russia in 1917-20 were Jews. Leon Trotsky (Lev Bronstein) headed the Red Army and, for a time, was chief of Soviet foreign affairs. Yakov Sverdlov (Solomon) was both the Bolshevik party’s executive secretary and served as chairman of the Central Executive Committee and head of the Soviet government. Grigori Zinoviev (Radomyslsky) headed the Communist International (Comintern), the central agency for spreading revolution in foreign countries. Other prominent Jews included press commissar Karl Radek (Sobelsohn), foreign affairs commissar Maxim Litvinov (Wallach), Lev Kamenev (Rosenfeld) and Moisei Uritsky. In contrast to the high percentage of Jews in important positions, according to the 1922 party census at least, there were relatively few Jews in the Party as a whole: for there were 19,564 Jewish Bolsheviks, but this comprised of only 5.21% of the total. 150 A drop from the number of Jews (some 7.1%) in membership who had joined before October 1917. 151 By Herf, Jeffrey (2008). “The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda During World War II and the Holocaust”. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.(p.96). Also Hoffman, Stefani; Mendelssohn, Ezra (2008). The Revolution of 1905 and Russia's Jews. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press (p.178). 147

Deutsch, Mark, "Alexander Solzhenitsyn as a Mirror of Russian Xenophobia". Moskovskiy Komsomolets. 10 January 2003. (Russian). 148


Herf, Jeffrey (op. cit... p.96).


Herf (op. cit... p.96).

Deutsch, Mark, "Alexander Solzhenitsyn as a Mirror of Russian Xenophobia". Moskovskiy Komsomolets. 10 January 2003. (Russian). 151


1929 the Jewish members of the Central Executive Committee of the Congress of Soviets had dropped considerably and consisted of 402 ethnic Russians, 95 Ukrainians, 55 Jews, 26 Latvians, 13 Poles, and 12 Germans – Jewish representation had declined from 60 members in 1927.152 With regards to Jewish representation in the ruling Politburo, it waned very rapidly from 1918, but began at a much higher percentage. It began with the assassination of Moisei Uritsky, the most radical member of the Politburo in August. Then Yakov Sverdlov died of disease in March 1919 and Sokolnikov was pushed aside. Three years later (in 1922) Jewish members in the Central Committee, the Politburo’s new name, had shrunk to a minority of three: Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev. Eventually they were all murdered on the orders of Joseph Stalin: Zinoviev and Kamenev in 1936 and Trotsky in 1940 during his sojourn with Frida Kahlo.153 In the 1920s, of the 417 members of the Central Executive Committee, the party Central Committee, the Presidium of the Executive of the Soviets of the USSR and the Russian Republic and the People’s Commissars, just 6% were ethnic Jews. 154 Between 1936 and 1940, during the Great Purge, Yezhovshchina (and after the rapprochement with Hitler’s regime, Stalin) Pinkus, Benjamin (1990) “The Jews of the Soviet Union: The History of a National Minority”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (p.81). 152

It is not sufficient when faced with these facts and statistics to simply assert as Frank Britton “Behind Communism” does that: 153

“The founders of Russian Communism were Jewish. Neither can we ignore the fact that all but a few of the top leadership of the American Communism party— including the recently convicted spies— are of the same race. These are facts of history over which we have no control.” As attested by Jeffrey Herf “The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda During World War II and the Holocaust”, Cambridge: Harvard University Press (p. 96). 154


largely eliminated Jews from senior party positions, as well as government, diplomatic, security and military positions more generally.155 A prominent victim of the Purge was the Head of the State Security or NKVD (the enforcement arm of government previously known as the Cheka and GPU) who also happened to be of Jewish lineage: Genrikh Yagoda. In 1939, Stalin directed incoming Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov to “purge the ministry of Jews”.156 Although some scholars believe that this decision was taken for primarily domestic reasons, 157 others argue it may have been a signal to Hitler that the USSR was indeed ready to sign the non-aggression pact. 158 According to historian Iakov Etinger, many Soviet state purges of the 1930s were anti-Semitic in nature, and a more intense anti-Semitic policy developed toward the end of World War II. 159 By 1952 Stalin’s suspicions were such that he allegedly viewed “every Jew” as “a potential spy for the United States”. 160


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

Resis, Albert (2000). “The Fall of Litvinov: Harbinger of the German-Soviet NonAggression Pact”. Europe-Asia Studies 52. 156

Resis, Albert (2000). "The Fall of Litvinov: Harbinger of the German-Soviet NonAggression Pact". Europe-Asia Studies 52 (1) p. 35. 157

Herf 2008 (op.cit. p. 56). See also Moss, Walter (2005). “A History of Russia: Since 1855”. Anthem Press (p.283). 158

Ro'i, Yaacov (1995) “Jews and Jewish Life in Russia and the Soviet Union”. Routledge.(p.103-106). 159

Figes, Orlando (2008) “The Whisperers: Private Life in Stalin's Russia”. London: Picador, (p.251). 160


An example of the exaggeration of Jewish influence in the Soviet Communist Party is the estimate by Alfred Jensen that in the 1920s “75 per cent of the leading Bolsheviks” were “of Jewish origin” (as quoted by journalist David Aaronovitch). Aaronovitch (a son of a Communist intellectual) notes however that “a cursory examination of membership of the top committees shows this figure to be an absurd exaggeration.” 161

(k) Was Lenin a Jew? Many anti-Semites presume Lenin’s ethnic Jewishness in order to strengthen the Jewish Bolshevik association. Lenin, however, was a contrary, mixed character and any number of ethnic influences prevailed, and even in these the question of influence still remains to be disputed. He is generally thought to have been of mostly Russian and Kalmuck ancestry. However, his maternal grandfather, on his mother’s side, was Israel (Alexander) Blank, a Ukrainian Jew, who was later baptised into the Russian Orthodox Church. Jewish race is passed down on the mother’s side, although others have sought to emphasise him, like Trotsky, only as a thorough-going Marxist internationalist; a characteristic and quality that fits with Lenin’s view that ethnic, religious or cultural loyalties should be viewed with contempt. This caveat, however, does not fit with other comments he made concerning his disregard for his non-Jewish Russian countrymen in

Aaronovitch, David. "Our Jewish Communist past". September 23, 2011. RSS Twitter Facebook Archives Subscribe S & P About The Jewish Chronicle Online. Retrieved 18 September 2013. 161


contrast to his view of the superiority of the Jews if the following reported quote is true: “An intelligent Russian is almost always a Jew or someone with Jewish blood in his veins.”

As Wikipedia states, Lenin was born in Simbirsk, a part of the Russian Empire (now Ulyanovsk), as the son of Ilya Nikolaevich Ulyanov, a Russian official in public education, who worked for progressive democracy and free universal education in Russia. His mother was Maria Alexandrovna Ulyanova. Her father was (allegedly) Alexandr Blank (born Israel Blank), a well-to-do physician who was a Jewish convert to Orthodox Christianity. Her mother, Anna Ivanovna Groschopf, was the daughter of a German father, Johann Groschopf, and a Swedish mother, Anna Östedt.162 In this respect, then, no more can be accurately said other than that Lenin’s extended family was certainly of mixed ethnic ancestry. Lenin’s antecedents were Russian, Kalmyk, Jewish, German and Swedish, and possibly others besides. Lenin himself was baptised into the Russian Orthodox Church. In respect to Lenin, however, as with Stalin (and many of the key figures of the revolution) a number of statements (some contradictory) have been claimed. These have contributed to the inaccurate emphasis on his Jewishness. First, more generally Herbert T. Fitch “Traitors Within” (p. 16) describes Lenin as: “ a smooth-headed, oval-faced, narrow-eyed, typical Jew, with a devilish sureness in every line of his powerful magnetic face. Beside him was a different type of Jew, the kind one might see in any Soho shop, strong-nosed, sallow-faced, long-moustached,with a little tuft 162

See also Christopher (2005). “Lenin: A Revolutionary Life”. Routledge. 228

of beard wagging from his chin and a great shock of wild hair, Leiba Bronstein, afterwards Lev Trotsky.” Whilst Major-General, Count Cherep-Spiridovich in “The Secret World Government” (p. 36) comments: “Lenin, or Oulianov by adoption, originally Zederbaum, a Kalmuck Jew, married a Jewess, and whose children speak Yiddish.” Concerning his true parentage, another statement concerns the German Goldman Family as Lenin’s Parents by D. Petrovsky in his “Russia under the Jews” (p. 86): “Lenin, as a child, was left behind, there, by a company of prisoners passing through, and later his Jewish convict father, Ilko Sroul Goldman, wrote inquiring his whereabouts. Lenin had already been picked up and adopted by Qulianoff.” Another source also supports the Goldman Family as Lenin’s true Jewish parents (“Common Sense” dated April 1, 1963): “Lenin was born on April 10, 1870 in the vicinity of Odessa, South of Russia, as a son of Ilko Sroul Goldmann, a German Jew, and Sofie Goldmann, a German Jewess. Lenin was circumcised as Hiam Goldmann.” Whereas, more generally, it is not in dispute that Lenin had Jewish relatives, the extent of his ideological view being shaped by ideas that were in some sense quintessentially “Jewish” can only indirectly be made via a reference to Dr. Chaim Weizmann in “The London Jewish Chronicle” (Dec 16 1932) who wrote: “Lenin had taken part in Jewish student meetings in Switzerland thirty-five years before.” Whilst this was a long time before his ideological views truly formed, his connection with “International Jews” has also been suggested, as Lenin’s








can be traced to financing from American and British Jews. This is attested in “Red Symphony” (p. 252): “...the main purveyors of funds for the revolution, however, were neither the crackpot Russian millionaires nor the armed bandits of Lenin. The 'real' money primarily came from certain British and American circles which for a long time past had lent their support to the Russian revolutionary cause...The important part played by the wealthy American Jewish Banker, Jacob Schiff, in the events in no longer a secret.”

(l) Debunking the Jewish Banking conspiracy Henry Wickham Steed in his “Through 30 Years 1892-1922” (vol.2 p. 302) details how he attempted to bring the idea of an international Jewish banking conspiracy to the attention of Colonel Edward M. House and President Woodrow Wilson in March 1919. Wickham Steed called Colonel House and found him disturbed over Steed’s recent criticism of U.S. recognition of the Bolsheviks. Steed pointed out to House that Wilson would be discredited among the many peoples and nations of Europe unless relations were curtailed. He insisted that the chief culprits were Jacob Schiff, Warburg and other US based international financiers, who wished above all to support the Jewish Bolsheviks in order to secure a field for German and Jewish exploitation of Russia. According to Steed, House argued contrarily for the continued strengthening of economic relations with the Soviet Union. A collection of documents that purportedly support the theory of the financing of the revolution by a conspiracy of Jews exists in the State Department Decimal File 861.00/5339. The central document is one entitled “Bolshevism and Judaism”, dated November 13, 1918. The text is 230

in the form of a report, which states that the revolution in Russia was engineered in February 1916: “…it was found that the following persons and firms were engaged in this destructive work: (1) Jacob Schiff (Jew) (2) Kuhn, Loeb & Company (Jewish Firm) Management: Jacob Schiff (Jew) Felix Warburg (Jew) Otto H. Kahn (Jew) Mortimer L. Schiff (Jew) Jerome J. Hanauer (Jew) (3) Guggenheim (Jew) (4) Max Breitung (Jew) (5) Isaac Seligman (Jew)” The report goes on to assert that there can be no doubt that the Russian Revolution was started and engineered by this group of international financiers; that in April 1917 Jacob Schiff in fact made a public announcement and that it was due to his financial influence that the Russian revolution was successfully accomplished. It supports the view that in the Spring of 1917 Jacob Schiff started to finance Trotsky for the purpose of accomplishing a social revolution in Russia. The report also contains other information about Max Warburg’s financing of Trotsky; the role of the Rheinish-Westphalian syndicate, and Olof Aschberg’s influence in the Nya Banken (Stockholm) together with Jivotovsky. The anonymous author states that the links between these organisations and their financing of the Bolshevik Revolution show how: “the link between Jewish proletarians was forged.”163




The anonymous author was a Russian employed by the U.S. War Trade Board. One of the three directors of the U.S. War Trade Board at this time was John Foster Dulles, a suggested Communist. 163


The report goes on to list a large number of Bolsheviks who were also Jews, and then describes the actions of Paul Warburg, Judus Magnes, Kuhn, Loeb & Company and Speyer & Company. Accompanying this report are a number of cables between the State Department in Washington and the American embassy in London and concern the steps to be taken.

The U.S. State Dept. Decimal File,

861.00/5399 is cited here from Anthony Sutton’s “Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution” (Appendix 3). It reads as follows: 5399 Great Britain, TEL. 3253 1 pm October 16, 1919 In Confidential File Secret for Winslow from Wright. Financial aid to Bolshevism & Bolshevik Revolution in Russia from prominent Am. Jews: Jacob Schiff, Felix Warburg, Otto Kahn, Mendell Schiff, Jerome Hanauer, Max Breitung & one of the Guggenheims. Document re- in possession of Brit. police authorities from French sources. Asks for any facts re-. Oct. 17 Great Britain TEL. 6084, noon r c-h 5399 Very secret. Wright from Winslow. Financial aid to Bolshevik revolution in Russia from prominent Am. Jews. No proof re- but investigating. Asks to urge Brit. authorities to suspend publication at least until receipt of document by Dept. Nov. 28 Great Britain TEL. 6223 R 5 pro. 5399 FOR WRIGHT. Document re financial aid to Bolsheviki by prominent American jews. Reports — identified as French translation of a statement originally prepared in English by Russian citizen in Am. etc. Seem most unwise to give — the distinction of publicity. It was agreed to suppress this material and the files conclude, "I think we have the whole thing in cold storage." Another document marked “Top Secret” was also included. The origin of the document is unknown; it may perhaps be a communique from the FBI or Military Intelligence. It also reviews a translation of the Protocols of Zion and concludes: 232

“In this connection a letter was sent to Mr. W. enclosing a memorandum from us with regard to certain information from the American Military Attache to the effect that the British authorities had letters intercepted from various groups of international Jews setting out a scheme for world dominion. Copies of this material will be very useful to us.” This information was apparently developed and a later British intelligence report makes the bald charge: “SUMMARY: There is now definite evidence that Bolshevism is an international movement controlled by Jews; communications are passing between the leaders in America, France, Russia and England with a view to concerted action....”164 The value of the evidence to support an international Jewish-Bolshevik conspiracy thesis is however sniffed at by Anthony Sutton himself (op.cit.) who claims none of the above statements can be supported with hard empirical evidence. The most significant information being only that the British authorities claimed to possess “letters intercepted from various groups of international Jews” setting out a scheme for world domination. No such letters have ever been verified however, and as Sutton comments, if such letters did exist they would indeed provide support for the Jewish conspiracy claims, whilst also substantiating the view that other revolutions had also been the work of a worldwide Jewish plot. However, and more importantly, he asserts: “when statements and assertions are not supported by hard evidence and where attempts to unearth hard evidence lead in a circle back to the starting point- particularly when everyone is quoting everyone else- then we must reject the story as spurious.”

Great Britain, Directorate of Intelligence, A Monthly Review of the Progress of Revolutionary Movements Abroad, no. 9, July 16, 1913 (861.99/5067). 164


There is no hard data to suppose that Jews involved in the Bolshevik Revolution were so because they were Jewish,165 even if there is an amount of controversial circumstantial evidence to perpetuate a false line of reasoning. As Sutton asserts (op.cit. Appendix 3) to underline the point: “There may indeed have been a higher proportion of Jews involved, but given tsarist treatment of Jews, what else would we expect? There were probably many Englishmen or persons of English origin in the American Revolution fighting the redcoats. So what? Does that make the American Revolution an English conspiracy?” As noted, Winston Churchill’s article is often cited in support of the fact it was a popularly held view, but considering his distinctions he appears to be asserting only that a minority of world Jewry had “a very great role” in the Bolshevik Revolution. His error, however, was in the citing of Mrs Webster as a proof of a more widespread, coordinated international Jewish conspiracy. Her later fascist sympathies were well known, and she


It cannot be proven true as a correct syllogism that:

1. Lenin and Stalin were Bolsheviks. 2. Many Bolsheviks were Jews. 3. Therefore Lenin and Stalin were Jews. It can however clearly be shown to be a fallacious line of reasoning that many does not equate to all, particularly when both Lenin and Stalin were not.


often had a tendency to mysticism. 166 Her specialist work is rather theoretical more than factual and is in any case poorly sourced. 167 The list of Jews involved in the Bolshevik Revolution must be weighed against lists of non-Jews involved. When this measure is used, the proportion of foreign Jewish Bolsheviks falls to less than 20% of the total number of revolutionaries and of those, many were deported, murdered, or sent to Siberia in the following years. Sutton (ibid Appendix 3 Document 3 c) makes a fairly good case based on the evidence of

documents in the State Department files that the

investment banker Jacob Schiff, cited as a source of funds for the Bolshevik Revolution, was in fact against support of the Bolshevik regime.168 This position being in contrast to the Morgan-Rockefeller Webster became involved in several Right-wing groups including the British Fascists, the Anti-Socialist Union, The Link, and the British Union of Fascists. She was also the leading writer of “The Patriot”, an anti-Semitic paper. Webster dismissed much of the persecution of the Jews during Hitler’s reign as exaggeration and propaganda. 166

Webster also published “Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, The Need for Fascism in Great Britain”, “The Menace of Communism” (with Mrs. Katherine Atkinson) and “The Origin and Progress of the World Revolution”. In the latter book, published in 1921, she wrote: 167

“What mysteries of iniquity would be revealed if the Jew, like the mole, did not make a point of working in the dark! Jews have never been more Jews than when we tried to make them men and citizens.” In her books, Webster argued that Bolshevism was part of a much older and more secret, self-perpetuating conspiracy. She described three possible sources for this conspiracy: Zionism, Pan-Germanism, or “the occult power”. She stated that she leaned towards Zionism as the most likely culprit of the three. She also claimed that even if the Protocols were fake, they still describe how Jews behave. DOCUMENT NO. 3 Consists of four parts: (a) Cable from Ambassador Francis, April 27, 1917, in Petrograd to Washington, D.C., requesting transmission of a message from prominent Russian Jewish bankers to prominent Jewish bankers in New York and requesting their subscription to the Kerensky Liberty Loan (861.51/139). (b) Reply 168


promotion of the Bolsheviks. He cites an important series of letters to refute, as he claims, “the story of a Jewish bank conspiracy behind the Bolshevik Revolution”. It seems, however that the Schiff opposition was more broadly an opposition to any form of tyranny be it Tsarist or Bolshevik. Any supposed initial support was then withdrawn once the tyrannical nature of the new regime became apparent. Clearly Jacob Schiff was not interested in supporting the Kerensky Liberty Loan based on the evidence and Schiff even went to the trouble of drawing State Department attention to Kamenka’s pleas for Allied intervention against the Bolsheviks. Obviously, Schiff and fellow banker Kamenka, unlike J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller, were as unhappy about the increasingly absolutist nature of the Bolsheviks as they had been about rule under the Tsars. In this respect Sutton comments: “The persistence with which the Jewish-conspiracy myth has been pushed suggests that it may well be a deliberate device to divert attention from the real issues and the real causes. The evidence provided… suggests that the New York bankers who were also Jewish had relatively minor roles in supporting the Bolsheviks, while the New York bankers who were also Gentiles (Morgan, Rockefeller, Thompson) had major roles. What better way to divert attention from the real operators than by the medieval bogeyman of anti-Semitism?”169 from Louis Marshall (May 10, 1917) representing American Jews; he declined the invitation while expressing support for the American Liberty Loan (861.51/143). (c) Letter from Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb (November 25, 1918) to State Department (Mr. Polk) relaying a message from Russian Jewish banker Kamenka calling for Allied help against the Bolsheviks ("because Bolshevist government does not represent Russian People"). (d) Cable from Kamenka relayed by Jacob Schiff. In respect to this, Aleksandr Solzhenitzyn also makes a number of statements in his “Two Hundred Years Together” (op.cit. p.113). First, he notes the support of Schiff for Zionism: 169

“In April, the Zionist movement was strongly reinforced by the public announcement of Jacob Schiff, who had decided to join Zionists because of fear 236

(m) Jewish attitudes and loyalties in a shifting scenario In October in Petrograd I. Trumpeldor had organised Jewish self-defence forces for protection against pogroms, but they were never needed. As Solzhenitsyn notes in his “Two Hundred Years Together”: “Russian minds were confused, and so were Jewish ones.” (op.cit. p.128). Overriding the confusion however the collective spirit of a Jewish nihilism arose, causing G. Landau to comment (op.cit 128-129): of Jewish assimilation as a result of Jewish civil equality in Russia. He believed that Palestine could become the center to spread ideals of Jewish culture all over the world.” A little earlier he comments on his support for the liberation from persecution he presumed the Revolution would bring (p.104). A view that generally supports Schiff’s disdain for absolutism, whatever the stripe or cause: “ The newspapers Birzhevka, Rech and many others reported on the sympathies of Jacob Schiff, “a well-known leader of North American circles that are hostile to Russia.” He wrote: “I was always the enemy of Russian absolutism, which mercilessly persecuted my co-religionists. Now let me congratulate … the Russian people for this great act which they committed so perfectly.” Schiff, then, extended an invitation indicative of continuing support. Solzhenitsyn claims he: “invites the new Russia to conduct broad credit operations in America. Indeed, at the time he provided substantial credit to the Kerensky government. Later in emigration, the exiled Russian right-wing press published investigative reports attempting to show that Schiff actively financed the Revolution itself.” Notably Solzhenitsyn cites sources from Birzheviye Vedomosti, dated March 10, 1917, (pages 3, 6). Whereas Sutton’s sources based on the later dated telegrams April 1917, and more particularly the letter dated November 1918, shows a change of heart by Schiff against the emerging Communist state absolutism that became increasingly evident, but was not proclaimed ideologically. Hence his later public support for Jewish nationalism, rather than Bolshevism as a means to safeguard the propagation of Jewish values. His change of heart at the emerging Communist absolutism explains Solzhenitsyn’s remark: “Perhaps Schiff shared the short-sighted Western hope that the liberal revolution in Russia would strengthen Russia in the war. Still, the known and public acts of Schiff, who had always been hostile to Russian absolutism, had even greater effect than any possible secret assistance to such a revolution.” 237

“Jewish participation in the Russian turmoil had astonishingly suicidal overtones in it; I am referring not only to their role in Bolshevism, but to their involvement in the whole thing. And it is not just about the huge number of politically active people, Socialists and revolutionaries, who have joined the revolution; I am talking mainly about the broad sympathy of the masses it was met with…. Although many harboured pessimistic expectations, in particular, an anticipation of pogroms, they were still able to reconcile such a foreboding with an acceptance of turmoil which unleashed countless miseries and pogroms. It resembled the fatal attraction of butterflies to fire, to the annihilating fire…It is certain there were some strong motives pushing the Jews into that direction, and yet those were clearly suicidal…. Granted, Jews were not different in that from the rest of Russian intelligentsia and from the Russian society…. Yet we had to be different … we, the ancient people of city-dwellers, merchants, artisans, intellectuals … we had to be different from the people of land and power, from peasants, landowners, officials.” The eight-month period between the February Revolution and the Bolshevik coup d’état of October was defined by two competing political authorities. A Provisional Government was formed by a group of former Duma deputies and won widespread recognition, if not deep loyalty. At the same time, the “workers’ councils” (or Soviets) of the Revolution of 1905 were revived by a small group of Socialist intellectuals. They proclaimed themselves the “Executive Committee of the Council of Workers’ Deputies” before any actual council was formed, and their socalled Executive Committee remained a more important body than the council it called into being. Plenary sessions of the two to three-thousand member “Petrograd Soviet”, in whose name it spoke, became an impotent forum for rhetoric. There were no constitutional rules to define the spheres of authority of the Provisional Government and the Soviet’s Executive Committee. What actually happened was that the Executive Committee assumed a “supervisory” role in relation to the Provisional Government, thwarting its 238

purposes as it saw fit, whilst simultaneously it refused to take upon itself the responsibilities of governing. In Solzhenitsyn’s words: “The EC was a shadow government of the worst sort: it deprived the Provisional Government of all real power while criminally avoiding the direct and open assumption of power itself.” (p. 46). The result was paralysis at the heart of government and the perfect conditions for an eventual takeover by a determined and ruthless minority. A symptom of this paralysis was evident in the Executive Committee, where for several weeks its own membership was kept secret: “. . . several of the members hide behind pseudonyms and for two months refused to appear in public: no one knew exactly who was governing Russia. Later it came out that there were ten stupid soldiers in the EC for show, kept at arm’s length. Among the rest— the thirty active members—more than half were Jewish Socialists. There were Russians, Caucasians, Latvians, and Poles, but the Russians amounted to less than a quarter of the whole. A moderate Socialist, Stankevitch, noted that “the most striking thing about the composition of the EC was the number of foreign elements . . . out of all proportion with their numbers in Petrograd or in the country.” (p. 47) These men were chosen to represent neither their own nationalities, nor the people of Russia, but the various Socialist parties: Mensheviks, Bolsheviks, Socialist Revolutionaries, and so forth. As such it was a question not of national, religious or racial distinctions, but of political ideology. After June, the EC was replaced by a smaller Central Executive Committee of nine persons: five were Jewish, only one Russian (p. 67). In view of these statistics and subsequent events, however, it has largely been forgotten that most politically active Jews in Russia that year were not involved with these Socialist parties at all: “In the course of the summer and autumn of 1917, the Zionist movement continued to gather strength in Russia: in September it 239

had 300,000 adherents. Less known is that Orthodox Jewish organisations enjoyed great popularity in 1917, yielding only to the Zionists and surpassing the Socialist parties.” (p. 54) Furthermore, most Jews who did belong to Socialist parties were not Bolsheviks. “during the year 1917 Jews were proportionally much more numerous in leading positions among the Mensheviks, right Socialist Revolutionaries, left Socialist Revolutionaries and anarchists than among the Bolsheviks.” (p. 65). Shortly before the Bolshevik Putsch, however, the Jewish Socialists: “Natanson, Kamkov and Steinberg formed an alliance with Trotsky and Kamenev in the name of the left Socialist Revolutionaries.” (p. 81). This brief alliance was useful to Lenin in giving the false impression that the new “Soviet” government was far more than a mere front for the Bolshevik Party. As Solzhenitsyn writes: “It must be stated clearly that the October Putsch was not led by the Jews (except for the glorious Trotsky and the young and dynamic Grigori Chudnovsky)” (op. cit.p. 80). 170 While not all revolutionaries were Jews, some were. The revolutionary movement could not have survived without their technical and practical skills as smugglers, printers, explosives experts, and masters of living the “underground” life. Haberer says “Jews constituted an important, if not crucial, national element in turning the region into a hotbed of terrorist violence.” It would be naive, or as Haberer says, “shortsighted” to claim Jews just happened to be unwittingly drawn up in the revolution. Some were drawn to the cause precisely because of Messianic Socialism. This caused them to abandon traditional religious practice. Concerning this Irving Kristol, in youth a follower of Trotsky and now a Neo-conservative, appears to express the same Messianic, universalist vision as a still live Jewish tradition that Neo-conservatism and Trotskyism both share. As Kristol says the revolutionaries: 170

“…did not forsake their Jewish heritage to replace it with another form of cultural identity or ethnic belonging. What they sought can best be described as an abstract and futuristic idealism of assimilation qua emancipation in a denationalized and secularized democratic society, ideally of universal scope. 240

He remarks that there were also some Jews in the Winter Palace defending the Provisional Government from the Bolsheviks and recalls meeting one of them in a Soviet prison later himself. The new government’s first challenge was a mass strike of service personnel in support of the deposed Provisional Government. Ministry buildings barred their doors against the new “Soviet Commissars”; Trotsky became an object of ridicule and was ejected from the Defence Ministry. Most importantly, banks refused Bolshevik demands for funds. In 1919, Lenin specifically credited his Jewish followers for keeping him in power until this point: “immediately after October, it was the Jews who saved the revolution by breaking the resistance of the civil servants.” (p. 105). Lenin’s team claimed at first to be a mere caretaker government pending the convocation of a Constituent Assembly. Elections for such an assembly had been scheduled by the Provisional Government for November 12th, and the Bolsheviks reluctantly allowed them to go ahead in the hope of dominating the resulting body. However, their rivals, the Socialist Revolutionary Party, won a large majority. This was a surprise in respect of Jewish influence, as most Jewish voters at this time were supporting Zionist parties. The Constituent Assembly was forcibly dispersed the night after it convened, January 6, 1918, and all Bolshevik pretenses to democratic legitimacy were then jettisoned.

Leaving the world of their childhood did not necessarily imply its total abandonment in one act of irreversible forgetfulness. For many this departure under the sacred halo of Socialism was the next best solution to their own existential problems-a solution that was enormously attractive since it also held out the utopian promise of the "genuine emancipation" of all Jews in a Socialist republic of universal brotherhood devoid of national, religious, and social discrimination or even distinctions.” 241

Solzhenitsyn discusses some of the arguments used by Jewish apologists to excuse or palliate Jewish involvement in Bolshevik rule. He accepts the common argument that the Jewish Bolsheviks were “renegades”, i.e. “not Jews in spirit”. He points out, however, that the same was true of Russian Bolsheviks, and denies that any nation may simply disown its renegades: “for if we release ourselves from all responsibility for the actions of our national kin, the very concept of a nation loses any real meaning.” (p. 132). He continues: “There are many Jewish authors who to this very day either deny the support of Jews for Bolshevism, or even reject it angrily, or else-the most common case-only speak defensively about it. The matter is well-attested, however: these Jewish renegades were for several years leaders at the center of the Bolshevik Party, at the head of the Red Army (Trotsky), of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (Sverdlov), of the two capitals (Zinoviev and Kamenev), of the Comintern (Zinoviev), of the Profintern (Dridzo-Lozovsky), and of the Komsomol (Oskar Ryvkin, then Lazar Shatskin).” (p. 91). Socialists of this type were of course “internationalists”, and Trotsky was especially emphatic in rejecting his racial lineage, its culture and religious sensibilities. But does it necessarily follow that he was not influenced by it, or its common cultural connections? To judge by the appointments, he made Solzhenitsyn observes: “Jewish renegades were closer to him than Russian renegades” (p. 92). Particularly striking too was his appointment of the incompetent Jewish doctor Sklianski to a high post in the Commissariat of War.


The author goes on to discuss the roles of the Jews Uritsky, Drabkin, and Sverdlov in dispersing the Constituent Assembly, concluding with the observation: “by these sorts of operations the new Jewish form of government was sketched out.” (p. 93). So too there is the writer Vladimir Korolenko a liberal and tolerant man who wrote in his journal in the Spring of 1919: “Among the Bolsheviks there are a great number of Jewish men and women. Their tactlessness, their self-assurance is striking and irritating... In their ranks, and above all in the Cheka [the secret police], you constantly see Jewish physiognomies, and this exacerbates the still virulent traditional feelings of Judeophobia.” (p. 99). Another witness quoted by Solzhenitsyn specifies that most of the heads of prisons were Poles and Latvians, while the section charged with combating black marketers, those he considered the “least dangerous and most lucrative” were “in the hands of Jews” (p. 94). Jews are also said to have been unusually noticeable in the organs charged with provisioning (p. 97). Solzhenitsyn too also lists the now familiar names of ten Jewish bankers who provided the important financial services for the Bolsheviks (p. 115). Some Jews were also implicated in the murder of the Imperial family, notably Sverdlov (who transmitted the order from Moscow) and Urovsky (who led the execution squad), but Solzhenitsyn believes the point has been exaggerated in recent years by certain Russian nationalists “who take a morbid pleasure in this agonizing thought” (p. 100). Most of the


executioners were Hungarian prisoners of war; ultimate responsibility for the crime has been the source of speculation.171 The Bolshevik Putsch led to a split in Jewish parties such as the Bund and the Zionist-Socialists. Those who would not support Lenin either emigrated or were suppressed. The Left-wings of two Zionist-Socialist groupings then joined the Communist Party en masse in 1919 and 1921. In effect, the Leftwing of the Bund simply dissolved, with many of its members joining the Communists. According to an internal survey of 1926, 2,500 Bundists had become Party members. Many Mensheviks, Jewish and otherwise, did likewise. Most of these would later face persecution under Stalin (pp. 118– 19). Of course, there were Jews who resisted Soviet power, but as Solzhenitsyn notes: “they did not have any way of making themselves heard publicly, and the present pages are naturally filled not with their names but with those who guided the course of events.” (p. 123). He does however, quite rightly relate the stories of two Jews who are known to have sacrificed their lives fighting the new regime. Leonid Kannegiesser assassinated Moisei Uritsky, a Jewish Chekist, explaining in a letter to his sister that (among other motives) he was ashamed to see 171 The Russian

Imperial Romanov family (Tsar Nicholas II, his wife Tsarina Alexandra and their five children Olga, Tatiana, Maria, Anastasia, and Alexei) and all those who chose to accompany them into exile – notably Eugene Botkin, Anna Demidova, Alexei Trupp and Ivan Kharitonov – were shot in Yekaterinburg on 17 July 1918. The Tsar and his family were murdered by Bolshevik troops led by Yakov Yurovsky under the orders of the Ural Regional Soviet. However some historians have attributed the order to the government in Moscow, specifically Yakov Sverdlov and Vladimir Lenin, who wished to prevent the rescue of the Imperial Family by the approaching Czechoslovak Legion (fighting with the White Army against Bolsheviks) during the ongoing Russian Civil War. This is supported by a passage in Leon Trotsky's diary. A recent investigation led by Vladimir Solovyov concluded that, despite the opening of state archives in the post-Soviet years, no written document has yet been found that indicates that either Lenin or Sverdlov instigated the orders; however, they did endorse the executions after they occurred 244

Jews helping to install Bolsheviks into power. Also Alexander Abramovich Vilenkin, four-times decorated cavalry officer, who was shot in 1918 for belonging to a clandestine anti-Bolshevik Organisation. “These combatants of Bolshevism, whatever may have been their motivation—we honour their memory as Jews. We deplore that there were so few of them, just as the White forces in the Civil War were too few.” (p. 125). Solzhenitsyn writes that in 1918 Trotsky, with the aid of Sklianski and Yakov Sverdlov, created the Red Army and Jewish soldiers were numerous in its ranks. Several units of the Red Army were composed entirely of Jews, as, for example, the brigade commanded by Joseph Forman. Among the officers of the Red Army, the share of Jews grew in number and importance for many years after the Civil War. (p. 135). According to one of the author’s Jewish sources: “the proportion of Jews in the position of Political Adjuncts was especially high at all levels of the Red Army.” (p. 136). Of special interest to this is the Cheka, the secret political police who carried out the Red Terror and eventually built the Gulags. In their early phase, national minorities composed almost 50 percent of the central apparatus of the Cheka, and nearly 70 percent of the responsible posts. An inventory on 25 September 1918 reveals a considerable number of Jews, along with a great number of Latvians and a not insignificant number of Poles. In addition, in respect to the judges assigned to the struggle against counter-revolution, by far the most important section in the structure of the Cheka were Jews, the number of which constituted about 50% (p. 142– 43). The Ukrainian Cheka, in what used to be the Pale of Settlement, was composed of about 80% of Jews (p. 150). In Kiev, which was 21% Jewish 245

in 1919 (p. 156), key positions in the Cheka were “almost exclusively” in Jewish hands. Of the twenty members of the commission which decided people’s fate, fourteen were Jews (p. 148). The Kievan Cheka even published a newsletter, “The Red Sword”, which offers an unusual glimpse into the minds of those who carried out the Terror. In an article by its Jewish editor-in-chief Leon Kraini we read: “For us there cannot be any question of encumbering ourselves with old principles of morality and humanitarianism invented by the bourgeoisie.” Schwartz echoes his sentiments: “The Red Terror which has been proclaimed must be carried out in a proletarian fashion. . . If in order to institute the dictatorship of the proletariat in the whole world it is necessary to annihilate all the servants of tsarism and capitalism, we will not hesitate to do so.” (p. 141). Vasily Shulgin, an old political ally of Stolypin, 172 witnessed an enormous exodus from Kiev on October 1st, 1919 as the town was about to be occupied by the Bolsheviks. Some 60,000 Russians, according to his estimate, left on foot with nothing more than what they could carry. At the time there were some 100,000 Jews living in Kiev. “But there were no Jews in this exodus; you could not see any among these thousands of Russians. They did not want to share our destiny.”

Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin served as Prime Minister and the leader of the third Duma, from 1906 to 1911. His tenure was marked by efforts to counter revolutionary groups and by the implementation of noteworthy agrarian reforms. Stolypin's reforms aimed to stem peasant unrest by creating a class of market-oriented smallholding landowners. He is considered one of the last major statesmen of Imperial Russia to show clearly defined public policies with a will to implement major reforms. 172


Even the wealthiest “bourgeois” Jews preferred to take their chances with the Bolsheviks (pp. 149–50). In connection with this, Sergei Maslov, author of “Russia after Four Years of Revolution” wrote: “In the towns of southern Russia, especially the Western half of the Ukraine which changed hands several times, the advent of Soviet power gave rise to ostentatious sympathy and the greatest joy in the Jewish quarters, and often nowhere else.” (p. 150). These celebrations were ultimately to be eclipsed by fear. It was to be endured far longer in the regime of persecution and terror that swiftly arose. It would later be seized upon not only by the dominating figure of Joseph Stalin, and his iron will of power, but also find its nadir in the horrors and tribulations of yet another world war.


(6) The Nazi Jewish-Bolshevism conspiracy

(a) The Jewish-Bolshevism conflation Exaggeration has been a general characteristic of misunderstanding Jewish influence. This was aided in no small part by the publication in 1922-1923 in London by the Britons Publishing Society of “The Jewish Bolshevism”, a 32-page anti-Semitic pamphlet. A pamphlet which included a foreword by the German National Socialist leader Alfred Rosenberg. It was Rosenberg at this time who was at the forefront of promulgating and popularising the concept of “Jewish Bolshevism” and of sowing the seeds of so much fear and misunderstanding. This relatively obscure publication essentially embodied the National Socialist doctrine that Jewishness and Bolshevism were one and the same thing; or that Bolshevism is Jewish, whether or not everything Jewish is included within it. The methodology used consisted of identifying Bolsheviks as Jews; by birth, or by name or by demographics. In 1922, historian Gisela C. Lebzelter wrote: “The Britons published a brochure entitled Jewish Bolshevism, which featured drawings of Russian leaders supplemented by brief comments on their Jewish descent and affiliation. This booklet, which was prefaced by Alfred Rosenberg, had previously been published in English by Völkisch Deutscher Volksverlag.”173 173

Political Anti-Semitism in England, 1918-1939 (p. 64). 248

Walter Laqueur also traces the Jewish-Bolshevik conspiracy theory to Alfred Rosenberg, for whom Bolshevism was: “the revolt of the Jewish, Slavic and Mongolian races against the German (Aryan) element in Russia.” Germans, according to Rosenberg, had been responsible for Russia’s historic achievements, but they had been sidelined by the Bolsheviks, who did not represent the interests of the Russian people, but only those of its ethnic Jewish population. 174 These clearly were considered as aliens. In Hitler’s Germany, this misconception of a Jewish Bolshevism reflected a perception that Communism was both a Jewish inspired and Jewish led movement, and that from its origin it had sought world domination as an international movement. The perception was strengthened by the fact that, after the First World War, some 78% of the activists within the German Communist Party were attested to be Jewish. As Hitler wrote in “Mein Kampf”: "in 1918 it was still not possible to talk about programmatic antiSemitism. I can still remember the difficulties one encountered as soon as the word Jew was mentioned. You were either looked at as if you were crazy or you encountered the stiffest resistance.” In 1933, Hitler reportedly told Max Planck in a rant that tends to blind confusion: “I have nothing against the Jews qua Jews. But the Jews are all communists, and these are my enemies, and it is against them that I am fighting.”

Laqueur, Walter (1990) “Russia and Germany: A Century of Conflict”, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers (p.33-34). 174


This was justified as a necessary and moral crusade. It was justified with the view that anti-Communism trumped racism. In this, von Bieberstein quotes Hitler’s quip: “Better a hundred Negroes in the room than one Jew” to emphasise its basis not simply as a racial prejudice, but as one required to purge a tangible evil within its midst. In a diary entry for February 10, 1937, Hans Frank wrote: “I confess my belief in Germany ... which is in truth God’s tool for the extermination of evil. We are fighting in God’s name against the Jews and their Bolshevism. God protect us.” Hitler himself always maintained this view, as the Jew was his enemy primarily because they were viewed as spreading revolution to further their supremacism. This was distinguished from the virtues of his own “revolution”, and was spoken of generically. In a Table Talk entry dated June 7, 1944, for example, he continued to maintain: “without Jews there would be no revolution.” A view steadfastly supported by Nazi theoretician Alfred Rosenberg who said: “Bolshevism is in its essence the form of Jewish world revolution.... There is no such thing as Bolshevism without Jews.” The idea of “Jewish Bolshevism” was popularised as a term by German journalist Dietrich Eckhart’s 1924 pamphlet “Bolshevism from Moses to Lenin”. This depicted Moses and Lenin as both being Communists and Jews. Rosenberg’s 1923 edition of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” and Hitler's “Mein Kampf” in 1924 further articulated the association, which specifically came to formulate Bolshevism as “Jewry’s twentieth century effort to take world dominion unto itself.”


According to French spymaster and writer Henri Rollin, “Hitlerism” more specifically was based on an “anti-Soviet counter-revolution” perspective. A perspective that promoted the “myth of a mysterious Jewish-MasonicBolshevik plot”. A view that the First World War had been instigated by a vast Jewish-Masonic strategy to topple the Russian, German, and AustroHungarian Empires and implement Bolshevism by propagating subversively liberal ideas. 175 A major source for the increasingly dangerous propaganda about “Jewish Bolshevism” in the 1930s and early 1940s was the pro-National Socialist, anti-Semitic international Welt-Dienst news agency. An organisation founded in 1933 by Ulrich Fleischhauer. Within the German Army also, a common view was to see Soviet Communism as a Jewish conspiracy; a view that had been popularised since the end of the First World War. All this became official doctrine under the National Socialists. A 1932 pamphlet by Ewald Banse of the Government-financed German National Association for the Military Sciences further describes the Soviet leadership as “mostly Jewish”, and one which dominated an apathetic and mindless Russian population. 176 Propaganda produced in 1935 by the psychological laboratory of the German War Ministry was even more objectionable. It described Soviet officials as “mostly filthy Jews” and called on Red Army soldiers to rise up and kill their “Jewish commissars”. This material was not used at the time,

Kellogg, Michael (2008) “The Russian Roots of Nazism. White Émigrés and the Making of National Socialism”, 1917–1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 175

Förster, Jürgen (2005) “The German Military's Image of Russia”. In Erickson, Ljubica; Erickson, Mark. Russia War, Peace and Diplomacy. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson (p.119). 176


but indicates an increasingly intolerant and extremist view towards the Jews as a whole. It served as a basis for propaganda in the 1940s. 177 This view can be encapsulated in Hitler’s speech to the Reichstag justifying Operation Barbarossa in 1941. Here Hitler said: “For more than two decades the Jewish Bolshevik regime in Moscow had tried to set fire not merely to Germany but to all of Europe…The Jewish Bolshevik rulers in Moscow have unswervingly undertaken to force their domination upon us and the other European nations and that is not merely spiritually, but also in terms of military power…Now the time has come to confront the plot of the AngloSaxon Jewish war-mongers and the equally Jewish rulers of the Bolshevik centre in Moscow!” 178 Whereas efforts were initially cast by Hitler to a claim Judeophobia was not racially inspired, after the collapse of Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, antiGerman







ideological-race war set between National Socialism and “JudeoBolshevism”. It sought to dehumanise the Soviet enemy in this as a terrifying force of Slavic “sub-humans” and “Asiatic” savages, engaging in “barbaric Asiatic fighting methods” that were commanded by evil Jewish commissars, whom German troops were to show no mercy to. 179 The vast majority of the Wehrmacht officers and soldiers generally were encouraged, or expected to regard the war in such terms, seeing their Soviet opponents as something less than human. 180


Förster, (op.cit. p. 122-127).

Hillgruber, Andreas (1987). “War in the East and the Extermination of the Jews” 18. Yad Vashem Studies. pp. 103–132. 178


Förster (op. cit. p. 126).


Förster (op. cit. p. 127). 252

Neither are such ideas dead today. In 2006, Iranian Presidential Advisor Mohammad Ali Ramin, Secretary-General of the new “World Foundation for Holocaust Studies”, established at the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust, stated: “The Bolshevik Soviet government in Lenin’s time, and later, in Stalin’s - both of whom were Jewish, though they presented themselves as Marxists and atheists... - was one of the forces that, until the Second World War, cooperated with Hitler in promoting the idea of establishing the State of Israel.”181

(b) Debunking David Duke’s claims The Jewish-Bolshevik thesis as it exists today has largely been propagated by Neo Nazi websites, such as Stormfront, and most notably such writers as David Duke in “The Secret Behind Communism”.


The thesis,

Mohammad Ali Ramin, Advisor to Iranian President Ahmadinejad: ‘Hitler Was Jewish’". Middle East Media Research Institute. 3 January 2007. 181

Doctor David Duke is here grouped with overtly Neo Nazi groups. As it is cited on Wikipedia: 182

“In 1995, Don Black and Chloê Hardin, Duke's ex-wife, began a bulletin board system (BBS) called Stormfront. The website has become a prominent online forum for white nationalism, white separatism, holocaust denial, neo-Nazism, hate speech and racism.[117][118][119] Duke is an active user of Stormfront, where he posts articles from his own website and polls forum members for opinions and questions, in particular during his Internet broadcasts. Duke has worked with Don Black on numerous projects, including Operation Red Dog (the attempted overthrowing of Dominica's government) in 1980” Also as cited on the same webpage: “Duke has written in praise of the alt-right, describing one broadcast as "fun and interesting"[126] and another as "this great show".[127] People for the American Way reported Duke championing the alt-right.[128] Duke described them as "our people" when describing their role in Donald Trump's election victory.[129] There are also claims that whilst he is not an active member of the alt-right, he is an inspiration for the movement. The International Business Times described Duke as having 'Zieg-heiling acolytes in the so-called "alt-right"'.[130] 253

however, rests largely on a preconceived interpretation of historical evidence filtered to support his bigoted views on Jewish tribalism. In respect to Doctor Duke, he does offer a great deal in support for his views, but rather takes for granted a biologically based, evolutionary perspective for group behaviour. This is the kind of theory advocated by his friend Professor Kevin MacDonald.


Doctor Duke’s broad themes at any rate

can be dealt with and critiqued here. Essentially Duke proposes a Jewish led and inspired Russian revolution, despite a great percentage of Russians of differing ethnicity, religious background and political views participating. This alienated, nonRussian, war-like race of Jews, who possibly originated from Khazaria,184 converted to Talmudic Judaism from a “serpent religion”, and over generations preserved their racial and cultural distinctions in a The Forward has said that Duke "paved the way" for the alt-right movement.[131]” See a brief critique of Dr K.B. MacDonald;s ideas in Appendix III. Hs views are essentially mapped out most notably in “The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements” (Praeger 1998). One problem with Dr. MacDonald's thesis of an evolutionary strategy for Jewish advancement, however, is that the liberal, university Jews who are inclined towards cultural Marxism tend to be universalist, and accordingly have a high rate of intermarriage. They also exhibit (as Leftists) a low level of support for Israel, favouring Palestinian causes instead. A view more compatible with the Torah aligned Haredi Jews, who also do not support Israel. This does not seem like a very good recipe for "ethnic cohesiveness". It effects divisiveness even amongst Jews and sustains disputes borne out through their history. 183

The Khazarian thesis is notably claimed by Frank Britton (op. cit). Doctor Duke recently claimed, after many years of believing, he now no longer believes the Jews originated from Khazaria. See here. But this simply strengthens my criticism that he believes the extremists responsible for murder share in their DNA something quintessentially Jewish: a trait carried by all Jews. It is this racial Jewishness for Duke which unites them and reinforces a shared psychological tendency, and reinforces a stronger sense of tribal identification, which drives their group behaviour. This exacerbates murder, according to his interpretation of group evolutionary theory. It is, then, fundamentally ethnocentric supremacism, a vile racist theory, advocating logically a universal tendency amongst Jews by virtue of being genetically Jewish. 184


competitive tribe mentality. Revolution was to be utilised for their own devious advantage and was a historical manifestation reflective of their inner nature; one which is often described more generally in a universal, negative, anti-Semitic fashion. As Duke asserts (p.255): “We are dealing with a group who, firstly, genuinely believe that they are chosen by God to be superior to everyone else-hence they call non-Jews cattle, or goyim, to be herded along like inferior creatures, and who, secondly, continually fear persecution which they know and understand, even subconsciously, to be the inevitable result of their own scandalous behaviour toward the goyim, should their victims ever attain a degree of racial consciousness and understanding of what the Jews are doing.”

The Khazarian thesis is often promulgated by those critical of Jews and conflated with a presumption of supremacism. However, in recent years (after once being an advocate) Duke now asserts that the theory is one promulgated by “controlled opposition” who wish to deflect from: “…the proven historical record that Jewish Supremacist behaviour is common to both Ashkenazim and Sephardic Jewish extremists.”185 In this he also claims what we face is not: “… a “Khazar” problem, it is a Jewish problem, it is a problem of extremist Jewish racism and supremacism which continually plunges our world into war, hatred, tyranny and degradation.”

This, he claims, is proven by the fact that Israel uses DNA tests to check if potential immigrants to that country are Jewish or not. “If there was a wide divergence between Ashkenazim and Sephardic Jewry, as the “Khazar theory” would maintain, then it would not be 185

See here. 255

possible for Israel to genetically distinguish who is a Jew and who is not.” (webpage).

This ethnocentric supremacist view of a quintessentially “Jewish” cause for behaviour, Duke claims, is the result of a tribal mentality informed by an evolutionary group behavioural psychology. “Jewish tribalism (racism) and favouritism and preference for fellow Jews combined with discrimination against non-Jews ultimately enables them to take over almost any institution. Without Jewish racism, Zionism could not flourish, for that is what gives the Jewish extremists its enormous economic, media and political influence.” (webpage). In this there is no: “…tightly directed conspiracy going back hundreds or thousands of years, it is a loose conspiracy in the classic sense of a group banding together for its own perceived interests.” (The Secret Behind Communism p.255).

In respect to this “tribal mentality”, which exerts itself as a desire for “advancing their ethnic supremacy”, Duke yet recognises the apparent contradiction: namely that Jews themselves are sometimes not always in agreement as to the best strategy to utilise in order to achieve this. Contrarily, he uses this as an explanation for why: “…we had two sectors of Jews sometimes working together and sometimes fighting: the Communists and the Zionists.” (op. cit.p. 255).186 For Duke, in “The Secret Behind Communism”, Zionism and Communism both display Jewish motivations, originating from a biogenetic urge to act, and manifest in their histories. This is because they have “similar ethnic and ideological roots”. He points to Karl Marx particularly here, who was descended from a long line of Talmudic scholars, and who learned much of his Communist theory from Moses Hess, whom he 186


Immediately it appears ideological distinctions override tribal loyalties, undercutting Duke’s thesis. For unlike the “Russian revolution” thesis that rests on ideological distinctions, Duke’s view of a Jewish-Bolshevik revolution rests on the view that Jews primarily were sympathetic to the cause, and some of whatever number instigated revolution based on a racial tribal imperative that they collectively sought benefit from. Jewish counter revolutionaries do not really figure in such an approach, nor are they emphasised. This does not however mean they did not exist, even if such dissent was largely silenced by those who wielded the levers of power and guided the course of history. The emphasis for a Jewish revolutionary thesis rests, then, largely on a justification along racial and tribal lines, but in such a scenario, why would their fellow Jews of the tribe seek to override and thwart their supposedly mutual interests? Duke tends to characterise Jews generally as either supportive of Zionism or Bolshevism. This evidently is not the case in respect to the orthodox who oppose atheism and Israel simultaneously (see Appendix). Yet Duke fails to fully consider this. He finds both of these groups damaging to the majority of non- Jews amongst whom they live. As a consequence: “Because these interests may be detrimental to the majority of the population…they must develop deceptive strategies for maintaining their influences and power.” (op. cit. p.255).

In this, he places Communists and Zionists together into one group, just as he does Ashkenazim and Sephardic, characterising them as deceivers claims “later morphed into a rabid Jewish racial supremacist and Zionist.” But in this he fails to consider sufficient social and cultural influences from what he might term the “White Occident”. 257

and ultimately united as Jews in their common concern to secure influence and power. Yet here he fails to explain how or why destroying the society in which they themselves need to live and function can be of benefit to their ambitions and aims to further the group. He also fails to satisfactorily explain why at times one Jewish group’s ideology should override tribal loyalties and fight another Jewish group in competing and conflicting interests. He seeks only to emphasise Jews collectively and their common tribal imperative. By virtue of this, he is logically obliged to emphasise only their loyalties as a race that prompt their common concerns. He supposes both groups, and by extension the vast majority of Jews, act by virtue of the fact they are Jewish. In this, for Duke, both appear to be presumed to have a common genetic base as Jews and this informs a tribal proclivity, and ultimately a sympathetic ethos that overrides all else. Doctor Duke does claim that not all Jews exhibit such a characteristic tendency, but his reasoning for a common tribal imperative and gene class does rather override individual distinctions. The specific genetic based characteristic that causes this tribal tendency to manifest and how it is lacking in some Jews is not sufficiently explained, but a universal characteristic for all Jews must be logically presumed by Duke, if a motivational urge to act by virtue of being racially Jewish is supposed. The reasoning, however, is fallacious in respect to an ethnocentric tribal supremacism for Jews and is indeed a reductio ad absurdum argument. It implies that because any number of Jews act in a specific way, all Jews act in the same or similar ways by virtue of their gene class, or the universal of “Jewishness�. It might denote degrees of participation in the universal and therefore degrees of manifestation of the imperative. It does, however, tend to denote all partake in the 258

universal of Jewishness by virtue of being Jews, and in this share or partake of the tribal proclivity nevertheless. In respect to the Revolution, these people hated Russians and the Tsar for their alleged anti-Semitism it is claimed. This was most evident during the enforced assimilation programme. Their fellow tribalists around the world then financed them in a revolution to vouchsafe their survival and further their united supremacist aims. Eventually their shock troops overthrew the Christian Russian monarchy and ultimately murdered them. Upon achieving total power, he claims, their deep, psychopathic, racist hatred manifest in one of the greatest human slaughters of all time. As Duke asserts in his introduction to “The Secrets Behind Communism”: “Any historian who has truly studied modern Communism from its ideological origins with Karl Marx and Moses Hess, through the mass dispossession, forced starvations, and Gulags of the twentieth century, is aware that Communists are the real-world champions of mass murder; for there is no historical dispute that Communist regime killed many times more innocents than did Hitler’s National Socialist Germany.” Whilst this is indeed true in respect to Communism, the more pertinent question in respect to Duke’s thesis, is whether this is, in whole or part, the specific fault of Jews? More specifically, whether all Jews act in some tribal manner because of their Jewishness to further their interests and which in turn prompts nihilistic behaviour? Anti-Semites want to say it is, because Jews were inspired to act due to their “Jewishness”, and this characteristic informed a tribal mentality that reinforced their attitudes and behaviour, which in turn was reflected in their political ideology. They do not want to simply accept that Bolsheviks were Bolsheviks and some (of whatever disputed percentage) just happened to be Jews. They prefer instead to deride any notions of individuality, individualism, different 259

social circumstance, historical events, differences of political allegiance, or even chance, and rest their prejudice in a racial, bio-genetic and by extension psychological explanation that produces recognisable and determined patterns for a group behavioural identity. Whilst the logical inconsistency of this kind of reasoning is obvious, for not all Jews act, think, or even believe the same things, it is a prejudice that still blinds the mind. In Duke’s case it finds its most obvious manifestation in his claim that Jewish prejudice (the notion of their supremacism) is also an explanation for their “inbreeding” (op. cit. p.255). This he claims produces not only Tay-Sachs disease but: “unusually high levels of imbecility among Jews, to the point where you will even find exclusively Jewish mental asylums.” (op.cit. p.255). The imbecility claim is an assertion not borne out by facts: either in the general acknowledgement of many Jews’ high academic achievements in today’s universities, or in the achievement of many Russian Jews’ remarkable ability to learn and succeed (even in trying times) during the Tsarist era. Neither is it supported by genetic profiling that identifies inter-racial







interpretation is that the group gene pool drives group psychology, and in turn reinforces the Jewish proclivity for “inbreeding”. A view at odds with liberal








intermarriage in any case. The inbreeding, he claims, exacerbates a general “paranoia”, manifest as fear (p.257-258), both in terms of “delusions of grandeur and delusions of persecution” (p.253). Common psychological traits promulgated not by others, who might hate or persecute them, but because of, as Duke claims, their own inherent disposition, which due to cause and effect produces: 260

“… inevitable reactions to their own behaviour. And the persecutions in turn reinforce and fuel their own misanthropic behaviour.” (op. cit. p.258). Whilst accepting in some instances that some children do not exhibit “Jewishness”, or the “common and prevailing tendencies” of every member of the group, Duke finds this largely due to chance, an anomaly, or a throw of the “genetic dice cup”. He accepts that actions and social and environmental factors might also play their part to skew the more common imperative, but overall there is a general biological predisposition to exhibit the fear, paranoia and tribal racism that encourages a deviant desire for supremacism, and rather like an individual who has a predisposition to alcoholism, even if it has not manifest itself at the present moment, the suggestion is it will arise in Jews at some point, because they are genetically predisposed to it, given the suitable environment, behaviour, or circumstances (op. cit. p.258). Indeed, the theory tends to suppose environment and culture are very much shaped by this biogenetic racial profile and psychological make-up. Duke is at pains to cover his rear guard from the charge of bigotry and racism time and time again by claiming not all Jews display these characteristics. This reek of hypocrisy however is rather sickening, for his explanation leans on a racial and tribal explanation of what constitutes Jewish group behaviour. The innate proclivity to act in such a manner is logically a general characteristic of all Jews based on his claims, because his view appeals to “genetics”. It is this racial/genetic component that reinforces the tribal identification and the imperative to act. Indeed, it is a universal by virtue of his own racial categorisation. A position he seeks to strengthen with his appeal to a common gene pool when he disputes the Khazar thesis. 261

In this objectionable reasoning too, which identifies a revolutionary and murderous instinct as quintessentially Jewish, Duke fails to consider even that this instinct may be a universal characteristic of human beings more generally, or due to purely environmental, political or social factors. Nor does he seek to explain the circumstances which might exacerbate it, or even justify it sufficiently. He fails to consider that in specific circumstances it may even amount to no more than an inherent tribal instinct to survive, or that it could be an impulse to help members of the group; a natural tendency displayed in all races as human beings, if the circumstances of history, or the environment might appropriate such a response. This human impulse may arise due to a perceived threat to their particular tribe from others, due to displacement, or because of an enormous social or ethnic change to their culture that exacerbates fear and triggers a need for group survival. But in this reasoning, then, it need not necessarily be just limited to Jews, but is a characteristic equally likely to be exhibited by any and all humans that hold the perception or fear of a threat from without: e.g. the kind that the Germans themselves felt in the run up to and during World War 2 in respect to the Russians. Furthermore, it might just as equally be attributed to the North American Indians, when they too felt their lands were being invaded, or even the early European frontier settlers in the mid-West against the Indians. This psychological and very human response is a shadow that is increasingly haunting modern-day Europe and might even have justified atrocities against the Jews themselves as an alien race and prominent scapegoat. In this, then, Duke does not pay enough consideration to the manner social and political events




psychological 262




consequences of such events generally on the reactions and behaviour of human beings, nor does he apply his desire to racialise to the wider scope of humanity. But let us accept (for the sake of investigation) Duke’s claim that Jews particularly exhibit such revolutionary and warlike behaviour. Let us assume too, as he contrarily claims, that not all Jews do exhibit such features.187 A claim overridden by his own recourse to genetic and tribal characteristics, and which by any rational measure proves him to be an inconsistent thinker. Let us even put to one side his DNA speculations, and try to locate the specific features that distinguish those Jews in his thinking from other Jews; this in spite of the “common and prevailing tendencies” (op.cit.) he alludes to due to their “Jewishness”. What then are the distinctive features that manifest the Jewish ethnocentric tribalism to support the claims he makes? It appears Dr Duke wants to distinguish only that some Jews were a threat because they were: • followers of the Talmud. • Bolsheviks, and therefore atheists and political extremists, lacking a moral compass. • Zionists with sympathetic aims. • A race plagued with an inbuilt sense of bigoted supremacism, due to their belief they are the “chosen people”.

It is notable Duke generally speaks of Jewish extremists, rather than political extremists, or even Israeli extremists. This distinction emphasises his view of an imperative to a universal extremism amongst Jews by virtue of them being racially Jewish. 187


Let us deal with the first two characteristics on the list first. We can deal in more detail with why the supremacism claim is nonsense later. Considering the first two claims, this criticism of “some� Jews would constitute a very large number suggestive of the majority of Jews being revolutionaries and murderers during this time period in Russia. Including the Zionist category, with its supposedly sympathetic aims, increases the number still further. But not just the Zionist Bolshevik imperative at this time were contradictory in their national and international imperatives and ethos, even the first two general classifications in themselves are. They point to only broad, general assumptions about tribalism suggestive of an implicit racial prejudice for Duke, by no means substantiated by their broad imperatives which as originally stated are indeed contradictory. On specific points of detail however even the first two categories alone are contradictory on points of detail. First, it is a truism that a Jew of religious persuasion cannot be an atheist. They are, therefore, unlikely to be a Bolshevik, or supportive of Bolshevism. However, racially speaking, a Jew can be a Bolshevik, and in this lacking the religious qualifier, can be an atheist. In this, however, they would not necessarily have to believe in religion, nor be specifically motivated by the imperatives of religious belief in the Talmud. They would primarily be motivated by political concerns that vilify and deride religious belief. These concerns, then clearly clash with each other. Indeed, this is why, as Duke himself recognises, some Jews fought against each other on points of principle. But in all of this also, being a Bolshevik need not necessitate being a Jew, nor being a Jew necessitate being a Bolshevik. What then unites these followers of the Talmud, the Zionists 264

and the Bolsheviks and those vile supremacists in respect to them exhibiting a common characteristic as a group for Duke? In all of this, it appears, Duke’s distinction rests on a racial explanation for their behaviour, by virtue of them being Jewish. They exhibit or have “Jewishness” in some biological sense. An identification which Duke implies causes them to have an innate tendency to act dangerously, murderously, etc. when needs must as a collective. The contradiction in Duke’s reasoning, then, is whilst some Jews who might be Torah aligned are more acceptable, the fact behaviour is formed due to an inbred tribal proclivity based on racial kinship, tends to more generally override any differences of belief or reasons to act apart. They act then because they are racially Jewish, and it is this blood bond that causes them to feel a sense of kinship that infers a more general tribal proclivity. The tribal proclivity to act reinforces a sense of their own supremacism over others, an imperative that results in hatred, xenophobia and murder of any who are non–Jews, if their interests are thwarted. Doctor Duke appears to favour, in spite of his glib claims in respect to certain Jews, a specifically Jewish gene trait for group behavioural patterns. This somehow provides a sense of kinship and influences behaviour and attitudes in a particular way. But in this he does not want to make much of the Ashkenazi and Sephardic distinctions. He speaks then of Jewishness in terms of genetics and tribal influence rather generally as a universal that informs behaviour, whilst yet recognising at least some of these distinctions do exist. Generally, however, his argument requires a need to downplay distinctions. When he does offer distinctions by identifying only some Jews as “extremists” and the adherence of some Jews to the Talmud as opposed to the Torah as a distinguishing factor for exacerbating dangerous behaviour, he tends all too soon to widen his 265

circle of inclusion. The circle then includes not just those followers of the different Talmudic traditions, but Zionists and those children of Israel who are their offspring, who he perceives are perpetrating atrocities to this day against the displaced Palestinians. The old Jewish Bolsheviks, modern day Jewish Communists who are immoral atheists and Jewish Socialists more generally. Indeed, any one of any number of Jews who pose a threat to his own brand of white Identitarian politics. Contrarily too, in respect to genetics and his racial emphasis on uniformity, his lack of distinctions appears logically to suggest a Jewish universal, but one increasingly defined by prejudice.188 It is one he commonly identifies as anti-Christian, immoral and one which exacerbates a nihilistic and murderous instinct. This presumption is totally unacceptable and is bigoted in the extreme. His tribal view seeks to corral Jews into a stereotypical pen. It links a racial profile to a set of particularly unpleasant behaviour patterns, and a number of uncomplimentary and hereditary personality weaknesses. Logically it invokes racism, as it appears these are to be attributed via an appeal to race, but exemplify negative traits. A theory which in any case appeals to biology and psychology by no means scientifically Speculation that the Ashkenazi arose from Khazar stock gained popularity in the later 19th century and has met with mixed fortunes in scholarly literature. In late 2012 Eran Elhaik, a research associate studying genetics at the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, argued for Khazar descent in his paper The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses. 188

A 2013 study of Ashkenazi mitochondrial DNA found no significant evidence of Khazar contribution to the Ashkenazi Jewish DNA, as would be predicted by the Khazar hypothesis. See "A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages", Nature Communications. Retrieved 8 November 2013. A 2013 abstract for the American Society of Human Genetics with more than 10 scientists participating concluded that there was “no indication of Khazar genetic ancestry among Ashkenazi Jews”. See “No indication of Khazar genetic ancestry among Ashkenazi Jews”. ASHG. Retrieved 5 November 2013. 266

substantiated, but in the whole corroborated by the “evolutionary psychology of group behaviour”; the theory favoured by his anti-Semitic friend Professor Kevin Macdonald. 189 In light of the ongoing controversy regarding Dr. Kevin MacDonald, the members of the CSULB Jewish Studies Program agreed to the following statement: 189

“We in the CSULB Jewish Studies Program firmly believe in and seek to protect the guiding tenets of academic freedom, but we also understand that the mantle of “academic freedom” can sometimes be used to advance racism, bigotry, or other forms of intolerance. When racism or other forms of intolerance are promoted in academia, they undermine the principles upon which CSULB was founded. As a university, we have an obligation to maintain a campus climate in which individuals from a wide range of religious, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds can have meaningful exchanges in a context of mutual respect. The prejudicial views expressed by Professor Kevin MacDonald in his writings and in his public statements are professionally irresponsible and morally untenable. We refer in particular to MacDonald’s close association with the white nationalist journal The Occidental Quarterly, his call for the creation of a white ethno-state to “protect” the interest of white Americans, and his repeated descriptions of Jews as a threat to white, European civilization. Not only do MacDonald’s writings bear a close resemblance to aspects of Nazi racial theory (and, in fact, he relies on one such theorist explicitly), but his writings are regularly used by white separatists and Neo-Nazis to advance their cause. In his recent public writings, MacDonald is identified as a professor at CSULB. These writings have damaged both the reputation of the university as well as the relationship between the university and the wider community. The community has expressed shock and dismay over these writings and asked why the university does not disassociate itself from these white nationalist and anti-Jewish statements. An analysis of these writings shows that these concerns are legitimate. This has led some in the community to mistakenly believe that MacDonald’s work has the university’s endorsement. The university should make it clear that MacDonald does not speak for CSULB when he advocates any of the positions described above. We wish to make it clear that in no way do we wish to impede Dr. MacDonald’s First Amendment rights or interfere with his academic freedom. But just as he has the freedom of speech to advance his white nationalist agenda, so too do we have the freedom of speech to deplore his prejudicial views of Jews and non-whites and state that Dr. MacDonald’s writings on white ethnocentrism, Jews, race, and immigration do not enjoy the respect of many of his colleagues.” 267

The theory is particularly insidious, as it steps outside the context of historical analysis and tends to tar all with the sins of others now dead. It does this by virtue of race. It supposes negative traits because of this, but moreover, it makes present Jews the inheritors of the terrible events of the past, whilst making yet unborn generations the purveyors of deviousness and slaughter in the future. The theory justifies and vilifies. It stirs up suspicions against present innocent Jews by a racial connection to the past and an interpretation of history that is at best prejudiced and biased. At worst it is hate speech, where the present innocents are brandished guilty by virtue of a bloodline lineage. A genetic characteristic that continues supposedly to give rise to a particular proclivity that might nullify any presently displayed virtues and characteristics, or beneficent actions offered now, or in the future, by good Jewish individuals.190 Whilst recognising the tremendous work that some individuals do in their attempt to expose what he terms “Jewish tribalism”, and by extension Jewish racism and supremacism (op. cit. p.258), the tendency by Duke to attribute general innate characteristics by virtue of them being Jews, due to inherited biological/ genetic makeup, and race tribalism, logically implies that a few individual strivings at odds with the group are likely to be overridden. In any case these strivings, for Duke, largely appear to be

- Dr. Arlene Lazarowitz Co-Director, Jewish Studies Program Dr. Donald Schwartz Professor, History Department Associate Professor, History Department Dr. Jeffrey Blutinger Co-Director, Jewish Studies Program Assistant Professor, History Department. A brief critique of Dr MacDonald’s views can be found in Appendix II. This tribal imperative and urge to act due to Jewishness is inconsistent with his claim that “some Jews” such as Gilad Atzmon and Israel Shahak do not exhibit such tendencies (op. cit. p.258). 190


treated as anomalies, or indeed may be no more than simply a graded threat. These aside, the lessons of history have taught mankind where such an erroneous and racist justification along genetic and biological lines eventually leads with this kind of reasoning Doctor Duke: to the table of Doctor Mengele. 191 The disposition to maintain ethnocentrism has resulted in, as Duke writes: “the great mass of organised world Jewry” supporting the “Jewishled” revolution in Russia. He claims too that Jews generally have predominantly given their support to many international Marxist-style movements that continue this imperative to revolution and murder. He

During his 21-month stay at Auschwitz, Mengele was referred to as the “White Angel” by camp inmates because when he stood on the platform inspecting and selecting new arrivals his white coat and white arms outstretched evoked the image of a white angel. Mengele took turns with the other SS physicians at Auschwitz in meeting incoming prisoners at the camp, where it was determined who would be retained for work and who would be sent to the gas chambers immediately. He also appeared there frequently in search of twins for his experimentation. He would wade through the incoming prisoners, shouting “Zwillinge heraus!” (“Twins out!”), “Zwillinge heraustreten!” (“Twins step forward!”) with, according to an assistant he recruited, “…such a face that I would think he's mad”. “He had a look that said 'I am the power,'” said one survivor. When it was reported that one block was infested with lice, Mengele ordered that the 750 women who lived inside the dormitories be gassed. 191

Mengele used Auschwitz as an opportunity to continue his research on heredity, using inmates for human experimentation. He was particularly interested in identical twins; they would be selected and placed in special barracks. He recruited Berthold Epstein, a Jewish pediatrician, and Miklós Nyiszli, a Hungarian Jewish pathologist, to assist with his inhuman experiments. Mengele’s experiments included attempts to change eye colour by injecting chemicals into children’s eyes, various amputations of limbs, and other surgeries such as kidney removal, without anesthesia. Rena Gelissen’s account of her time in Auschwitz details certain experiments performed on female prisoners around October 1943. Mengele would experiment on the chosen girls, performing forced sterilisation and electroconvulsive therapy. Most of the victims died, because of either the experiments, or later infections.


even claims that Jews share as a rule a general proclivity to the Left (op. cit. p.249).192 In this, he again stresses that not all Jews are Communists In Britain Harold Soref was a member of the Conservative Monday Club and opposed to Communism. In Germany, apostate Lev Nussimbaum had an extremist hostility to Socialism and Communism, favouring monarchism and converting to Islam. 192

The more nationalistic faction of Zionism, Revisionist Zionism has had Right-wing elements. One of their ideologues, Abba Ahimeir, was even influenced by Oswald Spengler. This relates to forms of Right-wing politics in Israel that are nationalistic and in some cases expansionist. Yisrael Beiteinu contains influences from this stream of thought. Other Right-wing parties in Israel have a more religious orientation and are influenced by forms of Religious Zionism. The Jewish National Front states that the “Torah of Israel is the primary source of human morality”, although it states openness to secular members. In addition, the National Union coalition contains the Renewed Religious National Zionist Party. Among the more militant groups Kach and Kahane Chai had some supporters outside Israel but has since been banned. Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield is one of the best-known names in British Conservative history and although not Jewish by religion (a practicing Anglican), was ethnically Jewish and proud of it. In the period of Thatcherism, the Conservative Party courted the British Jewish community. The then Chief Rabbi, Immanuel Jakobovits, was a close ally of Margaret Thatcher and some of Thatcher's cabinet members were Jewish, such as Keith Joseph, Leon Brittan, Malcolm Rifkind and Nigel Lawson. During the 2000s, Michael Howard, of Jewish background, served from 2003 to 2005 and contested a general election as leader of the Conservative Party. Several Jewish philosophers and politicians would be important to the history of the American Right in the United States. Frank Meyer was a co-founder of the National Review and noted for Fusionism that mixed libertarianism with conservatism. Ralph de Toledano was also an earlier figure for the magazine and wrote for The American Conservative in his final years. Irving Kristol is sometimes seen as a founding figure for Neo-conservatism. The authenticity of these as genuinely “Right-wing” has been disputed. Although not conservative themselves several American advocates of anarcho-capitalism, like Murray Rothbard (a disciple of von Mises), were Jewish and influential on elements of the Right. By the 1980s, Jewish conservatives and Right-wingers began to have more organisation. In 1985 the Republican Jewish Coalition formed. The group’s policy platform concerns include terrorism, national security, United States-Israel relations, US policy concerning the Middle East, immigration, energy policy, education, 270

(op. cit. p.249), but this is rather an irrelevance in the face of his bio genetic racial tribal theory. Indeed, in this, he does rather appear to be speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Another example of this being when he gives us his rather gratingly pious judgement (as a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan) that honour should be paid to those Jews with the courage and inclination to expose the tribal group’s reinforced values “prevalent” amongst them (op. cit. p. 258). Duke’s argument logically tends to override individual proclivities and tends to universal tendencies. A general racial characteristic upheld when he claims Jews have an innate disposition, which displays a manifest ethnocentric supremacism. This is particularly so, he claims, in respect to Israel, which reveals an inherent psychological underpinning encouraging tribal loyalties and strengthening racism. This racism is a “staggering hypocrisy”, Duke claims, which would be justly condemned by the “Jewish controlled media” and by the Israeli government if it were to be exhibited by any other nation or race on Earth.193 affirmative action, the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, adoption, crime, taxes, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, health care, Medicare reform, Social Security reform and government reform. Having been codified in the “Protocols” and strengthened with a lie by Henry Ford through the 1920s. “The Twelfth Protocol”, proclaimed his Dearborn Independent: 193

“contains the entire plan of Control of the Press, reaching from the present time into the future when the Jewish World Government shall be established.” Today, the idea of Jewish control of the media is as widespread as ever, and no one appears to be strongly refuting it. Such diatribes play up the Eisners and the Sulzbergers and downplay many other non-Jews such as (at the time of writing): Jack Welch and Michael H. Jordan, CEOs, respectively, of GE (NBC) and Westinghouse (CBS); Rupert Murdoch (who owns 20th Century Fox); John Malone, CEO of TCI, the nation's largest cable company; maverick globalist Ted Turner; and many more. Also tuned out are the non-Jewish Hearst Communications, Times Mirror, the Chicago Tribune's empire, Reader's Digest Inc.and the directorship of Sony (which owns Columbia Studios and Tri-Star Pictures). When such influences are considered it lessens the claim Jews are the overriding 271

Jewish hypocrisy is a natural extension of Jewish ethnocentrism for Duke; a tendency that arose from a peculiarly Jewish tribal instinct that culminated in the horrors of the Holodomor. The hypocrisy is further exacerbated for Duke, as due reparation or recognition has not been made to those who were murdered during this Jewish led, greater death event, unlike the Holocaust. The reason again he claims is due to the largely Jewish owned media, who in their bias promote only the Holocaust. They do this for the benefit of those Jews who survived, and also for Jewish political leverage, with a slanted sympathy vote today. A similar kind of argument is used to vilify the Jews generally, when they are identified as having been the largest percentage of merchant ship owners in America during the slave trade. This argument is often used by Black civil rights activists, particularly separatists (usually of the Nation of Islam) 194 who often appear to want to compete with some Jewish rights activists for the title of “the world’s most persecuted” ethnicity to add traction to their multiple political and social causes. 195 influence in the mass media. An argument which still presumes a coordinated agenda of subversion. In respect to this generally see Brackman, Harold, “Jew on the brain: A public refutation of the Nation of Islam’s The Secret relationship between Blacks and Jews” (1992). Later re-named and re-published as “Farrakhan's Reign of Historical Error: The Truth behind The Secret Relationship” (published by the Simon Wiesenthal Center). Expanded into a book in 1994: “Ministry of Lies: The Truth Behind the Nation of Islam’s “the Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews” (published by Four Walls, Eight Windows). 194

In the Middle Ages, Jews were minimally involved in the slave trade. Reiss, “The Jews in Colonial America” (p 85). During the 1490s, trade with the New World began to open up. At the same time, the monarchies of Spain and Portugal expelled all of their Jewish subjects. 195

Several scholarly works have been published to rebut the anti-Semitic canard of Jewish domination of the slave trade in Medieval Europe, Africa, and the Americas; eg. Saul 272

(c) Duke’s appeal to Solzhenitsyn David Duke often likes to bolster his views by citing his meeting with Solzhenitsyn. Solzhenitsyn too has raised the subject of the ethnic driving force behind Communism and its slaughters, but his perspective is Friedman. “Jews and the American Slave Trade”, pp. 250–254. Jews had no major or continuing impact on the history of New World slavery. See “Reviewed Work: Jews, Slaves, and the Slave Trade: Setting the Record Straight” by Eli Faber by Paul Finkelman. Journal of Law and Religion, Vol 17, No 1/2 (2002), p 125-28. They possessed far fewer slaves than non-Jews in every British territory in North America and the Caribbean, and in no period did they play a leading role as financiers, ship owners, or factors in the transatlantic or Caribbean slave trades. The Columbia History of Jews and Judaism in America (p. 43) by Rabbi Marc Lee Raphael, (Columbia University Press, February 12, 2008) asserts that in the 1990s, allegations that Jews financed, dominated, and controlled the slave trade captured wide attention and were widely accepted in the African American community (on the latter point, see Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s “Black Demagogues and Pseudo-Scholars”, New York Times, July 20, 1992, p 15). Subsequent extensive research demonstrated this was not the case, see David Brion Davis, “Jews in the Slave Trade”, Culture front (Fall 1992): 42-45; Seymour Drescher, “The Role of Jews in the Transatlantic Slave Trade”, Immigrants and Minorities 12 (1993):113-25. Eli Faber, “Jews, Slaves, and the Slave Trade: Setting the Record Straight” (New York, 1998); Saul S. Friedman, “Jews and the American Slave Trade” (New Brunswick, NJ, 1998). For numerical data demonstrating the minute role played by mainland colonial Jews in the importation of slaves from Africa and the Caribbean and their marginal role as slave sellers, see Faber, “Jews, Slaves, and the Slave Trade” ( pp 131-42).It is currently known that American mainland colonial Jews played a merely proportionate role in the importation of slaves from Africa and a marginal role as slave sellers, although their involvement in the Brazilian and Caribbean trade is believed to be considerably more significant.[Jason H. Silverman, a historian of slavery, describes the part of Jews in slave trading in the southern United States as "minuscule", and writes that the historical rise and fall of slavery in the United States would not have been affected at all had there been no Jews living in the American South. Jews accounted for 1.25% of all Southern slave owners and were not significantly different from other slave owners in their treatment of slaves. Dr. Raphael's book “Jews and Judaism in the United States: A Documentary History” (New York: Behrman House, Inc., Pub, 1983), discusses the central role of the Jews in the New World commerce and the African slave trade specifically (pp. 23-25).


supported by his own, sometimes moving, personal experiences. Such experiences and the subtlety of his writing appear to have largely escaped Doctor Duke, who tends to want to give the impression that his own perspective and cause is strengthened by a brief association with the writer. A distinction however needs to be made between the two, less Solzhenitsyn too be tarred by association with Duke, who in positing the race-based theory of tribalism evokes racism. (d) Solzhenitsyn’s actual views of Jews In “The Gulag Archipelago”, Solzhenitsyn describes his imprisonment by the Soviets. Here he writes that almost all the commanders of the gulag camps were Jews. In this book, he also includes pictures of six Jewish Chekist gulag bosses of the 1930s. In “Two Hundred Years Together” Solzhenitsyn states he had taken the pictures included from an official Soviet-era publication, which had even “boasted” about the gulags. Such material is not easily dealt with and for some the question of Solzhenitsyn’s own anti- Semitism has been raised. One of any number of instances can be cited to dispel such an opinion however. In Solzhenitsyn’s “Two Hundred Years Together” a plea for “mutual comprehension” on the part of Russians and Russian Jews is made. In this respect too, the author comments that the book was conceived in the hope of promoting “mutually agreeable and fruitful pathways for the future development of Russian-Jewish relations.”196

Ericson, Edward E., Jr. and Mahoney, Daniel J., ed. (2009). “The Solzhenitsyn Reader: New and Essential Writings, 1947–2005”. ISI Books (p.489). 196


In this, he is capable of making a good distinction between eye-witness testimonies that claim Russian Jews were ecstatic about the February Revolution itself, and the attitude of counter-witnesses, such as Gregory Aronson who felt otherwise. Aronson formed and led the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies of Vitebsk (which later had as a member Y.V. Tarle, a future historian). Solzhenitsyn recounts Aronson’s feelings of the very first day, when news of the Revolution reached Vitebsk. “…the newly formed Security Council met in the city Duma, and immediately afterwards Aronson was invited to a meeting of representatives of the Jewish community (clearly, not 105 rank and file, but leaders). “Apparently, there was a need to consult with me as a representative of the new dawning era, what to do further…. I felt alienation from these people, from the circle of their interests and from the tense atmosphere, which was at that meeting…. I had a sense that this society belonged mostly to the old world, which was retreating into the past. We were not able to eliminate a certain mutual chill that had come from somewhere. The faces of the people I was working with, displayed no uplift or faith. At times, it appeared that these selfless social activists perceived themselves as elements of the old order.” – (op. cit. p.105). This distinction was contrasted as a “bewilderment, caution and wavering predominated among religiously conservative Jews” and the “sensible old Jewry” who: “carrying a sense of many centuries of experience of hard ordeals, was apparently shocked by the sudden overthrow of the monarchy and had serious misgivings.” Tradition here clearly contrasted with the new generation and their embracing of secularism where the “spirit of the 20th century, the dynamic masses of every nation, including Jews”, were not simply bound to tradition. These younger Jews then in contrast to the more mature were eager to build a “happy new world” (op. cit.).


Such a contrast appears again in the sharp difference of opinion concerning the allegation of Solzhenitsyn’s supposed anti-Semitism. In respect to his own essay “Repentance and Self-Limitation in the Life of Nations”197, he calls for Russians and Jews alike to take moral responsibility for the “renegades” that arose from both communities: those enthusiastic agents who supported a Marxist dictatorship after the October Revolution. This perceptive view is not limiting or divisive, but neither does it seek to excuse some Jews for the atrocities that occurred. At the end of chapter 15 he writes that Jews must answer for the “revolutionary cutthroats” in their ranks, just as the Russian Gentiles must repent “for the pogroms, for those merciless arsonist peasants” and for those “crazed revolutionary soldiers” in “one's consciousness, and before God.” 198 Writing of Solzhenitsyn on August 1914 in the New York Times on 13 November 1985, the American historian Richard Pipes commented: “Every culture has its own brand of anti-Semitism. In Solzhenitsyn’s case, it's not racial. It has nothing to do with blood. He’s certainly not a racist; the question is fundamentally religious and cultural. He bears some resemblance to Dostoyevsky, who was a fervent Christian and patriot and a rabid anti-Semite. Solzhenitsyn is unquestionably in the grip of the Russian extreme right’s view of the Revolution, which is that it was the doing of the Jews.” 199 This, then, is quite different from Duke’s view. In respect to this also, however, Solzhenitsyn even emphatically rejects this “extreme right-

Ericson, Edward E., Jr. and Mahoney, Daniel J., ed. (2009) “The Solzhenitsyn Reader: New and Essential Writings”, 1947–2005. ISI Books (p. 527-555). 197


Ericson (2009, op. cit. p. 505).

Thomas, D.M. (1998) “Alexander Solzhenitsyn: A Century in his Life”, New York: St. Martin's Press. 199


wing” position in chapter nine of “Two Hundred Years Together”: a view he regarded as “myopic and facile”. In respect to any international Jewish conspiracy, whilst he notes “a sharp intensification of the political activity of Jewry, noticeable even against a background of stormy social uplift that gripped Russia after February 1917” (op.cit.), he also notes that, whilst the Jews organised the revolutions of 1905 and 1917, it was not organised by any other nation. This last point punctures the fantasy bubble in respect to the more fantastic associations and explanations of an international Jewish conspiracy. Indeed in “Russia in Collapse” (1998) in a piece entitled “The Maladies of Russian Nationalism”, Solzhenitsyn takes a broad swipe at the enduring obsession of those writers generally who focus on the link between Freemasons, Jews and other absurd conspiracy theories. 200 For those seeking to charge him as anti-Semitic one remark which infuriated many in “Two Hundred Years Together” was: “If I would care to generalise, and to say that the life of the Jews in the camps was especially hard, I could, and would not face reproach for an unjust national generalisation. But in the camps where I was kept, it was different. The Jews whose experience I saw - their life was softer than that of others.” This led to outrage, but was tempered by his comment: “… it is impossible to find the answer to the eternal question: who is to be blamed, who led us to our death? To explain the actions of the Kiev cheka [secret police] only by the fact that two thirds were Jews, is certainly incorrect.”


Ericson (2009, op. cit... p. 496). 277

In an interview cited in the Guardian January 25 in 2003 Nick Paton Walsh cites Solzhenitsyn’s own explanation. “My book was directed to empathise with the thoughts, feelings and the psychology of the Jews - their spiritual component. I have never made general conclusions about a people. I will always differentiate between layers of Jews. One layer rushed headfirst to the revolution. Another, to the contrary, was trying to stand back. The Jewish subject for a long time was considered prohibited. Zhabotinsky once said that the best service our Russian friends give to us is never to speak aloud about us.”

Whilst Solzhenitsyn’s book has caused controversy in Russia, where one Jewish leader said it was “not of any merit”, Yevgeny Satanovsky, president of the Russian Jewish Congress went on to say it was: “a mistake, but even geniuses make mistakes. Richard Wagner did not like the Jews but was a great composer. Dostoyevsky was a great Russian writer but had a very sceptical attitude towards the Jews.” On the other hand, DM Thomas, one of Solzhenitsyn’s biographers, said that he did not think the book was fueled by anti-Semitism particularly: “I would not doubt his sincerity. He says that he firmly supports the state of Israel. In his fiction and factual writing there are Jewish characters that he writes about who are bright, decent, anti-Stalinist people.” Professor Robert Service of Oxford University, an expert on 20th century Russian history, also added that from what he had read about the book, Solzhenitsyn was “absolutely right”, particularly in respect to Trotsky, who was of Jewish origin. He offers the more balanced view, adding that even Trotsky himself had commented that Jews were disproportionately represented in the Soviet civil bureaucracy, including the Cheka, for a time. 278

“Trotsky's idea was that the spread of anti-Semitism was [partly down to] objections about their entrance into the civil service. There is something in this; that they were not just passive spectators of the revolution. They were part-victims and part-perpetrators.”201 He adds (ibid): “It is not a question that anyone can write about without a huge amount of bravery, and [it] needs doing in Russia because the Jews are quite often written about by fanatics. Mr Solzhenitsyn's book seems much more measured than that.” In contrast, Vassili Berezhkov, a retired KGB colonel and historian of the secret services and the NKVD (the precursor of the KGB) said: “The question of ethnicity did not have any importance either in the revolution or the story of the NKVD. This was a social revolution and those who served in the NKVD and Cheka were serving ideas of social change. If Solzhenitsyn writes that there were many Jews in the NKVD, it will increase the passions of anti-Semitism, which has deep roots in Russian history. I think it is better not to discuss such a question now.”

Others however, such as D. M. Thomas, believe Solzhenitsyn is not an anti-Semite because “he is too intelligent, too honest, too courageous” and “too great a writer.” He says he wishes Solzhenitsyn had written more sensitively at times of Jewish suffering, but he believes the insensitivity displayed was not born of racial hatred, but the difficulty of the subject matter. Whilst this statement predates the publication of “Two Hundred Years Together” by three years, there is little in the half-translated volume that would really undermine it.202

Nick Paton Walsh “Solzhenitsyn breaks last taboo of the revolution”, Guardian January 25, 2003. 202 Thomas (op. cit. p. 491). 201


Similarities between “Two Hundred Years Together” and an anti-Semitic essay entitled “Jews in the USSR and in the Future Russia”, attributed to Solzhenitsyn, led to the suggestion that he is secretly supportive of the more anti-Semitic inferences in his work. Solzhenitsyn himself, however, claimed that the essay consists of manuscripts stolen from him, and then manipulated, over forty years ago. 203 However, according to the historian Semyon Reznik,


analysis has proven them to be

Solzhenitsyn’s. Certainly, in the second volume of “Two Hundred Years Together” his position becomes quite clear when he seeks to explain why the book is a necessary supplement to his principal work on the Revolution, “The Red Wheel”: “I described the revolution literally hour by hour, and never ceased encountering episodes and discussion of the Jewish theme in the sources. Would I have been right to put all of it into the pages of March 1917? It would not have been the first time in history that a book and its readers succumbed to the facile and crude temptation to throw all the blame on the Jews, their actions, their ideas, to allow oneself to see in them the principal cause of events and thereby avoid the search for the real causes. To avoid letting the Russians fall for this optical illusion, I systematically muted the Jewish theme throughout the entire Red Wheel, at least in comparison with the way it resonated in the press and hung in the air at the time.” (pp. 45–46). Solzhenitsyn then emphatically states that: “I came to this conclusion and can now repeat: no, the February Revolution was not something the Jews did to the Russians, but rather it was done by the Russians themselves, which I believe I amply demonstrated in The Red Wheel. We committed this Young, Cathy (May 2004) “Traditional Prejudices. The anti-Semitism of Alexander Solzhenitsyn”, Reason Magazine. See also Young, Cathy (August–September 2004) Reply to Daniel J. Mahoney in Reason Magazine. 203


downfall ourselves: our anointed Tsar, the court circles, the hapless high-ranking generals, obtuse administrators, and their enemies — the elite intelligentsia, the Octobrist Party, the Zemstvo, the Kadets, the Revolutionary Democrats, Socialists and revolutionaries, and along with them, a bandit element of army reservists, distressingly confined to the Petersburg’s barracks. And this is precisely why we perished. True, there were already many Jews among the intelligentsia by that time, yet that is in no way a basis to call it a Jewish revolution.” The February Revolution he states was not made by the Jews for the Russians it was certainly carried out by the Russians themselves who were described as “the authors of this shipwreck” (pp. 44–45). This view dispels any notion of a Jewish Revolution, even if Jewish leaders benefited from the primary wave of “liberating” edicts. In this liberation, the Pale of Settlement too, practically nonexistent since the great Russian retreat of 1915, was formally abolished. Indeed, many restrictions and regulations were dropped; restrictions on the Jewish practice of law, the entry into the officers’ corps were lifted, etc. Measures were taken against public expressions of anti-Semitism, amidst widespread rumours of pogroms in the provinces. All this generated an ecstatic mood of liberation. It was soon to dissipate however, as Solzhenitsyn writes: “… in mid-September, when the all gains of the February Revolution were already irreversibly ruined, on the eve of the by now imminent Bolshevik coup, Kantorovich warned about the danger that: “The dark forces and evil geniuses of Russia will soon emerge from their dens to jubilantly perform Black Masses…. Yet what kind of Black masses?” The answer given is: “…Of bestial patriotism and pogrom-loving ‘truly-Russian’ national identity.”


The anti-Semitic controversy, however, has been one that has refused to die. It has been one stoked by the complexity of his interpretation. In 1984, for example, when Solzhenitsyn was interviewed by Nikolay Kazantsev for Nasha Strana, a Russian language newspaper based in Buenos Aires he said: “We are walking a narrow isthmus between Communists and the World Jewry. Neither is acceptable for us... And I mean this not in the racial sense, but in the sense of the Jewry as a certain world view. Jewry is embodied in capitalist globalism. Neither side is acceptable to us...” Whilst many pro Zionists scrambled to cry foul, Solzhenitsyn’s comments here reveal his belief that, rather like Churchill in the 1920s, “World Jewry” exists as a distinct world view that transcends national identity. But in this it is not one to be simply cast in terms of race but is one that is ideologically specific. The controversy again rests in his use of language, oddly identifying the ideology as being quintessentially a “Jewish” world view which appears, at the present time, to inhabit global capitalism. But it stings his critics further, particularly in his comments concerning Israel, which he claims controls the United States and which he rather disparagingly views as no more than its “province”. The nuts and bolts of this world view are not unpacked by him, but it clearly transcends purely racial distinctions and encompasses a specific ideology in some fundamentalist politico-economic sense. The issue, however, is when does such a world view stop being Jewish, and indeed should it even be thought of as such? For David Duke, at any rate, this is a “Zio-globalist” world view; an apparent







Internationalism and Zionist nationalism. It is quintessentially race 282

centred and tribalistic in its imperatives and aims and has led to the domination of the important power centres of the United States. It inhabits and controls the media, legislation, and the economic and financial machinery of the country (op. cit. p.250). It exerts power today, just as it may have once utilised Bolshevism to further its own particularly “Jewish” agenda and aims in Russia. The details of the ultimate goal is one not clearly specified by either author, but logically for Duke, but not Solzhenitsyn, it suggests an underlying notion of racial supremacism vouchsafed by murder and death.

(e) Debunking Jewish supremacism: are “chosen people” necessarily superior? Conspiracy theorists tend to view Jews as ultimately seeking to establish a “Master Race” and global dominion; either within the nexus of a Jewish only Greater Israel that exerts centralised political control, or by means of a Jewish nexus inhabiting or infiltrating various nations around the world. This world view seeks its own specific, pro Jewish goals, to control the planet.204 That the combined masses of the world might ultimately rise up to quash such a Jewish-led cabal if it took power, or turn against the cells

A view substantiated (anti-Semites claim) by Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin who was reputed to have said: “Our race is the Master Race. We are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves.”- quoted from a speech reportedly delivered to the Israeli parliament- “Begin and the Beasts”, New Statesman 1982. 204

The authenticity of this statement has been disputed. See Appendix I for others. 283

that seek to exert control, does not really appear to have occurred to the believers in such a silly theory.205 They simply focus on features of racial exclusivity in respect to what is often simply termed the “chosen people”, or more disparagingly “the Yid”, or using the depersonalised collective pejorative “the Jew”. Terms that make no consideration for individuals’ differing opinions and concerns, the Ashkenazi and Sephardic distinctions, DNA data that provides distinctions, an acceptance of different points of origin, or even indeed the Bible’s own recognition of the various tribes of Israel.206

I include ultra- orthodox Jews in this revolt (Neturei Karta, Satmar Hasidic), who certainly take umbrage over the very existence of Israel as a heresy. 205

The total Ashkenazi population is estimated at around 8 million people. The estimated world Jewish population is about 13 million. Before the advent of advanced DNA research, it had been thought by some historians that European Jewry traced to the largely pagan population of ancient Khazaria in the Caucuses, whose leadership was believed to have converted to Judaism beginning around 700 AD. But that theory has been largely discredited by DNA research. One geneticist, Eran Elhaik, has recently attempted to revive the theory, but his research has been sharply challenged. 206

A paper published in 2000 by Harry Ostrer, a professor of genetics at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, and University of Arizona geneticist Michael Hammer showed that most modern Jews are descended on their male side from a core population of approximately 20,000 Jews who migrated from Italy over the first millennium and who eventually settled in Eastern Europe. “All European [Ashkenazi] Jews seem connected on the order of fourth or fifth cousins” Ostrer has said. Known as the “Rhineland hypothesis” the consensus research holds that most Ashkenazi Jews, as well as many Jews tracing their lineage to Italy, North Africa, Iraq, Iran, Kurdish regions and Yemen, share common paternal haplotypes also found among many Arabs from Palestine, Lebanon and Syria. Only a small percentage of the Y-DNA of Ashkenazi Jews (less than 25 percent) originated outside of the Near East, presumably as converts. This historical and genetic pattern has provided support for the idea of a “Jewish people”. The Law of Return (Aliyah), the Israeli law that established the right of Jews around the world to settle in Israel and which remains in force today, was a central tenet of Zionism. It is invoked by some religious Jews to support territorial claims (even though, based on this research, many Arabs, including Palestinians, also have a genetic right of residency). 284

In connection with this, the twin notions of a persecution complex borne by the Jewish race, as well as the idea of Jewish racism, are the two arms used to justify their thesis. In this, it is argued, Jews themselves have But what about the female lineage? This history is more obscure and contentiously debated. Duke University’s David Goldstein and Mark Thomas of the Centre for Genetic Anthropology in London reported in 2002 that much of the mitochondrial DNA of women in Jewish communities around the world did not seem to be of Middle or Near Eastern origin, and indeed each community had its own genetic pattern. This suggested that migrating Jewish men might have taken on local wives, who converted to Judaism. The estimates of the percentage of Ashkenazi women of European image was probably more than 50 percent, they estimated, but the data was too murky to come up with a firm estimate. However a subsequent and more extensive study in 2006, by a team based at Technion and Rambam Medical Centre in Haifa, suggested that Ashkenazi women—40 percent or more—may indeed have had ancient Near and Middle Eastern roots, and may have accompanied their husbands as part of families migrating together. The new study published in Nature Communications aligns itself more closely with the 2002 hypothesis, although there are differences. Professor Martin Richards, who heads the University of Huddersfield’s Archaeogenetics Research Group (and who participated in the 2002 study), and colleagues, sequenced 74 mitochondrial genomes and analysed more than 3,500 mitochondrial genomes – far more data than the 2006 survey, which reviewed only a short length of the mitochondrial DNA, containing just 1,000 or so of its 16,600 DNA units, in all their subjects. Richards and his team claim that maternal lineages did not originate in the Near or Middle East or the Khazarian Caucasus, but largely within Mediterranean Europe. Another twist in the findings: Jewish women may have been assimilated in Europe as far back as 2,000 years ago—earlier than most other studies have projected. The researchers believe the DNA could be traced back to the early Roman Empire, when as much as 10 percent of the population practiced Judaism, many of them converts. Overall, they claim, at least 80 percent of Ashkenazi maternal ancestry comes from women indigenous to Europe, while 8 percent originated in the Near East, with the rest uncertain. According to Nicholas Wade of the New York Times, Doron Behar, one of the key authors of the 2006 analysis, said he disagreed with the conclusions, but has provided no detailed critique as yet. Wade also talked to David Goldstein, who said he believed the estimate that 80 percent of Ashkenazi Jewry originating in Europe was too high considering the unpredictability of mitochondrial DNA data. The new research underscores an emerging consensus that wandering Jewish men, from the Near East, established a mosaic of small Jewish communities—first in Italy and then scattered throughout Europe, often taking on local Gentile wives and raising their children as Jews. A theory that based on scientific evidence undermines the idea of a tribal interbreeding hypothesis. 285

sought to delineate themselves as a race apart and “the chosen people”. It is this attitude itself which anti-Semites claim has exacerbated persecution. But here racial distinctions are conflated with the teachings of what it means to be “chosen” as contained in the Torah and other religious texts. To prove his argument that Jews harbour an inbuilt sense of supremacism, Duke asserts as many as 50% of Jews who attend synagogues do not necessarily profess any particular belief in God, and are atheistic in their beliefs, but still attend as they profess themselves to be Jews. This identification of racial lineage, however, does not necessarily denote a belief in racial superiority. In this, the fact that atheist Jews would also fail to recognise the biblical assertion that they are the “chosen people”, or even the teachings of the Talmud if they do not believe in religion, is not contemplated by Duke; for the synagogue attendance justifies a non- faith view of “Jewishness” justified naturally in terms of racial lineage and thus racial supremacism. It conflates religious teachings with the idea of the synagogue as a Jewish community centre. This atheist race based “supremacism” however sits uncomfortably with his interpretation of their “chosen” status as indicating a supposed “superior” status in religious texts. In support of supremacism, Duke also makes a great deal out of Rabbinical law that forbids intermarriage; the Talmud and its purportedly derogatory remarks concerning the goyim and the shiksha or “prostitute women” as he terms them; its anti-Christian sexual insults concerning


Jesus and his mother Mary;


the current Israeli law that permits only

his claimed citizenship to Jews, which also forbids intermarriage;

Apologists for the Talmud deny that it contains any scurrilous references to Jesus Christ. Whereas certain Orthodox Jewish organisations are more forthcoming and admit that the Talmud not only mentions Jesus but disparages him. For example, on the website of the Orthodox Jewish Hasidic Lubavitch group the following statement appears, complete with Talmudic citations: "The Talmud (Babylonian edition) records other sins of 'Jesus the Nazarene': 207

1) He and his disciples practiced sorcery and black magic, led Jews astray into idolatry, and were sponsored by foreign, gentile powers for the purpose of subverting Jewish worship (Sanhedrin 43a). 2) He was sexually immoral, worshipped statues of stone (a brick is mentioned), was cut off from the Jewish people for his wickedness and refused to repent (Sanhedrin 107b; Sotah 47a). 3) He learned witchcraft in Egypt and, to perform miracles, used procedures that involved cutting his flesh, which is also explicitly banned in the Bible (Shabbos 104b). Talmud passages in translation have included the following highly unpleasant statements: Gittin 57a. says Jesus is in hell, being boiled in “hot excrement”. Sanhedrin 43a. says Jesus (“Yeshu” and in Soncino footnote #6, Yeshu “the Nazarene”) was executed because he practiced sorcery: “It is taught that on the eve of Passover Jesus was hung, and forty days before this the proclamation was made: Jesus is to be stoned to death because he has practiced sorcery and has lured the people to idolatry...He was an enticer and of such thou shalt not pity or condone.” Kallah 51a.” The elders were once sitting in the gate when two young lads passed by; one covered his head and the other uncovered his head. Of him who uncovered his head Rabbi Eliezer remarked that he is a bastard. Rabbi Joshua remarked that he is the son of a niddah (a child conceived during a woman's menstrual period). Rabbi Akiba said that he is both a bastard and a son of a niddah. They said, “What induced you to contradict the opinion of your colleagues?” He replied, “I will prove it concerning him.” He went to the lad's mother and found her sitting in the market selling beans. He said to her, “My daughter, if you will answer the question I will put to you, I will bring you to the world to come.” (eternal life). She said to him:”'Swear it to me.” Rabbi Akiba, taking the oath with his lips but annulling it in his heart, said to her, “What is the status of your son?” She replied “'When I entered the bridal chamber I 287

evidence concerning genetic purity via DNA studies, IQ tests and the ability to vocalise concepts better than others; all of which contributes to a general “tribal” instinct based on “scientific” psychological studies. This general tribal instinct betrays a notion of racial elitism and in turn

was niddah (menstruating) and my husband kept away from me; but my best man had intercourse with me and this son was born to me.” Consequently, the child was both a bastard and the son of a niddah.” In addition to the theme that God rewards clever liars, the preceding Talmud discussion is supposedly actually about Jesus. The boy's adulterous mother in this Talmud story is the mother of Christ, Blessed Mary (called Miriam and sometimes, Miriam the hairdresser, in the Talmud). These are corroborated in “The Editio Princeps of the complete Code of Talmudic Law, Maimonides' Mishneh Torah” replete with offensive precepts against Gentiles, but also explicit attacks on Christianity and on Jesus (after whose name the author adds piously, “May the name of the wicked perish”). -Dr. Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, p. 21. “The Talmud contains a few explicit references to Jesus...These references are certainly not complimentary...There seems little doubt that the account of the execution of Jesus on the eve of Passover does refer to the Christian Jesus...The passage in which Jesus’ punishment in hell is described also seems to refer to the Christian Jesus. It is a piece of anti-Christian polemic dating from the post-70 CE period...” --Hyam Maccoby, “Judaism on Trial” (pp. 26-27). “According to the Talmud, Jesus was executed by a proper rabbinical court for idolatry, inciting other Jews to idolatry, and contempt of rabbinical authority. All classical Jewish sources which mention his execution are quite happy to take responsibility for it; in the Talmudic account the Romans are not even mentioned. The more popular accounts-which were nevertheless taken quite seriously-such as the notorious Toldot Yeshu are even worse, for in addition to the above crimes they accuse him of witchcraft. The very name “Jesus” was for Jews a symbol of all that is abominable and this popular tradition still persists... The Hebrew form of the name Jesus-Yeshu-was interpreted as an acronym for the curse, “may his name and memory be wiped out”, which is used as an extreme form of abuse. In fact, anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews sometimes refer to Herzl as 'Herzl Jesus' and I have found in religious Zionist writings expressions such as "Nasser Jesus" and more recently Arafat Jesus." -Dr. Israel Shahak, “Jewish History, Jewish Religion”, pp. 97- 98, 118. 288

xenophobia towards their fellow men and women of the goyim, or “cattle” class, Duke emphasises. 208 Whilst racial identity clearly exists independently of religion, a fact recognised by the atheist Socialist Ed Miliband himself in his acknowledgement that “I’m Jewish by birth of origin …and its part of who Peter Schäfer “Jesus in the Talmud”, Princeton University Press, 2007, (p.7-9) concluded that the references to Jesus and Mary and Christianity were not from the early Tannaitic period (1st and 2nd centuries) but rather from the 3rd and 4th centuries, during the Amoraic period. He asserts that the references in the Babylonian Talmud were “polemical counter-narratives that parody the New Testament stories, most notably the story of Jesus' birth and death”. The rabbinical authors were familiar with the Gospels (particularly the Gospel of John) in their form as the Diatessaron and the Peshitta, the New Testament of the Syrian Church. Schäfer argues that the message conveyed in the Talmud was a “bold and self-confident” assertion of the correctness of Judaism. He asserts: 208

“They ridicule Jesus; birth from a virgin, as maintained by the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, and they contest fervently the claim that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God. Most remarkably, they counter the New Testament Passion story with its message of the Jews’ guilt and shame as Christ killers. Instead, they reverse it completely: yes, they maintain, we accept responsibility for it, but there is no reason to feel ashamed because we rightfully executed a blasphemer and idolater. Jesus deserved death, and he got what he deserved. Accordingly, they subvert the Christian idea of Jesus’ resurrection by having him punished forever in hell and by making clear that this fate awaits his followers as well, who believe in this impostor. There is no resurrection, they insist, not for him and not for his followers; in other words, there is no justification whatsoever for this Christian sect that impudently claims to be the new covenant and that is on its way to establish itself as a new religion, not least as a “Church” with political power.” In contrast to Peter Schäfer, Daniel J. Lasker suggests that the Talmudic stories about Jesus are not deliberate, provocative polemics, but instead demonstrate “embryonic” Jewish objections to Christianity which would later “blossom into a full-scale Jewish polemical attack on Christianity [the Toledoth Yeshu]”. By way of comparison the New Testament itself also documents conflict with rabbinical Judaism, for example in the John 8:41 charge “We are not born of fornication.”Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?”. Also in the description in Revelation of a “synagogue of Satan”. See Ekkehard Stegemann, Wolfgang Stegemann “The Jesus movement: a social history of its first century 1999 (p346)”. Other interpreters understand the author’s anti-Jewish polemic as an expression of his conviction that believers in Christ are the true Jews.


I am”, the Jewish supremacism thesis takes a quantum leap in advocating distinction of race necessarily implies racial superiority. An erroneous reading, that presupposes Jews consider themselves in some sense elite as “the chosen people”. In this, Duke fails to realise that being “chosen”, whilst it may indeed be the religious belief that Jews are selected to be in a covenant with God, need not necessarily be a blessing, nor even one that is gladly sought as an expected or guaranteed privilege of better treatment or superior status. In this sense, then, there is no clear consensus on what “chosen” denotes. The idea is first found in the Torah (the first five books of the Tanakh) which are also included in the Christian Bible. It is also elaborated in later books of the Hebrew Bible. Much is written about these topics in rabbinic literature.







Judaism, Conservative Judaism and Reform Judaism) maintain the belief that the Jews have been chosen by God for a purpose, but there are still differences of interpretation as to what exactly being “chosen” might entail. According to the traditional Jewish interpretation of the Bible, Israel’s character as the chosen people is unconditional, as it says in Deuteronomy 14:2: “For you are a holy people to YHWH your God, and God has chosen you to be his treasured people from all the nations that are on the face of the earth.” Yet also in the Torah it denotes that this is not a license to rule the Earth or the peoples thereof, or to claim ownership of it, which is in any case God’s, but a command to obey the will of God. The command then denotes subservience. It is through obeying this command in their actions that they shall ensure they remain God’s “peculiar treasure”. 290

“Now therefore, if you will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then you shall be a peculiar treasure unto me from all the peoples, for all the earth is mine.” (Exodus 19:5). In fulfilling this servitude, God establishes that the order to His people will be an everlasting responsibility to be fulfilled down the generations of the lineage and in return He shall be their God: “And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you.” (Genesis 17:7). Other Torah verses about being chosen are: “And you shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation” (Exodus 19:6). “The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because you were more in number than any people; for you were the fewest of all people; but because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your ancestors.” (Deuteronomy 7:7-8).

• •

These gifts conferred by the oath yet differ from the idea of being chosen in Amos (3:2), where the obligation is one emphasising trials and tribulations: “You only have one singled out of all the families of the earth: therefore, will I visit upon you all your iniquities.”

Traditionally the idea of being chosen has been interpreted by Jews in two ways: one way is that God chose the Israelites, while the other is that the Israelites chose God. Although collectively this choice was made freely, religious Jews clearly believe that it created individual obligations for the descendants of the lineage and the consequences of the choice were not necessarily pleasant. 291

Another interpretation is that the choice was free in a limited context. Thus, although the Jews chose to follow precepts ordained by God, the Kabbalah and Tanya teach that even prior to creation the “Jewish soul” had already been chosen. The obligations are exclusive to Jews, but non-Jews are still thought of as receiving from God other covenants and other responsibilities. Generally, it does not entail exclusive rewards for Jews, neither does it denote superiority over others because of them. Rabbi Lord Immanuel Jakobovits, former Chief Rabbi of the United Synagogue of Great Britain (Modern Orthodox Judaism), describes it in this way: “Yes, I do believe the chosen people concept as affirmed by Judaism in its holy writ, its prayers, and its millennial tradition. In fact, I believe that every people—and indeed, in a more limited way, every individual—is "chosen" or destined for some distinct purpose in advancing the designs of Providence. Only, some fulfil their mission and others do not. Maybe the Greeks were chosen for their unique contributions to art and philosophy, the Romans for their pioneering services in law and government, the British for bringing parliamentary rule into the world, and the Americans for piloting democracy in a pluralistic society. The Jews were chosen by God to be 'peculiar unto Me' as the pioneers of religion and morality; that was and is their national purpose.” Conservative Judaism and its Israeli counterpart Masorti Judaism, views the concept in this way: “Few beliefs have been subject to as much misunderstanding as the "Chosen People" doctrine. The Torah and the Prophets clearly stated that this does not imply any innate Jewish superiority. In the words of Amos (3:2) "You alone have I singled out of all the families of the earth—that is why I will call you to account for your iniquities". The Torah tells us that we are to be "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" with obligations and duties which flowed from our willingness to accept this status. Far from being a license for special privilege, it entailed additional responsibilities not only toward God but to our fellow human beings. As expressed in the blessing at the 292

reading of the Torah, our people have always felt it to be a privilege to be selected for such a purpose. For the modern traditional Jew, the doctrine of the election and the covenant of Israel offers a purpose for Jewish existence which transcends its own self interests. It suggests that because of our special history and unique heritage we are in a position to demonstrate that a people that takes seriously the idea of being covenanted with God can not only thrive in the face of oppression but can be a source of blessing to its children and its neighbours. It obligates us to build a just and compassionate society throughout the world and especially in the land of Israel where we may teach by example what it means to be a "covenant people, a light unto the nations".” Rabbi Reuven Hammer of Masorti Judaism comments on the excised sentence in the Aleinu prayer in respect to a misunderstanding of being chosen: “Originally the text read that God has not made us like the nations who "bow down to nothingness and vanity, and pray to an impotent god", [...] In the Middle Ages these words were censored, since the church believed they were an insult to Christianity. Omitting them tends to give the impression that the Aleinu teaches that we are both different and better than others. The actual intent is to say that we are thankful that God has enlightened us so that, unlike the pagans, we worship the true God and not idols. There is no inherent superiority in being Jewish, but we do assert the superiority of monotheistic belief over paganism. Although paganism still exists today, we are no longer the only ones to have a belief in one God.” Nachman of Breslov believed that Jewishness is a level of consciousness, and not an intrinsic inborn quality. He wrote that, according to the Book of Malachi, one can find “potential Jews” among all nations. Such souls are illumined by the leap of “holy faith”, which “activated” the Jewishness in their soul. These people would otherwise convert to Judaism but prefer not to do so. Instead, they recognise the Divine unity within their own religions.


In all this, it is clear being Jewish doesn’t necessarily equate to being superior, or thinking one is exclusively superior in a racial sense, nor is such an idea commonly held by Jews themselves. Neither do race distinctions equate to an ethnocentric sense of superiority, only an acknowledgement of the unique and valued differences of all races and cultures and that they should act morally and according to the law. Whilst many Bolsheviks were atheistic Jews, the presumption by Duke tends to identify a more universal Jewish impulse and a world view that underpins it. Quintessentially, this immoral characteristic necessarily exists as Jewishness and transcends or overrides the specific and different moral teachings of the Bible or Torah. Whilst he does not like the idea, as a professed Christian, that the Bible (or Torah) informed Communism, he has no problem citing the Talmud with its anti-Christian emphasis. He identifies the Talmud as being, in a specific sense, responsible for igniting supremacist racist feelings of violence during the Revolution. Yet such views do not readily sit with the facts of at least some interpretations of Talmudic scholarship. Isaac Arama, an influential philosopher and mystic of the 15th century, for example, believed that righteous non-Jews are spiritually identical to the righteous



Rabbi Menachem



famous Catalan Talmudic commentator and philosopher, considered all people, who sincerely profess an ethical religion, to be part of a greater “spiritual Israel�. He explicitly included Christian and Muslims in this category. Meiri rejected all Talmudic laws that discriminate between the Jews and non-Jews, claiming that they only apply to the ancient idolaters, or star worshippers, who had no sense of morality. The only exception are a few laws related directly or indirectly to intermarriage, which Meiri did recognise, and as we have racial distinctions, need not necessarily equate to supremacist belief. 294

Meiri also applied his idea of “spiritual Israel� to the Talmudic statements about the unique qualities of the Jewish people. For example, he believed that the famous saying that Israel is above astrological predestination (Ein Mazal le-Israel) also applied to the followers of other ethical faiths. He also considered countries, inhabited by decent moral non-Jews, such as Languedoc, as a spiritual part of the Holy Land. Duke, however, ignores such traditions of Talmudic scholarship and identifies it only as a cause of bigotry and violence. He emphasises Jewishness and its concomitant tribal impulse as a catalyst to revolution, murder and death. He believes Jewishness exacerbates a latent imperative, fuelled by a misconstrued sense of supremacism. This claim for a tribal impulse for opportunism, and a desire to seek organisational control for the sake of the tribe too, are traits he constantly characterises as being specifically Jewish. However, this impulse is not necessarily a unique characteristic of Jewishness per se but may be more generally relevant to any group, or even particular human beings, given the necessary events or circumstances. It is not necessarily exclusive to Jewishness, or limited to that tribe, but can be viewed as a more widespread tendency in human beings. In this, the maxim is: in the law of the jungle only the strong survive. Yet it is a maxim not necessarily indicative of Jewishness, or even a collective imperative, but only more generally of how people act if pressed into trying circumstances.

A universal of Jewishness is supposed by Duke founded in a genetic trait. This manifests as a Jewish predisposition. The predisposition informs a proclivity to tribalism, which results in unvirtuous actions. It shapes a world view he claims, whilst contrarily it is also claimed not all Jews believe it, advocate it, nor seek to implement it. This contradiction cannot be sustained successfully. The claim of exceptions then is more indicative 295

of an outright lie that simply seeks to cover Duke’s own racial prejudices. Further, the Duke racial cause tends to override the multiplicity of different Jewish views, both in respect to their political perspectives on Communism, their different attitudes to its implementation and their opposition to it even amongst themselves (consider the Menshevik Bolshevik conflict as one example) or even the disputes about the existence or abolition by different Jews of the state of Israel. A contradiction in terms then of what Jewish tribalism is logically obliged to advocate. (f) The Shoa sympathy vote versus the forgotten Holodomor The Jewish supremacism thesis is quite happy to establish an association between those that are believers of Talmudic Judaism and those that term themselves atheists and yet identify racially as Jews. They incorrectly assume “chosen people” denotes (for all Jews) not simply a religious duty, but a racial distinction harbouring an inbred racism against non-Jews. In this, it is argued, the idea of the persecution of the Jewish race more generally plays a key psychological role. The Holocaust and the idea of Jewish persecution by goyim throughout history is one Jews seek to promote, whereas any notion of a specifically Jewish responsibility for genocide during the Holodomor is downplayed; the Holocaust being deliberately and cynically promoted to their own advantage in the predominantly “Jewish run media”. 209 The Jewish run media thesis ignores the role of major shareholders such as (at the time of writing) Warren Buffett (Disney's largest investor); Bill Gates (who owns a big piece of Dreamworks and MSNBC) and Gordon Crawford, who manages the media holdings for the secretive Capital Group (which owns a chunk of every major player). But more importantly, it ignores a crucial point about today’s media, namely that their owners are publicly traded multinational corporations, chiefly answerable to banks, 209


Whilst some Jewish historians who have written about the Jewish role in the Holodomor and published such articles in the press are praised by Duke, it is not considered a general virtue of the Jewish run media sites that permitted or enabled such publications to happen. Nor does Doctor Duke consider their willingness to publish a laudable concern to keep alive such history as an attempt

to ensure the same mistakes do not occur

again. It is criticised only as being more indicative of hypocrisy: a cruel, ostentatious egocentrism, or at best an irony, as if they are secretly proud of such events. This feature, he claims, is highly indicative of their bigoted racism, whilst any “Gentiles” who dare to also raise the topic are disadvantaged and shot down, being immediately decried as “antiSemitic”. The hypocrisy, he claims, only adds a veneer of arrogance to their supremacism. As he asserts in Jewish Supremacism: “Jewish historians and publications have no reluctance to point out to Jewish readers in Jewish publications the dominant role of Jews in the Bolshevik revolution in Russia and internationally, even their role in the greatest mass murders of all time. But shockingly, the information is covered up in mainstream publications and broadcasting in Europe and America.” As an example of these dual standards in “The Secret Behind Communism” (p. 130) Duke cites an article from the popular Israeli online Jewish Zionist news source

He describes how in

December 2006 it shared an article with its Jewish readers called “Stalin’s Jews”, which tells facts about the nature of Communism that would insurance companies and other institutional investors, as well as to advertisers. As such it is these who are almost always the key source of revenue. Thus guided, corporate capitalism runs the show with no concern for any race or faith or for anything but profits. 297

certainly be criticised as “anti-Semitic” if any Gentile historian or publication had told them. In the article, after claiming that “we must not forget that some of the greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish”, Sever Plocker writes: “We cannot know with certainty the number of deaths Cheka was responsible for in its various manifestations, but the number is surely at least 20 million, including victims of the forced collectivization, the hunger, large purges, expulsions, banishments, executions, and mass death at Gulags.” He continues: “Genrikh Yagoda was the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th Century, the GPU’s deputy commander and the founder and commander of the NKVD. Yagoda diligently implemented Stalin’s collectivization orders and is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag system.” Whilst Yagoda murdered twice the number of people alleged under Adolf Hitler’s rule, his name is barely known reasons Duke. The fact he too was murdered by Stalin (a non-Jew) whose decisions, orders and actions were ultimately responsible for the Holodomor, appears to be of less concern. Duke’s chief concern seeks to distinguish the good Jewish writer that exposes the horrors of the Holodomor and the “hypocrisy” of a


Jewish Israeli website, in spite of the fact it appears to have no problem reporting that the Jewish Bolshevik Yagoda murdered twice the number. This number being double the alleged 5.1 million deaths estimated by the Holocaust historian, Raul Hilberg.210 Dukes distinction is an artificial The number in respect to the Holocaust since the figure of approximately 6 million was floated has been criticised by such controversial Hitler loving individuals as Ernst Zundel. A figure generally (and for some scandalously argued) as one that has largely included all the Jews who died in the war, whether they be allies or enemies and not 210


vilification however, that does not convince, and rather exposes his dislike and prejudice of Jews more generally. In claiming the Jewish writer Plocker has been brave to write such a good article and yet contrarily that the media organisation’s willingness to publish it suggests hypocrisy, arrogance and insidious racism, he fails to consider any productive or educational benefit in the act of publishing it to a general readership that might not even be Jewish. Terming them hypocrites, his accusations of racism and prejudice serve only as a mirror held up to reveal the prejudice in his own mind. Another fact produced by Dr Duke is the official honour parades for the Soviet Red Army that Israel holds. The service of May 2013 reported that the Israeli Parliament, the Knesset, officially honoured Red Army veterans living in that country - and this less than a year after Israel became the first country since the fall of the Soviet Union to formally erect a monument honouring the Red Army. “This behaviour appears counter-intuitive to the uninformed. After all, we are told time and time again that the Soviet Union was “antiJewish” and that Jews were “persecuted” in the USSR. If so, why would Israel honour the Red Army of Soviet Russia? ” This honouring, he asserts, tragically provides a link between the murderous ways of the Bolshevik Jews in Russia and the Zionist ethnic

simply those interned in the concentration camps. The estimated number associated with the camps he claims is considerably less but has in any respect dramatically declined as the Simon Wiesenthal Centre freely acknowledges in respect to AuschwitzBirkenau. Thus: “For years, the statistics at Auschwitz-Birkenau had been put at well over 3 million. Recently, however, a memorial plaque at the former death camp estimated Jewish losses closer to 1 million... new figures imply that Jewish losses for the Holocaust are much lower than previously thought.” 299

cleansing of Palestine. He errs however in seeking an explanatory cause for this relationship in terms of genetic Jewishness and the tribal imperative derived from it. The relationship between the two “cannot be overstated” he claims, and lies in the connecting notion of a racist, Jewish supremacism. 211 Duke tends to overstate the case however, not in the link between Zionism and Bolshevism as political movements, but in his emphasis on the reasons such movements arose. Similarly, a Jewish tribal imperative could simply denote nothing more than just a human desire to survive, not an intrinsically Jewish racism and a conquer and rule ethos that brooks no refusal. To explain the link, he offers the example of the Israeli honouring of Ilya Ehrenburg, whom he considers was one of the worst Bolshevik criminals of the Second World War. In this case, there seems less concern to highlight the fact the Russians were allies with Britain and America during WW2 against the “Nazi” threat.212 He seeks only to emphasise Ehrenburg’s unswerving Communist affiliations and his inflammatory propaganda, which he blames as a cause of German trials, and in another connecting link favouring his Neo Nazi affiliations, for a Jewish murdering mentality more generally.

For Duke, Zionism and Communism both display Jewish racism in their histories because they have “similar ethnic and ideological roots”. Duke continuously conflates racial distinctions, religious sensibilities and political ideology with notions of supremacism more generally in a leaning towards a universalised critique of Jews. 211

A term created by Konrad Heiden, a Marxist Jew, to ridicule the National Socialists in the 1920s and 30s. 212


(g) Who was Ilya Ehrenberg? Ehrenburg was a leading international propagandist for Stalin when the Soviets committed one of the worst mass murders in history. He is also sometimes considered to have been partly responsible for estimating the six million figure. A number which was later disseminated in Soviet propaganda materials after the Second World War. 213 The six million figure also appeared in the public domain in Hoettl's affidavit to the Nuremberg Tribunal (November 1945) where the figure (correctly or not) is ascribed to Eichmann. 214 However, in respect to Ehrenburg, Duke is more concerned to emphasise his role as the chief propagandist for the Red Army, and specifically his incitement to mass murder and the rape of Germans and other Eastern European civilians. As the leading Soviet journalist during World War II, Ehrenburg’s writings against the German invaders were circulated among millions of Soviet soldiers. His articles appeared regularly in “Pravda”, “Izvestia”, the

In December of 1944, with the German troops about to invade Prussia, Ehrenburg emphasised the “Nazi’s greatest crime,” the crime against the Jews: “Ask any captured German why his countrymen destroyed six million innocent people and he will answer: “They are Jews. They are black or red-haired. They have different blood…” and all this begin with stupid jokes, with the shouts of street kids, with signposts, and it led to Maidanek, Babi Yar, Treblinka, to ditches filled with children’s corpses.” “Pravda”, December 17, 1994 (p. 3). See also “Pravda”, August 11, 1994, (p. 2), August 12, 1994, (p. 3), October 27, 1944, (p. 4). 213

The six million figure has a long history and is considered today to be largely symbolic. Statements regularly appeared in the world press from 1900 onwards concerning the persecution of this particular number of Jews in the movement for establishing a Jewish homeland. Earlier statements can be traced back to 1870 in the Press. Arguments for more or less than the number estimated during WW2 have been variously made. 214


Soviet military daily “Krasnaya Zvezda”, and in numerous leaflets distributed to troops at the front. In one leaflet, headlined “Kill”, Ehrenburg incites the Soviet soldiers to treat Germans (not just the soldiers) as sub-human. The final paragraph concludes: “The Germans are not human beings. From now on the word German means to use the most terrible oath. From now on the word German strikes us to the quick. We shall not speak any more. We shall not get excited. We shall kill. If you have not killed at least one German a day, you have wasted that day ... If you cannot kill your German with a bullet, kill him with your bayonet. If there is calm on your part of the front, or if you are waiting for the fighting, kill a German in the meantime. If you leave a German alive, the German will hang a Russian and rape a Russian woman. If you kill one German, kill another -- there is nothing more amusing for us than a heap of German corpses. Do not count days, do not count kilometers. Count only the number of Germans killed by you. Kill the German -- that is your grandmother's request. Kill the German -- that is your child's prayer. Kill the German -- that is your motherland's loud request. Do not miss. Do not let through. Kill.” 215 Based on this and other writings, Duke asserts Ehrenburg certainly contributed to the murder and rape by Soviet soldiers against German and Ehrenburg responded that he never meant to incite the wiping out of the German people, but only German aggressors who came to our soil with weapons, because "we are not Nazi". Yet his writings do not justify the raping of defenseless women and children which his writing also called for: 215

“Use force and break the racial pride of these German women. Take them as your lawful booty. Kill!” His call to kill, then, tends to speak of Germans rather than Nazis or even German soldiers. Without reference to women his justification would have been consistent with the emphasis on German soldiers as he referenced in May 1942: “The German soldier with weapon in hand is not a man for us, but a fascist. We hate him [...] When the German soldier gives up his weapon and surrenders, we will not touch him with a finger - he will live." Ehrenburg did however fall into disgrace based on these remarks and quite rightly so. 302

other Eastern European civilians, whilst failing to note the influence of numerous other propaganda sources that might have played their part. In this he focuses only on Ehrenburg the Jew, and the injustice of his overly passionate call to kill. As heinous as the call is, and the reported atrocities that ensued make for difficult reading, the question is whether Ehrenburg’s call to kill was due to his political stance, or whether it should be identified as a particularly tribal trait of Jewishness per se; a cause of some essentially Jewish reaction, and a more universal imperative, that by racial association Israeli Jews also share? For Duke, it appears he wants to suggest it is indicative of a tribal trait of Jewishness, a line of reasoning justified by his conflation of Jewish-Bolshevism and Jews’ racial profiling, which further sustains the imperative. This is for Duke a murderous imperative, activated because Ehrenberg was a Jew himself, and strengthened by his bloodthirsty need for revenge at the atrocities committed against his fellow Jews in the concentration camps. Considering the latter cause, however, the full extent of such atrocities would have hardly even been known by him at this time. Dismissing the former reasoning, it would then be far more sensible to see the call to kill not as a call for vengeance, or even an inherent disposition of Jews more specifically, but simply a more general attitude that killing the enemy during a war is necessary for victory, and that as the events in Yugoslavia or Cambodia or Vietnam can prove, is one not necessarily originated by a racially derived imperative to simply protect only Jews, irrespective of its inhumanity. Assuming knowledge of the deaths, a case justifying the cause of Ehrenburg’s call to kill might even be made, if one assumes it sought to ensure victory in order to diminish the Holocaust generally, or to bring 303

the war to an end sooner to save any number of human lives. The same kind of argument and reasoning that justified the US atrocities against the Japanese at Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the dropping of the A bombs. The moral and immoral arguments can be made, but certainly can never be entirely resolved in respect to Ehrenburg’s true intentions or motives when the propaganda was written in the heat of war. Duke cites The Canadian Jewish News (Dec. 11 1987) concerning Ehrenburg’s political loyalties which stated that until his death in 1967 he showed: “his support for the Soviet state, and for Stalin, [which] never wavered. His loyalty and service were acknowledged in 1952 when he received the Stalin Prize. In keeping with official Soviet policy, he publicly criticized Israel and Zionism.” He cites correctly that they: “… arranged to transfer his private archives to Jerusalem’s Yad Vashem library and archive, while still alive.” The agreed transfer of his archive coming to public light 20 years after, by the stipulation of his will. Doctor Duke finds it suspicious that a “dedicated Bolshevik Soviet leader” (op.cit. p. 20) secretly willed his private papers, not to the Soviet Union, but to the Zionist State, where he is honoured at Yad Vashem. He asserts: “…the honoring of a genocidal Bolshevik at Yad Vashem, the most important Jewish memorial to the Holocaust, speaks of an enormous hypocrisy that boggles the mind. Only in a deeply corrupted morality could the most important memorial in the world against genocide honor a man who drove on mass murder and get


away with it. All without a word of criticism. It seems that one man’s genocidal maniac is another man’s hero.”

So far as the figure of Ehrenburg is concerned, the reality of who he was, and what motivated him, is something that itself is mired in controversy. Certainly, Ehrenburg’s identity as a Jew is not in dispute, but his identity as a committed Communist, and the extent to which one sustained or undermined the other, and indeed its relationship to Zionism, can be variously assessed. Certainly Ehrenburg (in his now neglected writings) was a chameleon in this respect, and much of what was written in the Stalin era may have at least been written not simply out of a pure and unswerving commitment to Stalinism, as much as an impulse to create as a writer, and again out of an instinct merely for personal survival, as well as a desire to save the lives of others.216 The latter could even be justified

Ehrenburg is particularly well known for his memoirs “People, Years, Life”, which contain many portraits of interest to literary historians and biographers. In this book, Ehrenburg was the first legal Soviet author to mention positively a lot of names banned under Stalin, including Marina Tsvetaeva. At the same time, he disapproved of the Russian and Soviet intellectuals who had explicitly rejected Stalinism or defected to the West. He also criticised writers like Boris Pasternak, author of "Doctor Zhivago", for not having been able to understand the course of history. 216

“The Thaw”, however, tested the limits of censorship in the post-Stalin Soviet Union. It shows a man not necessarily uncritical of Stalin. It portrays a corrupt and despotic factory boss, a “little Stalin”, and tells the story of his wife, who increasingly feels estranged from him, and the views he represents. In the novel, the spring thaw comes to represent a period of change in the characters’ emotional journey, and when the wife eventually leaves her husband this event coincides with the melting of the snow. Thus, the novel can be seen as a representation of the “thaw”, and the increased freedom of the writer after the “frozen” political period under Stalin. In August 1954, Konstantin Simonov attacked The Thaw in articles published in Literaturnaya Gazeta, arguing that such writings are too dark and do not serve the Soviet state. The novel gave its name to the Khrushchev Thaw. Just prior to publishing the book, however, Ehrenburg did receive the Stalin Peace Prize in 1952.


as a virtue, rather than an overriding instinct to murder due to the intrinsic nature of what Jewishness supposedly entails.

(h) Ehrenburg: a Jewish chameleon According to the logic of the times, Ehrenburg the Jew should have been executed at least three or four times, but as Yevgeny Yevtushenko once said:

Ehrenburg “taught us all how to survive.” His life can be

characterised as a colourful one, full of change and contradiction, but determined by the environment in which he lived. 217 It is one perhaps best summed up by Ehrenburg himself in his memoirs: “If within a lifetime a man changes his skin an infinite number of times, almost as often as his suits, he still does not change his heart; he has but one.” It appeared Ehrenburg’s heart rested ultimately as a Jew in Israel, but his life reveals a man of multiple personae and not one that can be simply stereotyped by the one-dimensional description of him as merely a murderous and “dedicated Bolshevik Soviet leader”; one Doctor Duke appears to want to claim was informed and strengthened primarily by his “Jewishness”. It might be claimed indeed that it is a plain Another contradictory account of his behaviour is when Ehrenburg tried to enlist in the French army during World War I. He was rejected as being too gaunt and so instead wound up working as a war correspondent for the Russian papers Utro Rossii (Morning Russia) and Birzheviye Vedomosti (Stock Market News). His reporting was intelligent, critical and reasonable. His coverage of the French army's shameless use of bewildered Senegalese troops in the most exposed positions so infuriated the French government, however, that Ehrenburg was almost expelled from the country. Eventually, the war took its toll on Ehrenburg and he suffered a nervous breakdown. He began to yearn for his homeland and after the February Revolution he was sent back to Russia. He arrived in Petrograd in July and moved on to Moscow, where he met the October Revolution by cowering in his room as street fighting raged outside. 217


oversimplification of the facts by Duke and goes in large part to supporting an argument that seeks to propagate a rather dangerous anti-Semitism. After becoming an activist for Moscow’s Bolshevik underground, Ehrenburg was imprisoned at the age of seventeen in 1908. He then fled Tsarist Russia to Paris, where he met Vladimir Lenin for the first time. His intellectual colleagues included Picasso, Chagall, Modigliani, and Rivera (all active Communists, but not all Jews). By early 1918, Ehrenburg had published a collection of verse entitled “A Prayer for Russia.” One work in this collection, “Judgment Day”, clearly makes Ehrenburg’s hostility to the Bolsheviks apparent. It features Red soldiers stopping to rape a woman as they storm the Winter Palace. Mayakovsky denounced the collection as “tiresome prose printed in verse” and Ehrenburg as “a frightened intellectual”. By 1921, Ehrenburg himself had dismissed the collection as “artistically weak and ideologically impotent”, yet the anti-Bolshevik sentiment at this time is particularly clear. Throughout 1918, Ehrenburg continued to write anti-Bolshevik articles. He even ridiculed Lenin as “a stocky bald man” who resembled “a goodnatured burgher”. He likewise ridiculed Marxist atheism by calling Kamenev and Zinoviev “high priests” who “prayed to the god Lenin”. By 1919, these kinds of views had made things too difficult for him to remain in Moscow and prompted a move to his hometown of Kiev. He befriended various writers during this time: including Andrey Sobol (a


Jewish Zionist poet) and Osip Mandelshtam 218, before he married a distant cousin Lyubov Kozintseva. The anti-Bolshevik attitude resumed in 1919 when the Whites took control of Kiev, and Ehrenburg continued publishing hate-filled anti-Bolshevik articles, calling Lenin’s revolution a “drunken orgy” and the Bolsheviks “rapists and conquerors”. This attitude, however, did not appease the fiercely anti-Semitic Whites. They even came looking for Ehrenburg at his place of work, but the printers hid him. Ehrenburg then fled to the Crimea with his wife and his mistress, and from there returned to Moscow, where he was subsequently arrested for being an agent of Wrangel. Four days later, he was released, probably through the intervention of Bukharin. Resuming his literary life, Ehrenburg worked alongside Andrey Bely, Boris Pasternak, Sergey Esenin, Vladimir Mayakovsky, Marina Tsvetaeva, Osip Mandelstam and others. He barely survived by doing readings and literary reviews. Then he found a “real” job supervising children’s theatres for the Ministry of Education. Although life was hard, he once again with Bukharin's help, became one of the first Soviet intellectuals to be granted a passport to travel abroad. Forced to leave his mistress behind this time, Ehrenburg took his wife and set off for Paris in March 1921. However, after only two weeks in the

After his Stalin’s epigram of 1934, for which the dictator used to cite the popular Italian saying that “vengeance is a dish best served cold”, Mandelstam was first sent to Cherdyn in Siberia. Then due to the protection of several powerful Communist party functionaries who were fond of his poetry, his term became somewhat milder when he lived in the provincial town of Voronezh. He was deprived of the right to live in the capital and big cities, before he was finally arrested again in 1937. He was then sent to Vladivostok labour camp, where he perished in 1938. 218


French capital, the French police grabbed Ehrenburg and expelled him from the country, never offering a reason. From 1921 to 1924 Ehrenburg lived in Berlin and Belgium. His first novel, “The Extraordinary Adventures of Julio Jurenito and his Disciples”, was written at this time in some 28 days. It importantly ridiculed both the capitalist West and the Communist system. The work was a parody of the Gospels and was in many ways controversial. It was blasphemous towards Christianity, but notably attacked both Socialists and pacifists too and also, more significantly, all government organisations. 219 In October 1921, Ehrenburg moved to Berlin, where his literary output increased. Of note here is that during this time Ehrenburg was still critical of governments and specifically the era of the New Economic Policy in the Soviet Union. It was only with the writing of “Breathless” (1935) that the writer, by now under the shadow of Stalinism, began to wholeheartedly accept the official Communist policy in economic and political matters in his writings. Although from 1925 to 1945 Ehrenburg lived in Paris, the increasingly pro Stalinist attitude can perhaps be explained by an awareness of the influence of Stalin’s reach, as well as the demonstrated threat he posed to his Russian based comrades. In this respect, even whilst working as a

The central character, the cynical prophet Julio Jurenito, is described as having seven disciples thrown into global turmoil. The main character dies at the age of 33 in a provincial Russian town. He is an Antichrist figure, whose teachings appear to be based on hatred. He promotes the destruction of beauty and all arts, unless there is a utilitarian purpose for their products. His involvement in secret plots, somehow connected with the progression toward World War I and the Russian Revolution, never really becomes clear. Among his seven disciples are such ethnic stereotypes as an American industrial entrepreneur, an easy-going Italian, a militaristic German and a noble and naive African. Ehrenburg himself is the first disciple and the authornarrator. The novel also includes authentic characters, such as Mayakovsky, Picasso, Chaplin, Riviera, and Tatlin. 219


foreign editor of Soviet newspapers, he was occasionally asked to return to the USSR “by order”. During this period of Stalinist compliance Ehrenburg did compose a screenplay for a film, based on one of his stories. The film was never realised, but when the International Writers Congress was held in Moscow in 1934, he opposed Gorky, who advocated the doctrine of Socialist Realism. The anti-Stalin criticism was evident throughout this period, albeit in a fairly restrained form. The most notable being “Conspiracy of Equals” published in 1928. This was a historical novel concerning the Babeuf movement in Revolutionary France, which rejected terror and advocated an egalitarian democracy. Stalin again notably did not like this work, dismissing it as “pulp literature” suitable only for “a real bourgeois chamber theatre.” In the face of increasing criticism from Moscow, Ehrenburg gradually began to shift his writings into a more openly pro-Soviet direction. The reason might not necessarily have been that he became an ardent Stalinist, but more because he felt his life was in danger. It might also have been a concern for the welfare of others associated with him. It might have been both. To this effect, his work began to focus on European peasantry, blasted Poland’s authoritarian rule, and criticised France and its racist colonialism. He also more generally undertook a series of stories and novels exposing the greed of noted wealthy entrepreneurs. 220 These antiCapitalist writings clearly did not curry favour with western entrepreneurs and law suits occurred. Moscow wasn't particularly thrilled either; for

“The Life of the Automobile” focused on Andre Citroen, Pierpont Morgan, and Henry Ford and provides a critique of capitalism. “The Shoe King” attacked Tomas Bata, the Czech footwear capitalist. “Factory of Dreams” took on Hollywood, George Eastman, and the Kodak camera company. “The Single Front” chose as its target Kreuger, the Swedish Match King. 220


while these books exposed the abuses of capitalism, they also fell short and failed to suggest Communism as the solution to bourgeois ills. In respect to this, the 1931 edition of the “Small Soviet Encyclopedia” described Ehrenburg as follows: “He ridicules Western capitalism and the bourgeoisie with genuine wit. But he does not believe in Communism or the proletariat's creative strength.” A shift in his artistic and anti-political fence sitting came in 1931 however, when Ehrenburg visited Germany twice. The rise of National Socialism affected him greatly. It seemed to him that war was inevitable, and he could no longer remain an uncommitted sceptic. However, his comment at this time still reveals a more general disdain for the authoritarian absolutism of tyranny and notably as he wrote later: “Between us and the Fascists there was not even a narrow strip of no-man's land.” In 1932, Ehrenburg became a reporter for Izvestiya. During this time, he covered the trial of a deranged Russian who had assassinated the French President. In addition, his articles were persistent and clear in calling attention to the danger of the rise of fascism. Later that year, Ehrenburg was obliged to return once more to the Soviet Union, spending weeks in Siberia, touring construction sites in Sverdlovsk, Tomsk, and Kuznetsk. Upon his return to Paris, Ehrenburg penned “The Second Day” sometimes translated as “Out of Chaos”. It is a day-to-day account of the harsh conditions of life and the heroic efforts of workers to overcome nature’s resistance as they build a blast furnace in Kuznetsk. In the novel, a weak dreamer tries to fit in with the more dedicated workers but fails. He


therefore becomes complicit in an act of vandalism. Ashamed of his own spiritual bankruptcy, he kills himself. The symbolism here might well have been reflective of the author’s own feelings of trying to identify and fit in with the Communist ethos at this time and failing. Whatever the case, the work appears to represent Ehrenburg’s attempt to reestablish himself politically in the Soviet Union; an attempt that was initially rejected, before being finally approved by Stalin.221 Ehrenburg was one of the principal organisers of the International Writers’ Congress in Defence of Culture, which began its work on 21 June 1935. Its goal was to organise a broad anti-fascist coalition of writers from a wide range of perspectives, including liberal, Socialist, Communist, Christian and Surrealist. In 1935, while in Moscow, he gave speeches and wrote articles in praise of Pasternak, Babel, Meyerhold, Dovzhenko and the independence of art, but this resulted only in some criticism again of Ehrenburg. Vera Inber, for example, rebuked him for implying that only Pasternak had a conscience among Soviet poets. When the Spanish Civil War broke out in summer 1936, Ehrenburg travelled to Spain to report on the war, disobeying instructions from Izvestia, which ordered him to stay in Paris. His reporting during this period maintained an anti-Fascist theme. By 1937, he had put together a book of sketches on the war entitled “What a Man Needs”. Ehrenburg

Another semi veiled, personal character appears in 1932, when Ehrenburg produced the novel “Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears”. This is about the difficulties of a Russian artist who has the opportunity to study in Paris. The artist is attacked by a critic at home, who denounces his work as degenerate and bourgeois. In this work, notably, Ehrenburg makes the reparatory point of comparing western capitalist society to a lavatory in a fifth-rate Paris hotel. 221


continued writing dispatches from Spain and France. Then in August 1939 he suffered a severe shock with the announcement of the Hitler-Stalin pact. 222 In December 1937, Ehrenburg went to Moscow for a short vacation at the height of the terror campaign. His friends in Moscow couldn't believe how foolhardy he was to return at a time when writers were being regularly arrested and killed. He expected to return to Spain after two weeks, but the authorities told him this would not be possible. Then, on the orders of Stalin, he was given a ticket to attend the trial of his old friend Nikolay Bukharin223. Izvestia wanted him to write an article on the trial, but Ehrenburg refused. Unknown to Ehrenburg at the time, Karl Radek, one of Bukharin's co-defendants, had revealed under “interrogation” that Ehrenburg had been present while Radek and Bukharin were plotting their coup. Fearful and tired of waiting, Ehrenburg sent an appeal to Stalin, asking to be sent back to Spain. The request was refused. Knowing that he was being extremely foolhardy, Ehrenburg decided to send a second appeal to Stalin that again, for reasons unknown, was granted.

This event was so shocking to Ehrenburg that for eight months he could only take in liquids and chew on a few vegetables and herbs. He apparently lost 44 pounds in weight during this time. His reaction suggests he viewed Communism and Fascism as diametrically opposed and not simply as two “totalitarian” ideologies that he opposed. 222

Nikolai Bukharin, a Russian Bolshevik revolutionary, Soviet politician and prolific author on revolutionary theory. As a young man, he spent six years in exile, working closely with fellow-exiles Lenin and Trotsky. After the revolution of February 1917, he returned to Moscow, where his Bolshevik credentials earned him a high rank in the party, and after the October revolution, he became editor of the party newspaper Pravda. Within the bitterly divided Bolsheviks, his gradual move to the right, as a defender of the New Economic Policy (NEP), positioned him favourably as Stalin’s chief ally, and together they ousted Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev from the party leadership. From 1926-1929, Bukharin enjoyed great power as General Secretary of Comintern's executive committee. But Stalin’s decision to proceed with Soviet Collectivisation drove the two men apart, and Bukharin was expelled from the Politburo. 223


During the war, he wrote over two thousand articles, mainly for Krasnaya Zvezda. He gained credibility and popularity among the troops by frankly assessing German strength and admitting Soviet losses, as well as expressing a fierce hatred for the enemy. Molotov reported that Ehrenburg “was worth several divisions” in this respect. On May Day 1944, these efforts were recognised, when he received the Lenin Prize. In 1948, Ehrenburg produced the novel “Storm” about World War II with action set both in the Soviet Union and in France. It described the enormous efforts of the Red Army to defeat “Nazi” Germany. While it contained descriptions of the massacres of Jews at Baby Yar. It also portrayed a shocking liaison between a Russian and a French actress (marriages with foreigners were illegal at the time) and made an oblique jibe at the Hitler-Stalin pact. Nonetheless, it still won the Stalin Prize. In 1954, Ehrenburg wrote “The Thaw”. This tested the boundaries of free speech in the relatively less rigid, but short-lived period. Ehrenburg's connections with the top of the Soviet political hierarchy were exceptionally good at this time, and just before Stalin’s death rumors began to spread in Moscow that the writer had even been chosen to deliver a petition to Stalin, begging him to let Russia’s Jews leave for Siberia. Stalin publicly voiced support, but behind the scenes planned to launch another purge whilst using Jewish doctors and their absurdly invented “crimes” as an alibi for his own heinous crimes. In the last years of his life Ehrenburg devoted his time to campaigning to have published works by writers who had been earlier politically condemned by the regime. Some of these writers were Jewish, but not all. For example, when Boris Pasternak (a Ukrainian Jew) was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1958 for “Doctor Zhivago”, and Soviet 314

authorities started a protest campaign, Ehrenburg refused to participate in it. This put his own life in danger. He acted similarly when Yevgeny Yevtushenko (a non- Jewish Russian with Tartar roots) came under attack for his poem “Babi Yar” in 1961. Ehrenburg rose to his defence by writing a letter to the editor of Literaturnaya Gazeta. Ehrenburg lent support to younger writers generally. He signed a letter in support of Iosif Brodsky, counselled Andrey Voznesensky on how best to avoid complications, protested against the sentences given to Sinyavsky and Danil and also expressed positive views about Solzhenitsyn. The above account then hardly supports the epithet of Ehrenburg as “a genocidal manic” (op. cit.) or “ of worst Bolshevik criminals of the Second World War”, as Doctor Duke also describes him (op.cit. p 19). It shows a man concerned with the principles of freedom and the human condition: a proclaimed Marxist Socialist yes, but a man just as capable of exposing Communism’s injustices and limitations. This could more easily be said of his attitude to the limitations of capitalism and a decadent Western society, but Communism under both Lenin and Stalin regimes was also not beyond his critical perception either. Neither is it clear that as The Canadian Jewish News states: “Until his death in 1967 his support for the Soviet state and for Stalin never wavered.”


Whilst Ehrenburg in this respect is often cited as a prototypical “assimilated Jew” of the Soviet Union, a Communist and one who lacked “Jewish national consciousness” 224 , he more accurately represents a: “strange blend of nihilistic and alienated sentiment with regard to Jewish national culture [with a] boundless admiration for the culture of the host nation… characteristic of assimilated Jews the world over.”225 Any “national consciousness” that did emerge, for Ehrenburg, was in response to anti-Semitism. A danger prevalent both in his opposition to National Socialism and his shifting attitudes during the changes of the Stalinist regime. In this, as his memoirs indicate, Ilya Ehrenburg’s identity as a Soviet Jewish intellectual is a paradox in and of itself, whose contradictions need to be understood in the context of a complex and for him highly dangerous and continually changing political environment.









Holodomor For David Duke (op. cit. p.22-23) Jewish imperatives, manifested in both Zionism and Communism, are driven by Jewish supremacism, which in turn exhibits an essential racism, exacerbating a desire for murder and genocide. In this, he identifies Jewishness as the cause, and then projects the past into the present time: “Zionist influence over American and EU policy directly led to the Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, and the death and suffering of millions of innocents by Zionist, tribalist- driven wars in the Pinkus, Benjamin The Soviet Government and the Jews 1984. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. p.20 . 224


(op.cit. p.20) 316

Mideast. What do these events have in common? Racial hatred is shown as a clear motivation in the genocides of the Jewish Bolsheviks. Their motivations must be fully understood. Can one understand the crimes of Zionism without seeing their relationship to the crimes of Communism?” The Communist Holodomor is an event that all people of the world must become better educated about, lest humanity be “doomed to repeat such horrors” warns Duke (op. cit. p. 23). This is not in dispute and is perfectly true and correct. Yet the question arises as to whether it should be utilised as a pretext to stir up the racial prejudice of the past and to vilify and brand a particular race or religion wholesale with the hot iron of hatred today? Can it be productively remembered if it is also used as a means to stir up anti-Semitism and tribalism amongst others that might lead to the same errors being perpetrated again, but this time against the Jews more generally as scapegoats? Duke emphasises the Holodomor as being but one historic event in an onward progression. This manifests Jewish racism and their desire for vouchsafing their supremacism worldwide. In this, he emphasises the Holodomor’s relative lack of promotion in comparison to the Holocaust. He sees this as part of the Jewish strategy for securing global domination, by using it to secure a sympathy vote for political advantage. In this, however, whilst it is undeniably true that the Holodomor has been less publicised than the Holocaust, it need not necessarily imply a wholesale Jewish concern for domination, nor need it suppose a universal Jewish prejudice, or a desire to manipulate emotions entirely for their own advantage. Admittedly more publicity for both would serve a dual utility, as it would evoke sympathy for all those who perished and survived, whilst instilling 317

an interest or fear that such events generally should not happen again. However, it should always be contextualised in terms of what precisely the chief factors were which caused these events to arise. In this respect, the Holocaust against Jews specifically does appear to have been instigated due to racial hatred bolstered by an erroneous notion of Aryan supremacism. Anti-semitism certainly existed prior to its supposed conflation with Bolshevism. Also, it cannot be overstated that even the possibility of a reprisal of anti-Semitic feeling that might be awoken by the dissemination of such a view that: Jews were responsible for the slaughter of many more millions than the National Socialists during the Holodomor is one that could both belittle the Holocaust and awaken the spectre of a more widespread persecution of Jews more generally, adding to the recurrence of their persecution. While it is important, right and fitting to give air to the Holodomor, as it is in the case of the Holocaust, it may also be used to channel a more dangerous prejudice that should always be guarded against: an outrage towards “the Jews� for atrocities committed, even if specific individuals who acted did so out of a purely political persuasion that overrode all else. Duke’s reasoning, however, leads to a kind of self-fulfilling justification for hatred against them. It creates a religious and racial identity target of the kind that creates the very events he wishes to guard against. The danger of contextualising the event in terms of a Jewish threat is not one hung on the Communist ideology however, which transcends race, religion and nation as specifics. It therefore abrogates the pitfalls of hate speech and its associated dangers.


Although atrocities might be further excused in the name of a mistaken application of its ideology, and often are by Communists and Socialists themselves, the targeting of a specific race as perpetrators due to an inherent sense of their own superiority, the claim Dr Duke makes, is abhorrently a racist justification that propagates racism in turn. It is not a claim easily shaken off by those influenced by fear and prejudice. As a consequence, they are likely to act more impulsively and recklessly. His reasoning invites a recurrence of the danger and thus requires logical refutation to safeguard lives. The dangers of this vilification for Jews, however, is not one that appears to overly concern him. He even highlights Jewish culpability specifically and emphasises that the Holodomor itself was informed by a specifically Talmudic imperative when he goes on to cite particularly inflammatory passages from it. 226 In this, he also targets not just those Jewish atheists who were Bolsheviks, whom he claims yet were ultimately believers in a “Jewish” supremacism, but the followers of Talmudic practise and Zionists as well. Where is this to end? It appears it has no end if we accept Duke’s reasoning. Although he often retreats by speaking of the “Zio Globalists”, it appears to be a general term for Jews of whatever persuasion. In this, then, it cannot end until Jews are dealt with, or impeded in some unspecified way from their innate biopsychological desire to subvert, rule and destroy. It has a historic trend which he identifies, but the racial explanation means it will also recur in the future.

No differentiation of Talmudic traditions Jerusalem or Babylonian is made in this incidentally. 226


The dangers of awakening racial prejudice should not be justified for past events, particularly so if they are only the actions of a few, and it might be added prompted for entirely ideological, non-racial reasons. Whilst the memory of the Holocaust itself at least attempts to provide the true safety valve for the dangers of any genocide cast in not just political, but racially motivated terms. This provides a necessary and important protection for others in respect to the dangers of racism more generally, as well as the Jews specifically, one of the most vilified and persecuted races in history, whatever the justifications and particular historical circumstances of the Holodomor might be. In assuming his thesis, Doctor Duke fails to take into account the degree of the assimilation of the Jews to their national or political identity, or indeed the degree to which diaspora, and the concomitant alienation as a race apart from their deeper sense of what constitutes national identity might have determined individual behaviour. He seeks only to prove Jewishness evokes a general and all too predictable response. This reaction is responsible for strengthening a tribal mindset, which when given the requisite circumstances, will always impose its notions of supremacism over others by instigating mass murder. He fails in this to see it solely in terms of an ideological conflict of different political paradigms, a cultural or social clash, or exacerbated by economic factors, but rather generally tends to see it as something in the blood. One example of the conflict, however, that also contradicts his narrative can be given in respect to the organisation called the Association of German National Jews. These were a pro-National Socialist Jewish group, whose membership not only welcomed Hitler’s accession, but actively


promoted the self-eradication of Jewish identity and its absorption into the new, heroic, master-culture. In respect to the Holocaust and the Second World War, therefore, Duke fails to consider the extent that national identity and political sympathies drove even some Jews to join the German army and even serve in Hitler’s ranks; a fact that clearly overrode any tendency to a specifically Jewish tribalism and supremacism they may wish to have exerted pre-War on Germany. He also fails to consider the definition of what it means to be Jewish itself adequately in respect to these historical contradictions. For those who cling to ideas of racial purity, there is clearly only accumulative genocide of any and all races deemed inferior as a solution. The example can be seen in respect to Hitler himself, who trod a murderous road based on warped ideas of “racial purity” which had no clearly delimited borders. An ethos which began to incorporate a wider spectrum of deaths in his concerns for securing Aryan supremacism. Hitler encountered unexpected detours in this. In respect to the Jews, this was largely due to his own inconsistent views and policies regarding what constituted Jewish and indeed German identity. After centuries of Jewish assimilation and intermarriage in German society, he discovered that eliminating “Jews”, or at least separating and deporting them from the rest of the German population, was more difficult than he had first anticipated. As Bryan Mark Rigg shows in “Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers: The Untold Story of Nazi Racial Laws and Men of Jewish Descent in the German Military”, nowhere was that heinous process more fraught with contradiction and confusion than with the Jews within the German military.


Contrary to conventional views, Rigg reveals that a large number of German military men were classified by the National Socialists as Jews, or more correctly “partial-Jews” (Mischlinge), in the wake of racial laws first enacted in the mid-1930s. Rigg demonstrates that the actual number in the military however was much higher than previously thought; perhaps as many as 150,000 men, including decorated veterans and high-ranking officers and even some generals and admirals. As Rigg documents, a great many of these men did not even consider themselves Jewish and had embraced the military as a way of life. As devoted patriots they were eager to serve a “revived” German nation. Here their national loyalties clearly outweighed any sense of Jewish tribalism. In turn, they had been embraced by the Wehrmacht, which prior to Hitler had given little thought to the race of these men, but which nevertheless increasingly began to look ever more deeply into their ancestry. The process of investigation and removal of Jews during Hitler’s reign was required to address these issues, but it was one that became characterised by a highly inconsistent application of racial law. Numerous “exemptions” were made in order to allow soldiers to stay within the ranks if they were important. Reasons were even found to spare a soldier’s parent, spouse, or other relative from incarceration. Hitler’s own signature can even be found on many of these “exemption” orders. As the war dragged on, politics came to trump military logic, even in the face of the Wehrmacht’s growing manpower needs. Legal loopholes began to be closed, and German soldiers too found they could not escape the fate of millions of other non- serving civilians as victims of the Third Reich.


(j) The Holodomor was not a racist inspired death event The Holocaust and Holodomor provide a more general warning of the dangers of political extremism in respect to any potential future death event. However, the Holodomor is different, as it was one not driven or justified by a racially motivated prejudice.

In this, the Holocaust is

distinct, inasmuch as the decision made by Hitler to systematically annihilate the Jews (if it was personally made, for no specific order by him has ever been discovered)227 was additionally characterised by his While most eminent historians, such as Ian Kershaw, Raul Hilberg, and Martin Broszat, believe that no document exists showing that Hitler ordered the Holocaust, other evidence conclusively demonstrates that Hitler knew about and ordered the genocide. In any case, it would be absurd to suppose he had no knowledge of those in lower ranks who did indeed authorise such matters. In addition to statements from Adolf Eichmann, Joseph Goebbels, and Heinrich Himmler indicating that Hitler orchestrated the Holocaust, several statements from Hitler himself reveal his genocidal intentions toward Jewry. 227

In a letter dated 1919 Hitler mentions that an “unshakable” aim of a strong national government must be “the removal of the Jews”. In Mein Kampf, Hitler argued that a war against Jews would have saved Germany from losing World War I: “If at the beginning of the war and during the war twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the people had been held under poison gas, as happened to hundreds of thousands of our very best German workers in the field, the sacrifice of millions at the front would not have been in vain.” Hitler also declared in his infamous speech to the Reichstag on 30 January 1939: “Today I want to be a prophet once more: if international Jewry succeeds in plunging the nations into another world war, the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth, and thereby the victory of Jewry, but the destruction of the Jewish race in Europe!” In a speech on 30 January 1942, Hitler repeated his prophecy of 1939: “The war will not end as the Jews imagine it will, namely with the uprooting of the Aryans, but the result of this war will be the complete annihilation of the Jews. Now for the first time they will not bleed other people to death, but for the first time the old Jewish law of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, will be 323

personal loathing and hatred for the “Jews” as a race.228 Certainly, the desire to deport Jews was one based on perceived economic or cultural reasons concomitant with serving the German nation, but it was also driven by a racial prejudice that appears to have been given personal voice in Mein Kampf long before he came to political power. In this concern to purge the Jewish presence, National Socialism simultaneously sought to

applied. And - world Jewry may as well know this- the further these battles spread, the more anti-Semitism will spread. It will find nourishment in every prison camp and in every family when it discovers the ultimate reason for the sacrifices it has to make. And the hour will come when the evillest universal enemy of all time will be finished, as least for a thousand years.” During the war, Goebbels often published articles which included Hitler's prophecy of 1939. In 1943 he published an article entitled "The War and the Jews" which stated: “None of the Führer's prophetic words has come so inevitably true as his prediction that if Jewry succeeded in provoking a second world war, the result would be not the destruction of the Aryan race, but rather the wiping out of the Jewish race. This process is of vast importance and will have unforeseeable consequences that will require time. But it can no longer be halted. It must only be guided in the right direction.” Much can be learnt from Doctor Duke of the dangers of Hitler’s line of reasoning. A position not supported by his befriending of Jews unwittingly himself, and which has oddly characterised anti-Semites befriending them for personal advantage in some instances nevertheless: cf. Wagner with Meyerbeer. In Hitler’s case, his chauffeur and body guard Emil Maurice was reputedly Jewish by virtue of his grandfather and yet was nevertheless made (on the discovery of this fact) an honorary Aryan by Hitler himself. Since one-sixteenth Jews were already exempt from the Nuremberg Laws, Maurice (who became an SS general) typified how some German Jews served in Hitler’s ranks, and exemplified the inconsistency of their race laws. Tolerance of Jews in this respect does however also appear to have been a matter of personal expediency. 228

Considering these anomalies, some pro National Socialists wish to claim Hitler was critical only of Zionists, rather than harbouring a racial imperative more generally against “Jews”. But this is not supported in Mein Kampf, where no clear distinction between Zionists and other “Jews” is made. Nor is it supported by the more racial writings of Nazi academics, nor the propaganda films made by Goebbels in respect to assumed Jewish traits such as avarice, licentiousness, uncleanliness and dishonesty in business practise. Such prejudice and bigotry created a racial stereotype that exacerbated fear and loathing which in turn drove and sustained the Holocaust. 324

protect and strengthen an Aryan supremacism with a purge of this perceived threat from their midst.229 In contrast, an event such as the Holodomor arose from a decision made by Stalin, not as a consequence of any racial prejudice, but only out of a concern to quell emerging nationalism in the Ukraine and further his Soviet collectivisation programme. It was, therefore, a decision made primarily out of political expediency, rather than one inspired, contextualised, or even justified by racial prejudice. In this, National Socialism in Germany gave rise to the political justification for deportation and quite possibly planned genocide based on racial theory. It was justified and sustained with bigotry and hatred. Whereas Communism under Stalin prompted a death event which (if it can be Hitler sought to bolster birth numbers with a programme to engineer and strengthen German and more generally “Aryan” purity. The racial policy was justified by a racist doctrine presuming the superiority of the Aryan race, which was claimed to have scientific legitimacy. The eugenics programme aimed for racial hygiene by compulsory sterilisation and extermination of the Untermenschen (“sub-humans”), which eventually culminated in the Holocaust. In this, Nazi policies labelled Jews, Romani people, Slavs (Poles, Serbs etc.) and persons of colour as inferior non-Aryan “subhumans”. It proposed a racial hierarchy that placed the Herrenvolk (“master race”) of the Volksgemeinschaft (“people's community”) at the top. Jews were at the bottom of the scale, considered inhuman and thus not worthy of life. 229

The Aryan Master Race was graded on a scale of pure Aryan to the non-Aryan subhumans. At the top of the scale were Germans and other Germanic peoples including the Dutch, Scandinavians, and the English, as well as other peoples: such as some northern Italians and the French, who were said to have a suitable admixture of Germanic blood. This view, of Germans as the Aryan master race was widely spread among the German public through propaganda. Hitler failed however to successfully reconcile these objectives with reason under the flag of National Socialism. In his pan European Greater Lebensraum, the Aryan race was supreme, but the German race was in reality essentially Alpine, Nordic, Mediterranean, Dinaric and Eastern Baltic. How then was one to determine who were the true Volk or heirs to the legacy of the Third Reich? Similar problems even beset the National Socialists’ ideas on what constituted Jewishness, which was constantly subject to modification and redefinition as to its racial perimeters and indeed the actions that were needed to be taken.


viewed as a consequence of anything deliberate) was due to a political imperative to quash Ukrainian nationalism in preference to Soviet interests.

That such death events can occur due to purely political

motives, free of racial concerns, can be proven by the events in China under Mao, where a class insurrection of landowners was quashed. 230 This event was not motivated by racial imperatives, but by anti-capitalist economic and class ideology: the enemy being the land owners and wealthy. Similarly, in Cambodia, a purge was justified under the Khymer Rouge for Year Zero to be initiated. A cultural purge identified even parental ties and family connections with the past as a potential threat and a potential subversive threat to its more important political concerns.231

230 During land reform, a significant number of landlords and well-to-do peasants were

beaten to death at mass meetings organised by the Communist Party, as land was taken from them and given to the poor. The Campaign to Suppress Counterrevolutionaries, involved public executions, that targeted mainly former Kuomintang officials, businessmen accused of “disturbing” the market, former employees of Western companies and intellectuals whose loyalty was suspect. In 1976, the U.S. State department estimated as many as a million were killed in the land reform, and 800,000 killed in the counter-revolutionary campaign. Mao himself claimed that a total of 700,000 were killed in attacks on “counter-revolutionaries”. This was during the years 1950–52. However, because there was a policy to select “at least one landlord, and usually several, in virtually every village for public execution”, the number of deaths range between 2 million and 5 million. In addition, at least 1.5 million people, perhaps as many as 4 to 6 million, were sent to “reform through labour” camps, where many perished. Mao played a personal role in organising the mass repressions and established a system of execution quotas, which were often exceeded. He defended these killings as necessary for the process of securing and maintaining political power. The Khmer Rouge regime arrested and eventually executed almost everyone suspected of connection with the former government, or with foreign governments, as well as professionals, intellectuals and artists. This was described as a cultural purge rather than a racial purge. In order to attain the goals of Year Zero Ethnic Vietnamese, ethnic Thai, ethnic Chinese, ethnic Cham, Cambodian Christians, and the Buddhist monkhood were also targeted. These targets appear to have been less race centred and extinguished due to religious, political or cultural affiliation. In respect to religion Catholic, Muslims and or Buddhists were specifically targeted. In the Khmer Rouge's Standing Committee, four members were of Chinese ancestry, two Vietnamese, and two Khmers. Some observers argue that this mixed composition makes it difficult to argue that there was an intent to kill off ethnic minorities in a racial genocide strategy. Whilst Pol Pot is sometimes described as “the Hitler of Cambodia” and “a genocidal 231


In this too, contra Duke, political extremism is quite often the catalyst which redefines tribal loyalties and creates new group distinctions. They are given a rational justification which sustains them, and they are all the more dangerous because of this. This might then lead to the justification of genocide, but not through simply asserting racial supremacism, or fear or hatred of another race, but through rationalising the justification for prejudice against those that do not fit into the political group. In respect to Communism, however, Duke seeks to claim: “If the world had been aware of the Jewish tribalist forces behind Communism and their organized role in the most massive violation of human rights in all of history… the world could have averted their excesses in modern times.” A media blitz in respect to the Holocaust neither lessened recent extinctions in respect of Cambodia or Yugoslavia. Neither, therefore, is it likely that the lack of an awareness of the Holodomor contributed to these quite separate events from still taking place. Duke further makes the case that the wars orchestrated in the Middle East, by what he terms “Zionist techniques of terrorism” implementing


“ethnic cleansing, torture and murder in Palestine and across the Mideast”, were strategies learnt in the Jewish Bolshevik revolt against Russian society, a tendency born of a Jewish racist tribalism, extending back over untold centuries. He claims: “The massacre at Deir Yassin and the ethnic cleansing of 700,000 Palestinians were born of the same misanthropic tribalism which drove the ethnic genocide of Russians and Ukranians.” 232 tyrant”, a cultural and political (rather than racial) absolutism appears to have driven the imperative. 232 The Jewish forces that entered Deir Yassin belonged in the main to two underground, paramilitary groups, the Irgun (Etzel) (National Military Organisation) 327

In this, the issue again must be framed first in terms of political motivations, rather than an imagined inherent disposition of the Jews to slaughter other races, should they oppose the interests of their tribe. Concerning this too, it is doubtful that Stalin was acting primarily out of a sense of ethnic hatred in his ordering of sanctions that instigated the collectivisation pogrom. Neither, is it likely that he was himself strongly in favour or against particular races one way or the other. 233 Considering the evidence, and his shifting attitude and actions, some contrary even to the official Party line, he appears to have acted purely out of a sense of political expediency, but further justified by economic policy. This imperative varied according to the situation and the events. He acted, and the Lehi (Fighters for the Freedom of Israel) also known as the Stern Gang. Both aligned with the right-wing revisionist Zionist movement. In the Deir Yassin massacre, where 254 Arabs were killed, Duke like others with an anti-Semitic bias, conveniently omits the fact that the groups responsible for the act were officially condemned by the organs of the Jewish community. He omits to mention an official apology and sincere regret was sent by David Ben Gurion to King Abdullah after the event. He omits that the attack was centred at a military post in the midst of the village and that the Arab inhabitants had been urged by Jewish forces prior to the attack to leave. He omits to contextualise the event as being part of ongoing hostilities where numerous incidents took place on both sides. For example, three days later 77 Jews (doctors, nurses and other university personnel) travelling in a Red Cross convoy were ambushed and mercilessly killed by Arab forces; an incident where no apology was forthcoming. In this Duke tends to view the massacre, terrible as it was, in a vacuum. He appeals to it to justify in a biased, and not accurately historical way, his anti-Semitic tribal theory of Jews as mass murderers. It is utilised in rather the same way that the bombing of Dresden by allied forces is used by National Socialist apologists and Holocaust revisionists, when they assert that Dresden was the only real Holocaust of the war, or the only one of any significance. This racist tribalism is ultimately thought to stretch back thousands of years. He also asserts in reference to this that Stalin (a mass murderer) was a cultural Judeophile in everything but descent (op. cit. p.244). Yet he notes that by the end of his life he too saw the Jews as “the ultimate threat to both himself and the Russian people�, shamelessly justifying Jewish sufferings by Stalin in the Soviet era. 233


therefore, in the manner necessary only in order to preserve his own personal power, whilst claiming furthermore that it was for the overall benefit of the collective.

(k) Stalin’s steely rule was forged by a political, not a Jewish imperative On January 12, 1931 Stalin gave the following answer to an inquiry on the Soviet attitude towards anti-Semitism from the Jewish News Agency in the United States: “National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism, as an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of cannibalism. Anti-semitism is of advantage to the exploiters as a lightning conductor that deflects the blows aimed by the working people at capitalism. Anti-semitism is dangerous for the working people as being a false path that leads them off the right road and lands them in the jungle. Hence Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but be irreconcilable, sworn enemies of anti-semitism. In the U.S.S.R. anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under U.S.S.R. law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty.”234

This pro Jewish approach was put into practice with the creation of the “Russian Israel”. This was intended to offset the growing Jewish national and religious aspirations of Zionism, and sought to successfully categorise Soviet Jews under Stalin’s nationalist policy. The alternative Israel was Joseph Stalin. "Reply to an Inquiry of the Jewish News Agency in the United States". Works, Vol. 13, July 1930-January 1934. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1954 (p. 30). 234


established with the help of Komzet and OZET in 1928. The Jewish Autonomous Oblast, with its centre in Birobidzhan in the Russian Far East, was hailed as the new “Soviet Zion”. Yiddish, rather than “reactionary” Hebrew, was supposed to be the national language. Proletarian Socialist literature and art would replace Judaism as acceptable culture. Despite a massive domestic and international state propaganda campaign, the Jewish population never reached more than 30% (as of 2003 it was only about 1.2%). The experiment more or less ground to a halt in the mid-1930s, during Stalin’s first campaign of purges; local leaders similarly were not spared during them. The so-called Great Purge (or Great Terror) launched in 1936-1937 involved the execution of over a half-million Soviet citizens accused of treason, terrorism, and other anti-Soviet crimes. The campaign of purges prominently targeted Stalin’s former opponents and other Old Bolsheviks, and included a large-scale purge of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union generally: the repression of the Kulak peasants, Red Army leaders, and ordinary citizens accused of conspiring against the Stalinist government. 235 Although many of the Great Purge victims were ethnic or religious Jews, they were not specifically targeted as a racial group during this campaign,

86 Figes, Orlando (2007). The Whisperers: Private Life in Stalin's Russia. New York: Metropolitan (p. 227-315). 330

at least according to Mikhail Baitalsky,236 David Priestland, 237 Jeffrey Veidlinger,238 Roy Medvedev 239 and Edvard Radzinsky.240 In marked contrast to this attitude, during his meeting with Ribbentrop, Stalin did show anti-Semitic tendencies when he promised to get rid of the “Jewish domination”, especially among intellectuals. 241 After dismissing Maxim Litvinov as Foreign Minister in 1939,242 Stalin immediately directed incoming Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov to “purge the ministry of Jews”. However, he might well have done this as a political expedient to appease Hitler and to signal that the USSR was ready for nonaggression talks. 243 According to some historians, however, Stalin’s anti-Semitic trends were evident in the Kremlin’s policies, and were exacerbated with the exile of

Baitalsky, Mikhail "Russkii evrei vchera i segodnia", unpublished manuscript. Quoted in Roy Medvedev (1989). Let History Judge: The Origins and Consequences of Stalinism. Trans. George Shriver. New York: Columbia University Press (p. 563). 236

Priestland, David (2009). The Red Flag: A History of Communism. New York: Grove Press (p. 282). 237

Veidlinger, Jeffrey (2000). The Moscow State Yiddish Theater: Jewish Culture on the Soviet Stage. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press (p. 10-11). 238

Medvedev, Roy (1989). Let History Judge: The Origins and Consequences of Stalinism. Trans. George Shriver. New York: Columbia University Press (p. 562). 239



Edvard Radzinsky, “Stalin”, Moscow, Vagrius, 1997 (Ch. 24).

Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev Twilight, Moscow, 2003 ( p. 208).

Herf, Jeffrey (2006), The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda During World War II and the Holocaust, Harvard University Press ( p. 56). 242

Herf, Jeffrey (2006), The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda During World War II and the Holocaust, Harvard University Press, p. 56. See also Resis, Albert (2000), "The Fall of Litvinov: Harbinger of the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact", Europe-Asia Studies 52 (1): 35. Also Moss, Walter, A History of Russia: Since 1855, Anthem Press, 2005. 243


Leon Trotsky.244 In the late 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, far fewer Jews were appointed to positions of power than previously. A drop in Jewish representation in senior positions became evident from around the time of the beginning of the late 1930s rapprochement with Germany. The percentage of Jews in positions of power dropped to 6% in 1938, and to 5% in 1940. 245 Yet none of this suggests anything more than a concern to act politically by Stalin to retain his own steely grip on power. The Jewish Autonomous Oblast experienced a revival as the Soviet government sponsored the migration of approximately ten thousand Eastern European Jews to Birobidzhan in 1946-1948.246 In early 1946, the Council of Ministers of the USSR announced a plan to build new infrastructure. Mikhail Kalinin, a champion of the Birobidzhan project since the late 1920s, stated that he still considered the region as a “Jewish national state” that could be revived through “creative toil”. 247 In the meantime, Stalin also publicly warmed to the idea of Israel as a Jewish state. In 1947, the Soviet Union joined the United States in supporting the partition of British Palestine into Jewish and Arab states.

Etinger, Iakov (1995). "The Doctors' Plot: Stalin's Solution to the Jewish Question". In Yaacov Ro'i, Jews and Jewish Life in Russia and the Soviet Union. London: Frank Cass. (p. 103-6). Also Rappaport, Helen, Joseph Stalin: A Biographical Companion, ABC-CLIO, 1999 (p. 297). 244


Gennady Коstyrchenko "Stalin's secret policy: Power and Antisemitism" (2003).

Weinberg, Robert (1998). Stalin's Forgotten Zion: Birobidzhan and the Making of a Soviet Jewish Homeland. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 72-75 246

Weinberg, Robert (1998). Stalin's Forgotten Zion: Birobidzhan and the Making of a Soviet Jewish Homeland. Berkeley: University of California Press (p. 72-75). 247


He supported Israel in the 1948 Arab–Israeli War with weaponry supplied via Czechoslovakia.248 Simultaneously, however, Stalin began a new purge in repressing his wartime allies, the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. In January 1948, Solomon Mikhoels was assassinated on Stalin’s personal orders in Minsk. His murder was disguised as a hit-and-run car accident. Mikhoels was taken to MGB dacha and killed, along with his non-Jewish colleague Golubov-Potapov, under the supervision of Stalin's Deputy Minister of State Security, Sergei Ogoltsov. Their bodies were then dumped on a roadside in Minsk.249 Despite Stalin’s willingness to support Israel early on, various historians suppose that anti-Semitism in the late 1940s and early 1950s was motivated by Stalin’s possible perception of Jews as a potential “fifth column”. This attitude arose due to the pro-Western support for Israel in the Middle East. In respect to this, Orlando Figes suggests that: “After the foundation of Israel in May 1948, and its alignment with the USA in the Cold War, the 2 million Soviet Jews, who had always remained loyal to the Soviet system, were portrayed by the Stalinist regime as a potential fifth column. Despite his personal dislike of Jews, Stalin had been an early supporter of a Jewish state in Palestine, which he had hoped to turn into a Soviet satellite in the Middle East. But as the leadership of the emerging state proved hostile to approaches from the Soviet Union, Stalin became increasingly afraid of pro-Israeli feeling among Soviet Jews. His fears intensified as a result of Golda Meir's arrival in Moscow in the autumn of 1948 as the first Israeli ambassador to the USSR. On her visit to a Moscow Norman Berdichevsky (September 20, 2010). "Israel’s Allies in 1948; The USSR, Czechoslovakia, American Mainline Churches and the Left”, Canada Free Press. 248


Robert Conquest, “Reflections on a Ravaged Century”, Norton, (2000) 333

synagogue on Yom Kippur (13 October), thousands of people lined the streets, many of them shouting ‘Am Yisroel chai’ ('The people of Israel live!')—a traditional affirmation of national renewal to Jews throughout the world but to Stalin a dangerous sign of 'bourgeois Jewish nationalism' that subverted the authority of the Soviet state.”250 Historians Albert S. Lindemann and Richard S. Levy also observe that: “When, in October 1948, during the high holy days, thousands of Jews rallied around Moscow's central synagogue to honor Golda Meir, the first Israeli ambassador, the authorities became especially alarmed at the signs of Jewish disaffection.” 251 Jeffrey Veidlinger writes that: “By October 1948, it was obvious that Mikhoels was by no means the sole advocate of Zionism among Soviet Jews. The revival of Jewish cultural expression during the war had fostered a general sense of boldness among the Jewish masses. Many Jews remained oblivious to the growing Zhdanovshchina and the threat to Soviet Jews that the brewing campaign against 'rootless cosmopolitans' signaled. Indeed, official attitudes toward Jewish culture were ambivalent during this period. On the surface, Jewish culture seemed to be supported by the state: public efforts had been made to sustain the Yiddish theater after Mikhoels's death, Eynikayt was still publishing on schedule, and, most important, the Soviet Union recognized the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. To most Moscow Jews, the state of Soviet Jewry had never been better.” 252 In November 1948, leading members of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee were arrested. They were charged with treason, bourgeois nationalism, and planning to set up a Jewish republic in Crimea serving Figes, Orlando (2008). The Whisperers: Private Life in Stalin's Russia. New York: Picador USA (p. 493). 250

Lindemann, Albert S. & Richard S. Levy (2010). Antisemitism: A History. New York: Oxford University Press (p. 187). 251

Veidlinger, Jeffrey (2000). The Moscow State Yiddish Theater: Jewish Culture on the Soviet Stage. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press (p. 266). 252


American interests. A purge of Jewish culture was evident as the Museum of Environmental Knowledge of the Jewish Autonomous Oblast (established in November 1944) and The Jewish Museum in Vilnius (established at the end of the war) were closed down in 1948. 253 The Historical-Ethnographic Museum of Georgian Jewry, established in 1933, was similarly shut down at the end of 1951. In Birobidzhan, the various Jewish cultural institutions that had been established under Stalin’s earlier policy of support for “proletarian Jewish culture” in the 1930s were closed down. This occurred between late 1948 and early 1949. These included the Kaganovich Yiddish Theatre, the Yiddish publishing house, the Yiddish newspaper Birobidzhan, the library of Yiddish and Hebrew books, and the local Jewish schools. 254 The same happened to Yiddish theatres all over the Soviet Union, beginning with the Odessa Yiddish Theatre and including the Moscow State Jewish Theatre. In early February 1949, the Stalin Prize-winning microbiologist Nikolay Gamaleya, a bacteriologist and member of the Academy of Sciences, wrote a personal letter to Stalin, protesting the growing anti-Semitism: “Judging by absolutely indisputable and obvious indications, the reappearance of antisemitism is not coming from below, not from the masses. . . but is directed from above, by someone's invisible hand. Antisemitism is coming from some high-placed persons who have taken up posts in the leading party organs. . .255 The ninetyyear-old scientist wrote Stalin a second letter in mid-February, Pinkus, Benjamin (1990). The Jews of the Soviet Union: The History of a National Minority. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (p. 205). 253

Pinkus, Benjamin (1990). The Jews of the Soviet Union: The History of a National Minority. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (p. 193). 254

Gamaleya, Nikolay. Letter to J. V. Stalin, Archive of the President of the Russian Federation. Quoted in Vaksberg, Arkady (2003). Iz ada v ray i obratno: yevreyskiy vopros po Leninu, Stalinu i Solzhenitsynu. Moscow: Olimp (p. 344-346). 255


again mentioning the growing antisemitism. In March, Gamaleya died, still having received no answer.” During the night of August 12–13, 1952, remembered as the “Night of the Murdered Poets”, thirteen of the most prominent Yiddish writers of the Soviet Union were executed on Stalin’s orders. Among the victims were Peretz Markish, David Bergelson and Itzik Fefer. The case that such acts were not warranted by an ethnic hatred for Jews specifically, but were motivated by a desire to retain political control, can be supported in reference to a statement made on December 1, 1952 in a Politburo session, where Stalin announced: “Every Jewish nationalist is the agent of the American intelligence service. Jewish nationalists think that their nation was saved by the USA. . . They think they are indebted to the Americans. Among doctors, there are many Jewish nationalists.”256 A notable campaign to quietly remove Jews from positions of authority within the state security services was carried out in 1952-1953. The Russian historians Zhores and Roy Medvedev wrote that according to [MVD] General Sudoplatov, “simultaneously all Jews were removed from the leadership of the security services, even those in very senior positions. In February the anti-Jewish expulsions were extended to regional branches of the MGB. A secret directive was distributed to all regional directorates of the MGB on 22 February, ordering that all Jewish employees of the MGB be dismissed immediately, regardless of rank, age or service record. . . .”257

Lindemann, Albert S. & Richard S. Levy (2010). Antisemitism: A History. New York: Oxford University Press (p. 187-188). 256

Medvedev, Zhores A. & Roy A. Medvedev (2006). The Unknown Stalin. London: I. B. Tauris (p. 43). 257


The outside world was not ignorant of these developments, and even the leading members of the Communist Party USA complained about the situation. Of these, it is unlikely that some may have been deemed a threat simply for being Jews. The likelihood being the more nuanced view that Yiddish culture sustained an unhealthy and dangerous ethnocentric identity counter to Soviet collectivism, or that Jewish “nationalism” presented a subversive threat to Soviet ideology. In this respect, in the memoir “Being Red”, the American writer and Communist Howard Fast (Jewish) recalls a meeting with Soviet writer and World Peace Congress delegate Alexander Fadeyev during this time. Fadeyev insisted that: “There is no anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union”, despite the evidence: “that at least eight leading Jewish figures in the Red Army and in government had been arrested on what appeared to be trumped-up charges. Yiddish-language newspapers had been suppressed. Schools that taught Hebrew had been closed.” 258 On January 13, 1953, the Soviet Union’s TASS information agency announced the unmasking of a conspiracy of so-called “doctorspoisoners” who had covertly attempted to decapitate the Soviet leadership. The accused doctors were all senior physicians: most of them were Jewish, who had allegedly confessed to planning and successfully carrying out heinous assassinations, including the covert murders of such high-profile Soviet citizens as Alexander Shcherbakov (died 1945) and politician Andrey Zhdanov (died 1948). The alleged conspirators were accused of acting on behalf of both the American and British intelligence

Fast, Howard (1994). Being Red: A Memoir. Armon, New York: M. E. Sharpe (p. 217-218). 258


services and represented an anti-Soviet international Jewish bourgeoisnationalist organisation.259 As Western press accused the Soviet Union of anti-Semitism, the Central Committee of Communist Party decided to organise a propaganda trick: a collective letter by the Jewish public, condemning with fervour “the murderers in white overalls” and the agents of imperialism and Zionism. It sought to assure there was no anti-Semitism in the USSR. The letter was signed by well-known scientists and culture figures, but they had been forced to do so by the NKVD. 260 However, the letter, initially planned to be published in February, 1953, remained unpublished. Instead of the letter, “The Simple-minded and the Swindlers” was published in Pravda, featuring numerous characters with Jewish names, all of them swindlers, villains, and saboteurs, whom the naïve Russian people trusted, having lost vigilance. This did incite a new wave of anti-Semitic hysteria, amidst rumors that all Jews would be sent to Siberia, similar to other ethnic groups. Only Stalin’s death the same year relieved the fear. 261 During this time, Soviet Jews were dubbed as persons of Jewish ethnicity, but the charge of anti-Semitism at least in terms of a prejudice towards Jews (due to their racial lineage) was still denied. In respect to this

Ro'i, Yaacov (1980). Soviet Decision Making in Practice: The USSR and Israel, 1947-1954. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Books (p. 373). 259

Edvard Radzinsky. Stalin (in Russian). Moscow, Vagrius, 1997. available online. Translated version: "Stalin", 1996, (Ch. 24). 260

Edvard Radzinsky. Stalin (in Russian). Moscow, Vagrius, 1997 (available online). Translated version: "Stalin". 261


contrary attitude, a dean of the Marxism-Leninism department at one of the Soviet Universities explained the policy to his students: “One of you asked if our current political campaign can be regarded as antisemitic. Comrade Stalin said: "We hate National Socialists not because they are Germans, but because they brought enormous suffering to our land". Same can be said about the Jews.”262

In defence of a political, rather than specifically racial bias, some of Stalin’s associates were Jews, or had Jewish spouses, including Lazar Kaganovich.263 Many of them were purged, including Nikolai Yezhov’s wife and Polina Zhemchuzhina, who was Vyacheslav Molotov’s wife, and also Bronislava Poskrebysheva.264 However, as historian Geoffrey Roberts points out, Stalin: “continued to fête Jewish writers and artists even at the height of the anti-Zionist campaign of the early 1950s.” 265

(l) Stalin’s personal attitude to Jews When Stalin’s young daughter Svetlana fell in love with a prominent Soviet filmmaker Alexei Kapler, a Jew twenty-three years her elder, Stalin was strongly irritated by the relationship. According to Svetlana:

Benedikt Sarnov, “Our Soviet Newspeak: A Short Encyclopedia of Real Socialism”, Moscow: 2002, "Persons of Jewish ethnicity"( pages 287-293). 262


Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar. New York: Random House Inc. 2003.


“Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar”, New York: Random House Inc. 2003.

Roberts, Geoffrey (2006). “Stalin's Wars: From World War to Cold War, 19391953”, New Haven: Yale University Press (p. 341). 265


“He was irritated more than anything else by the fact that Kapler was Jewish.”266 The official conviction, however, sentenced him to ten years of hard labour in a gulag on the charges of being an “English spy”. So too, when Stalin’s daughter later fell in love with Grigori Morozov (another Jew) and sought to marry him, Stalin agreed to their marriage after much pleading on her part. He did, however refuse to attend the wedding. This then suggests not anti-Semitism as jealousy to any who loved his daughter. Stalin’s son Yakov also married a Jewish woman, Yulia Meltzer. Stalin disapproved at first but grew increasingly fond of her. Stalin’s biographer too, Simon Sebag Montefiore, writes that Lavrenty Beria’s son noted his father could list a number of past affairs of Stalin’s that had involved Jewish women. 267 Nikita Khrushchev in contrast wrote in his memoirs that: “A hostile attitude toward the Jewish nation was a major shortcoming of Stalin’s. In his speeches and writings as a leader and theoretician there wasn't even a hint of this. God forbid that anyone assert that a statement by him smacked of antisemitism. Outwardly everything looked correct and proper. But in his inner circle, when he had occasion to speak about some Jewish person, he always used an emphatically distorted pronunciation. This was the way backward people lacking in political consciousness would express themselves in daily life—people with a contemptuous attitude toward Jews. They would deliberately mangle the Russian language, putting on a Jewish accent or imitating certain negative

N. Tolstoy (ibid. p. 24). Sebag-Montefiore, Simon (2005). “Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar”. New York: Random House (p. 267). 266 267


characteristics [attributed to Jews]. Stalin loved to do this, and it became one of his characteristic traits.”268 He further professed that Stalin frequently made anti-Semitic comments after World War II. 269 Analysing various explanations for Stalin’s perceived attitude in his book “The Lesser Terror: Soviet State Security, 1939-1953”, historian Michael Parrish posits that: “It has been suggested that Stalin, who remained first and foremost a Georgian throughout his life, somehow became a 'Great Russian' and decided that Jews would make a scapegoat for the ills of the Soviet Union. Others, such as the Polish writer Aleksander Wat (himself a victim), claim that Stalin was not an antisemite by nature, but the pro-Americanism of Soviet Jews forced him to follow a deliberate policy of antisemitism. Wat's views are, however, colored by the fact that Stalin, for obvious reasons, at first depended on Jewish Communists to help carry out his postwar policies in Poland. I believe a better explanation was Stalin's sense of envy (an occupational hazard for Marxists), which consumed him throughout his life. He also found in Jews a convenient target. By late 1930, Stalin, as [his daughter's] memoirs indicate, was suffering from a full-blown case of antisemitism.” 270 On the other hand, in “Esau's Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews”, historian Albert S. Lindemann observes that:

Khrushchev, Nikita & Sergei Khrushchev (Ed.) (2006). Memoirs of Nikita Khrushchev, Volume 2. University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press (p. 47). 269 Khrushchev, Nikita & Sergei Khrushchev (Ed.) (2006). Memoirs of Nikita Khrushchev, Volume 2. University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press. (p. 50). 268

Parrish, Michael. The Lesser Terror: Soviet State Security, 1939-1953. Westport Connecticut: Greenwood Press (p. 197). 270


“Determining Stalin's real attitude to Jews is difficult. Not only did he repeatedly speak out against anti-Semitism but both his son and daughter married Jews, and several of his closest and most devoted lieutenants from the late 1920s through the 1930s were of Jewish origin, for example Lazar Moiseyevich Kaganovich, Maxim Litvinov, and the notorious head of the secret police, Genrikh Yagoda. There were not so many Jews allied with Stalin on the party's right as there were allied with Trotsky on the left, but the importance of men like Kaganovich, Litvinov, and Yagoda makes it hard to believe that Stalin harbored a categorical hatred of all Jews, as a race, in the way that Hitler did. Scholars as knowledgeable and diverse in their opinions as Isaac Deutscher and Robert Conquest have denied that anything as crude and dogmatic as Nazi-style antiSemitism motivated Stalin. It may be enough simply to note that Stalin was a man of towering hatreds, corrosive suspicions, and impenetrable duplicity. He saw enemies everywhere, and it just so happened that many of his enemies—virtually all his enemies—were Jews, above all, the enemy, Trotsky. Jews in the party were often verbally adroit, polylingual, and broadly educated—all qualities Stalin lacked. To observe, as his daughter Svetlana has, that 'Stalin did not like Jews,' does not tell us much, since he 'did not like' any group: His hatreds and suspicions knew no limits; even party members from his native Georgia were not exempt. Whether he hated Jews with a special intensity or quality is not clear.” 271 It is not even clear if Stalin himself was a Jew. Even if he was, it could (considering his ambivalent attitude towards other Jews) in any case only strengthen the case against an underlying Jewish tribalism, or loyalty mindset that unites them, as Dr Duke supposes. Furthermore, if he wasn’t, the argument for an underlying Jewishness, rather than a political imperative, being responsible for implementing genocide against the Ukrainians is further undermined.

Lindemann, Albert (2000). Esau's Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (p. 454). 271


(m) Stalin’s disputed Jewish background Stalin’s name at birth was Iosif Vissarionovich Dzugashvili, which some erroneously suggest means “Son of a Jew” in Old Georgian. Overlooking his mother, others have asserted Stalin’s actual father was a Jew named David Papisnedov: a local trader, or that Stalin’s actual father was a Jewish trader named Nikolai Przhevalsky, whom Stalin’s mother worked for as a washerwoman. There are, in any case, any number of hypotheses and popular rumours about the “real” parentage of Stalin.272 There is evidence that Stalin, in his early years as a revolutionary also took the nickname “Bar Kochba”; thus emulating the Jewish religious zealot whose name is associated with the second Jewish revolt against Rome. In fact Stalin actually only used the nickname “Koba”.273 “Koba” being a Georgian romantic and literary figure similar to Robin Hood.274 This fits the Marxist revolutionary Stalin a lot better than the alleged “Bar Kochba”, as it emphasises the legend’s ethos of “robbing from the rich to give to the poor”. The origin of Stalin’s use of the nickname “Koba” probably lies again with Egnatashvili, another acclaimed father, as he used “Koba” as his wrestling alias and was still close to Stalin in 1929. 275

Was Prejevalsky really the father of Joseph Stalin?". Retrieved 19 October 2008. 272


Wood (op. cit. p. 14).


Deutscher (op. cit. p. 7).


Montefiore (op.cit. p. 387). 343

The “Bar Kochba” fallacy is supposed to strengthen the Jewish claim, along with the use of “Djugashvili”, and the supposed meaning “Son of a Jew”. The meaning of the name is one that dates back to the Ukrainian nationalist diaspora of the 1930s, where it appears to have been first propagated. It was popularised as a theory by Maurice Pinay in his work “The Plot against the Church” 2000, 1967 (p. 67) where he states: “At the head of the names stands Stalin himself, who for a long time was regarded as a Georgian of pure descent. But it has been revealed, that he belongs to the Jewish race; for Djougachvili, which is his surname, means “Son of Djou,” and Djou is a small island in Persia, whither many banished Portuguese “Gypsies” migrated, who late settled in Georgia. Today it is almost completely proved, that Stalin has Jewish blood, although he neither confirmed or denied the rumors, about which mutterings began in his direction.” The argument made by Pinay and others lays particular stress on the meaning of the surname “Djougachvili” or “Djugashvili”, which in Pinay’s opinion means “Son of Djou” and in the precursor argument: “Son of a Jew”. But neither of these are, in fact, correct since the word “Djuga” in old Georgian does not mean “Jew” or “Djou”, but “iron” or “steel”. The old Georgian words for Jew were in fact “Ebraeli” or “Uriya”, which bear no resemblance to “Djuga” or “Dzhuga”. 276 Hence Stalin’s surname would actually mean something like “Son of Steel”, which then makes sense of Stalin’s adoption of “Stalin” as his surname, which in Russian roughly means “Man of Steel”.277 276

Edvard Radzinsky, 1997, “Stalin”, 1st Edition, Anchor: London (p. 39).

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. 277


Montefiore's claim, based on Stalin’s mother’s suggestion, is that Djugashvili in fact means “Son of the Herd” and is possibly Ossetian in origin.278 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 were his competitors Leon Trotsky and Maxim Litvinov. 279. However, his daughter has also emphasised this “Asian” legacy in interviews. This was most likely a tactic of both Trotsky’s and Litvinov’s, as old Bolsheviks and comrades of Stalin, 280 to try to minimise the impact of his influence on the international Communist movement. The intention was to play on the traditional Russian dislike of the peoples of the Caucasus’ whom they considered to be racially alien. This is evident as early as 1925, when Trotsky and Kamenev both argued this when they were trying to turn the Soviet Central Committee against Stalin, so that they could become the leaders, rather than their common Jewishness. 281 This is ironically represented in some of Stalin’s first actions as de facto ruler,







Simon Sebag Montefiore, 2007, “Young Stalin”, 1st Edition, Phoenix: London ( p. 19). 278

Leon Trotsky, 1947, 'Stalin: An Appraisal of the Man and his Influence', 2nd Edition, Hollis and Carter: London, pp. 417-420. Vojtech Mastny, 1976, 'The Cassandra in the Foreign Commissariat: Maxim Litvinov and the Cold War', Foreign Affairs, Vol. 54, (p. 366-376). 279

Robert Service, 2011, 'Spies and Commissars: Bolshevik Russia and the West', 1st Edition, MacMillan: Basingstoke. 280


Reiber, 'Stalin as Georgian' (op. cit. p. 18). 345

governmental systems of the different nationalities that made up the Russian Empire,


in spite of having been instrumental in having set

them up. 283 In this respect, Reiber


and Wood


argue for his status as a racial

outsider in Russian society, and therefore that he felt a need to modify superstructure, not just the foundation. In this, nationality is an abstract creation of economic necessity, and Soviet ideas of nationality were made to accommodate his own status as an alien. Stalin did in fact state at least once that he was more Asian than European but was careful to clarify his meaning when he added that he was a “Russified Georgian”. 286. What Stalin meant was he was part of a reviled and distrusted community in Russian society and born of a society that owes more to Asia than to Europe, which meant perhaps in his view that he has had to become European through becoming Russian, rather than remaining identified as Asiatic by being Georgian. 287

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 282

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. 283

Albert Reiber, 2001, 'Stalin: Man of the Borderlands', American Historical Review, Vol. 5, (p. 1651-1691). 284


Alan Wood, 2005, 'Stalin and Stalinism', 2nd Edition, Routledge: New York (p. 11).


Reiber, 'Stalin as Georgian' (op. cit. p. 18).


Montefiore (op. cit. p. 40-43). 346

This subsequent shift of identity is behind Stalin’s time as a student priest, and explains his attraction to Marxism. A view that allowed him to change from an Asiatic to a European, free from the restrictions of the Christian priesthood; which at that time in practise, if not in theory, enacted racial discrimination. His freedom, he justified, would be by the comradeship encapsulated in denying the validity of all previous ideologies except those enunciated by Marx. This in spite of the fact, as Pipes has argued, 288 that Marxism had in actuality very little influence in guiding the politics and policy of the Soviet Union (except in its earliest years) 289 but was rather a way of rationalising and justifying it. 290 Stalin’s identity is linked with his attitude to race, because he was conscious of being Georgian and was in a sense both proud of it and ashamed of it simultaneously. In this way, he was comparable to Jews like Trotsky;


as he was a member of a minority that may have felt itself

persecuted by the Russians.


This if anything would also serve to

strengthen his alliance with those Jews who, resentful of the fact, also sought to oppose the Russians. 293

Richard Pipes, 1994, 'Russia under the Bolshevik Regime', 1st Edition, The Harvill Press: London (p. 502). 288

Andrjez Walikci, 1995, 'Marxism and the Leap to the Kingdom of Freedom', 1st Edition, Stanford University Press: Stanford (p. 2). 289

Isaac Deutscher, 1967, 'Stalin: A Political Biography', 2nd Edition, Oxford University Press: New York (p. 458-460). 290


Reiber, 'Stalin as Georgian' (op. cit. p. 21).


Montefiore (op. cit. p. 133-136).


Wood (op. cit. p. 11-12). 347

However, the association of different races in a political alliance undermines a Jewish tribal mindset theory and by consequence the Jewish supremacism charge as a primary cause for revolution. The alliance can be also interpreted more readily as a political cause and consequently as a class struggle. It is a simple matter to use a nationality denying intellectual system like Marxism, to channel an alliance of races into a proletariat struggle against a class in a superior position, without seeming to be overtly racist and thereby diminish both nationalistic and international appeal.

However, Stalin’s ambivalence to the Jews once in power remains and his attitude towards Jews, although significant, remains unresolved. It may have been reflected specifically in his hatred for Trotsky, but this appears again to be one of political expediency and perpetuated by a concern for retaining absolute power against (in some quarters) a perceived hero in exile, rather than driven by a specific racial hatred. If it was indicative of a wider dislike for Jews generally, then his anti-Semitism fundamentally determined how the whole post-war world developed. 294

The assertion of Russian National-Bolshevism as a whole under Stalin meant that many of the original Bolshevik policies were reversed on such issues as the family and parenthood. From 1948 “rootless cosmopolitanism”, which was thought to be synonymous with Jewish influences in the arts and even in the sciences, was purged in favour of a specifically “Soviet culture” based firmly on folk tradition. 294


(n) Summarising the dangers of Duke’s racist perspective Whilst Stalin’s hatred against all that opposed his absolute and tyrannical power is not in dispute, nor his scant disregard for human life lessened by his willingness to implement murder for political ends, what is largely unproven was his attitude towards Jews in terms of a pro-Semitic favouritism; suggestive of supporting a Jewish-Bolshevism tribal thesis, or an anti-Semitism that opposed it. Based on the evidence, he himself was most likely not of the Jewish race, nor did he consider himself particularly loyal to Jews. The Holodomor ultimately rests as Stalin’s responsibility. How then it can be cited, as David Duke does, as being indicative of an underlying Jewish tribal imperative, or to be more precise (which Duke isn’t) indicative of a Jewish Stalinism is frankly perverse. The Holodomor was an atrocity originating from political extremism. A case can be made it was not motivated by racial hatred specifically. It was ordered by Stalin (a non-Jew) and implemented by his Soviet agents, irrespective of whether they were Jews, Christians, Atheists, Caucasian, Russians or indeed East Slavic Ukrainians. It was implemented in the name of a Soviet collectivist political cause, which sought to downplay national identities and quash nationalist uprisings. Racial identity was deemed concomitant to this, and any loyalty to it was thus deemed politically incorrect. The proposed political solution to counter racism, however, was an irony, which itself justified increasing totalitarianism and


a scant disregard for the value of an individual life. 295 The anti-national ethos ultimately put it at odds with Zionism as a political movement. In respect to the Holodomor, racism fuelled by ideas of Jewish supremacism was not the underlying cause. In this, the numerous ethnicities, nationalities, Gentiles and Jews were united by the one feature they had in common: their allegiance to the political ideology of Communism, and the desire to quash Ukrainian nationalism in the name of the political ideology of collectivism to create the new national Soviet identity and culture. Under Stalin, this was even overridden by his own individual dogmatism, and to such an extent that other individuals were considered expendable to further the advantages of Stalinism and particularly advantage Stalin himself.296 The concerns were characteristic of a tyrant and dictator. All else is pure speculation by Duke and cannot

Stalinism represented a perverse form of Russian centric nationalism and a departure from the more international Marxism of his predecessor Lenin. In this revolution was reduced from a global to a national phenomenon. Within the perimeter of the Soviet collective however, Russian totalitarianism characterised, pervaded and enforced the Union. In this, national identity was determined by the General Line: a dictatorial programme determining the political, cultural and social aspects of life as approved by Stalin himself. 295

Scholars disagree on the relative importance of natural factors and bad economic policies as causes of the famine and the extent to which the destruction of the Ukrainian peasantry was premeditated on the part of Stalin. Using Holodomor in reference to the famine emphasises its man-made aspects, arguing that actions such as rejection of outside aid, confiscation of all household foodstuffs, and restriction of population movement confer intent, defining the famine as genocide. 296

The loss of life has been compared to the Holocaust: see Wikipedia Zisels, Josef; Kharaz, Halyna (11 November 2007). "Will Holodomor receive the same status as the Holocaust?". "Maidan" Alliance. If Soviet policies and actions were conclusively documented as intending to eradicate the rise of Ukrainian nationalism, they would fall under the legal definition of genocide. In the absence of absolute documentary proof of intent, however, scholars have also argued that the Holodomor was ultimately a consequence of the economic problems associated with radical economic changes implemented during the period of liquidation of private property and Soviet industrialisation. 350

be conclusively proven. 297 Neither is it productive or courageous to do so in respect of citing the Holodomor as an example of Jewish malevolence.

Robert Conquest, the author of the Harvest of Sorrow, has stated that the famine of 1932–33 was a deliberate act of mass murder, if not genocide, committed as part of the collectivisation programme in the Soviet Union. Conquest and R.W. Davies and Stephen G. Wheatcroft – believe that, had industrialisation been abandoned, the famine would have been “prevented”, or at least significantly alleviated: 297

“[We] regard the policy of rapid industrialisation as an underlying cause of the agricultural troubles of the early 1930s, and we do not believe that the Chinese or NEP versions of industrialisation were viable in Soviet national and international circumstances.” They see the leadership under Stalin as making significant errors in planning for the industrialisation of agriculture. Dr. Michael Ellman of the University of Amsterdam argues that, in addition to deportations, internment in the gulag camps and shootings was evidence that Stalin used starvation as a weapon in his war against the peasantry (Ellman 2005). He analyses the actions of the Soviet authorities, two of commission and one of omission: (i) exporting 1.8 million tonnes of grain during the mass starvation (enough to feed more than five million people for one year), (ii) preventing migration from famine afflicted areas (which may have cost an estimated 150,000 lives) and (iii) making no effort to secure grain assistance from abroad (which caused an estimated 1.5 million excess deaths), as well as the attitude of the Stalinist regime in 1932–33 (that many of those starving to death were counterrevolutionaries, idlers or thieves, who fully deserved their fate). Based on this analysis, however, he concludes that the actions of Stalin’s authorities against Ukrainians do not meet the standards of specific intent required to prove genocide as defined by the UN convention (with the notable exception of the case of Kuban Ukrainians). Ellman (2007) further concludes that if the soft definition of genocide is used, the actions of Stalin’s authorities do fit such a definition of genocide. Regarding the actions taken by Stalin in the early 1930s, Ellman states that, from the standpoint of contemporary international criminal law, Stalin is “clearly guilty” of “crimes against humanity” and that, from the standpoint of national criminal law, the only way to defend Stalin from a charge of mass murder is “to argue he was ignorant of the consequences of his actions”. He also rebukes Davies and Wheatcroft for, among other things, their “very narrow understanding” of intent. He states: “According to them, only taking an action whose sole objective is to cause deaths among the peasantry counts as intent. Taking an action with some other goal (e.g. exporting grain to import machinery) but which the actor certainly knows will also cause peasants to starve does not count as intentionally starving the peasants. However, this is an interpretation of 'intent' which flies in the face of the general legal interpretation.” Adam Jones (2010 pp. 136-137) stresses that many of the actions of the Soviet leadership during 1931–32 should be considered genocidal. Not only did the famine kill millions, it took place against “a backdrop of persecution, mass execution, and 351

incarceration clearly aimed at undermining Ukrainians as a national group”. Norman Naimark, a historian at Stanford University, an expert in modern East European history, genocide and ethnic cleansing, argues that some of the actions of Stalin’s regime, not only those during the Holodomor, but also Dekulakisation and targeted campaigns (with over 110,000 shot) against particular ethnic groups, thus emphasising racial targeting, can be considered genocidal. In 2006, the Security Service of Ukraine declassified more than 5,000 pages of Holodomor archives SBU documents show that Moscow singled out Ukraine by not giving it the same humanitarian aid given to regions outside it. The statistical distribution of famine victims closely reflects the ethnic distribution of the rural population of Ukraine. Thus, the Moldavian, Polish, German and Bulgarian population that mostly resided in the rural communities of Ukraine suffered in the same proportion as the rural Ukrainian population. This undermines racial prejudice against a specific group. James Mace was one of the first to show that the famine constituted genocide. But British economist Stephen Wheatcroft, who studied the famine, believed that Mace's work debased the field of Russian studies. However, Wheatcroft's characterisation of the famine deaths as largely excusable, negligent homicide has been challenged by economist Steven Rosefielde, who states: “Grain supplies were sufficient to sustain everyone if properly distributed. People died mostly of terror-starvation (excess grain exports, seizure of edibles from the starving, state refusal to provide emergency relief, bans on outmigration, and forced deportation to food-deficit locales), not poor harvests and routine administrative bungling.” In his 1953 speech the Father of the [UN] Genocide Convention, Dr Raphael Lemkin described the destruction of the Ukrainian nation as being a “classic example of genocide”, for: “...the Ukrainian is not and never has been a Russian. His culture, his temperament, his language, his religion, are all eliminate (Ukrainian) nationalism...the Ukrainian peasantry was sacrificed...a famine was necessary for the Soviet and so they got one to order...if the Soviet program succeeds completely, if the intelligentsia, the priest, and the peasant can be eliminated [then] Ukraine will be as dead as if every Ukrainian were killed, for it will have lost that part of it which has kept and developed its culture, its beliefs, its common ideas, which have guided it and given it a soul, which, in short, made it a nation...This is not simply a case of mass murder. It is a case of genocide, of the destruction, not of individuals only, but of a culture and a nation.” Timothy Snyder, Professor of History at Yale University, asserts that in 1933 “Joseph Stalin was deliberately starving Ukraine” through a campaign of requisitions that began Europe’s era of mass killing. He argues the Soviets themselves ensured that the term genocide, contrary to Lemkin’s intentions, excluded political and economic groups. Thus, the Ukrainian famine can be presented as somehow less genocidal because it targeted a class, kulaks, as well as a nation. 352

The Holodomor should be remembered as a terrible event that warns of the horrors and dangers of Communism, not twisted in order to perpetuate and further strengthen or awaken anti-Semitic prejudice more generally. Lest the horrors of the Holocaust be repeated again.


Jewish Bolshevism cannot even be cited as proving a Jewish responsibility for the Holodomor generally; it is a dangerous conflation propagating a Jewish universal cast in prejudiced, negative terms; an argument designed to highlight the dangers of racism and supremacism, but which prompts such dangers itself. In all of this, the correct perspective should be one cast purely in political, rather than racial terms. JewishBolshevism was clearly not an ethnocentric political imperative

In addition to the philosophical arguments used to warn of the danger of an antiSemitic tribal-racist explanation for revolution, murder and genocide, let it be remembered that Dr David Duke is a man of influence. He is a former Louisiana State Representative, a man who has run for political office, and a campaign to be President of the United States. He has his own publishing house for the distribution of his own books, and an army of followers who assist him in producing his professionally made, high definition videos. He has also rubbed shoulders with influential people such as Solzhenitsyn, whose complex and subtle work appears to be misunderstood as antiSemitic, as well as others such as Aleksandr Dugin (see below) a former advisor to the Kremlin, whose dangerous philosophical views on neo-Eurasianism will be the subject of forthcoming work in the future. 298


motivating the Holodomor. In so far as it can be defined, “Jewish Bolshevism” should denote Bolsheviks who just so happened to be Jewish by an accident of birth. It does not denote that the political ideology itself was specifically Jewish, indicative of some stereotype of what Jewish thinking consists, nor originated because of specifically racially derived, tribal or religious imperatives. Stalinism embraced a dictatorial totalitarianism, not in keeping with Marxism’s original principles.

A conflation of Jewishness with

Bolshevism should neither be propagated nor entertained. It is a dangerous and fallacious conflation; as is the racial interpretation of Jewishness as a supremacism that exacerbates malicious or murderous intent. The consequence of such fallacious thinking has been borne out by the events of history. Such events have in the past been used to perpetuate and justify racial prejudice and genocide against the Jewish race itself. Doctor Duke is guilty of making a similar error in his attempt to lessen the likelihood of racism and genocide occurring. Doctor Duke usually highlights the atrocities committed by Jews, rather than Communists, Marxist-Leninists or Stalinists more specifically. In this he generally conflates Communism with what it means to be Jewish, in both a religious and racial sense. He tends to add Talmudism and Zionism to the mix, widening his target to identify a common enemy. He then seeks to synthesise the disparity of these perspectives with a racial explanation that Jews act tribally and collectively. In respect to Communism, and his citing of the Holodomor, he still focuses on Kaganovich and Yogoda in terms of their Jewishness as the overriding imperative that informed their actions. It is an interpretation that downplays their political persuasion, or at least presumes Jewish– 354

Bolshevism, but it reflects a prejudice against the Jewish race more generally. It further lessens the distinction of those Jews who oppose it ideologically and on religious grounds. When Duke does speak of Communists, he rather conflates it with a false notion of Jewish ethnocentric supremacism. In respect to Stalin, he does not view his personal decisions as taking precedence, nor does he view it as an act of political expediency by him. He rather predictably seeks to claim there is an overriding ethos being implemented by recourse to Jewishness that brought about the slaughter. Specific Jewish individuals are identified to support the view. He correctly emphasises that the Holodomor should be remembered (as it should be) in order to prevent such atrocities happening again, but he does so disingenuously, emphasising the perpetration of such events in terms of an exclusively Jewish imperative. He does this persistently, in order to awaken people to the dangerous idea of Jewish supremacism: a supposed innate bigotry within Jews running through their lineage into the present. This is a false notion and vilifies the race unfairly and stereotypically. It is an interpretation too that fails to emphasise historic events in terms of a Soviet political ideology that sought to redefine, override and amalgamate racial and religious distinctions. In this, his line of reasoning is a deceitful strategy itself, deliberately incited to promulgate and justify (one suspects) a White pro Neo-Nazi supremacism.299 Duke appears to be more in line with the school of thought promulgated by The Occidental Quarterly journal. A journal that explicitly rejects Neo-conservatism and calls for a “third school” to emerge from paleo-Conservatism in the form of an ideology of Western European identity politics. It holds that the American political order of freedom and liberty is under ethnic and ideological threat from mostly Jewish ideologies. Its foreign policy positions, broadly, are anti-immigration with the exception of “selected people of European ancestry” and advocates noninterventionism, including the rejection of influence from Israel and Mexico on U.S. politics. See “A Statement of Principles”- The Occidental Quarterly. 299


Duke’s line of reasoning displays racism pure and simple. Racism (as opposed to racialism as the distinction of race) seeks to justify supremacism








Consequently, it should not be supported. In this, the very vilification and racial identification that Dr Duke is himself committing (and yet piously and somewhat hypocritically warning against) is perpetuated by his own line of reasoning. The dangers of such reasoning, however, led directly to the horrors of the Holocaust itself, as my history detailing the JewishBolshevik conflation shows. His reasoning further seeks to justify such a

Some members of the British New Right (amongst others) promulgate the slogan “Africa for the Blacks and Europe for the Whites” to ultimately define an Imperium Europa of White supremacist rule that defines yet another variation of a New World Order. A view often preached by people with sympathies towards a pro-National Socialist, Holocaust revisionist mindset. The pro-Palestinian, Israel denying, Birobidzhan (Jewish Autonomous Blast) advocate Lady Michele Renouf is such a disciple and friend of Duke’s. Whilst she herself claims not to be anti-Semitic, on the grounds that she does not regard Judaism as genetic and criticises Christian Zionism in equivalent terms (“you don't have to be Jewish to be Jew-ish”), she has still described Judaism as a “repugnant and hate-filled religion’. It is clear, even in her own thinking however, that the Torah aligned ultra-orthodox Jews do not readily fit into this classification. The European Jewish Congress, however, quoted Lady Renouf as telling the Tehran Holocaust denial Conference in 2006: “Anti-Semitism is caused by the anti-Gentile nature of Judaism”. She advocates instead adherence to the four classical virtues, which she believes to be the basis of Western civilisation and the U.S. constitution. In this, no detailed debate defining the terms Jew or Jewish is made sufficiently. The Socratic concern to define is often lauded as the basis of Western civilisation by Lady Renouf, but she hardly seeks to elucidate her definitions of “Jewish” and “Jew-ish” sufficiently. One presumes certain religious Jews such as Neturei Karta are not a problem, as they support her anti- Israel beliefs, and she is fond of quoting them. Thus, some religious Jews, aren’t a problem, in spite of her quoted claims to the contrary regarding Judaism. One presumes then her problems rest with Jews who disagree with her political views then, but she often tends to characterise this as a “Jew-ish” mindset and in doing so the tendency is to draw it along purely racial, rather than ideological lines. This again logically supposes universalism and anti-Semitism.


conflation, by focusing on the primacy of a Jewish tribalism cast in immoral and supremacist terms. Duke attempts to define Jewishness as a negative universal, rather than dealing with events on a case by case basis. He does this to influence people’s thinking to a more anti-Semitic view about Jews generally. In doing so, he fails to make this an issue of whether political extremism influences actions and imperatives, but casts it in terms of an innate racial tendency that determines political events. He justifies it with an antiSemitic, tribal supremacist rationale, that is often utilised and propagated more broadly by “white nationalist� groups to justify and further their own ethno-centric, racio-political perspectives.


Conclusion Whilst the case might well be made that Jews must have some universally defining characteristic unique to themselves (by virtue of being Jewish) this quality does not necessitate that they are stereotypically immoral, murdering, devious supremacists, that seek to further agendas and goals for their own Jew-centric purposes. In this too, the religious claim that Jews are the “chosen people� need not ipso facto denote a notion of supremacism. The same might equally be said of the racial identification. Any racial identification as a Jew need not ipso facto denote negative characteristics, or even a tendency to consider themselves superior as Jews. Difference, or exclusivity, or separatism, need not necessarily denote supremacism. Neither does it mean any negative characteristics they might share are exclusive to them. They might equally be ones we all share. In this, it cannot be rationally argued that Jews should be turned into scapegoats for crimes committed by certain Jewish individuals, simply because they were acting (in the case of the Russian Revolution and Holodomor) to support other, non- Jew specific, political causes. Key to the Jewish conspiracy theory is the idea that Jews act collectively, because their tribal identification overrides any political, social or intellectual disagreements or allegiances they might ordinarily choose to hold. It requires believing chosen political groups exert less of an influence than the individuals’ particular birth group does: even though freedom of choice denotes a more personal, stronger, rationale than ethnic identity, which is given merely as an accident of birth. An example of this kind of argument might be that Englishmen (typically identified as Whites) are united in some stronger sense as Englishmen, 358

and that this is a stronger imperative than self-chosen political differences that divide them.300 Fundamentally, the racial tribal identity drives the imperative and effectively overrides differences of political ideology, where they might ordinarily be in disagreement. They act, then, primarily in the interest of their “English” group (or tribe) and this unites them in some deeper sense that negates intellectual disagreements, or even (as Duke supposes) forms them in a particular way based on racial qualities, which even shape cultural and social tendencies. But this reasoning is a plain contradiction and fallacy. An ardent English Socialist would not necessarily find common ground with an ardent English Conservative just because of their common recognition that they belong to the same racial or ethnic group. The shared idea of acting in the best interests of their common country might unite them, but this general aim would in practise be a weak palliative when both have such strong political differences of opinion as to how it is to be practically achieved. The more ardent the patriotism in fact, the more passionate the disagreement would be. Neither can a racial profile be considered as forming exclusive political allegiances, as many clearly stand in opposition to each other.

For “white nationalists” racial identity informs the prime imperative for group behaviour. It overrides social or political groupings therefore, but nevertheless is often conflated with it. Thus, for example, they speak of the necessity of the “Englishman” in one breath needing to secure or preserve the legacy, culture and traditions of our “white race”, whilst simultaneously they conflate national identity (being British) with these racial distinctions. It is not clear in this why the “white race” should denote a universally held value system that determines imperatives. If this was the case, any number of wars domestic and international would never have been fought. The War of the Roses for example could have been justified as a pointless difference of opinion that was of less importance than our common racial lineage. The American War of Independence on this reasoning too would never have happened. 300


If the racial imperative is viewed as trumping political allegiances, however, suspicions naturally arise when any minority number of an alien “tribe” appear to be present in disproportionate numbers and appear to champion a particular political cause. It fails in this to acknowledge that any number of members of a “competing” tribe might genuinely share their values, but simply seeks to promulgate xenophobia. They are largely assumed only to be seeking advantage in any given competitive scenario. They do, therefore, pose an unqualified threat, rather than genuinely acting impartially to further the political cause shared by any given number of others.301 In this, the presumption is that they are acting as Most recent claims to this line of reasoning rest on the recent, supposedly Jewish concern, to block Brexit in the High and Supreme Courts. See The Occidental Observer here and in an earlier article here. As A. Joyce himself in an earlier article notes however: “It’s tempting at first glance to imagine that all Jews are against Brexit. This instinctive prediction arises in the nationalist mind due to the conflation of Jewish identity with liberalism and its modern globalist and ‘social justice’ corollaries. In many respects, of course, this is a helpful conflation that assists with accurate predictions. However, what the instinct neglects is a vast historical context in which the relationship of Jews with liberalism is very complex indeed, and in which such easy predictions lead to a facile and naive understanding of Jewish strategies. In brief, history indicates that Jews have fluctuated in their attachment to liberal and even globalist causes.” 301

In this the issue for Joyce is what is predominantly good for Jews, and whilst he admits this gives them a wide disparity of beliefs, he yet says this serves to mask a “clannish canard” and more devious Jew-centric tribal bias. “ much unity can exist in a group that is apparently always squabbling? This question might persuade the shallow thinker to abandon the Jewish Question, but the answer is, of course, that an extreme amount of unity can exist in such a group. Tactical discussions, arguments, and even fist-fights can occur within a football team — but the team is always united in its desires and goals. They want to win, and no animosity within the team will ever even remotely match the sense of rivalry they feel for their opponents. The collectivist Jews have never allowed their internal debates to escalate into civil war and fratricidal mania in the same way that the individualistic Europeans have done since the dawn of history.” The assumption is that the race founded tribal identity will always trump political ideology or differences of class or social identity, in spite of the latter being formed through personal selection. In this sense they are also more rationally and emotionally satisfying and thus denote stronger identity groups. But here reason and freedom of 360

subversives, and it tends to the view that an opposing agenda is being promulgated without qualification. It does not tend to support the idea that the political and the racial could even coincide to further mutually beneficial interests. It further supposes, in particular respect to Jews, that the Jewish element in the political cause is more dangerous than other racial groups or choice trump racial imperatives, which are merely due to an accident of birth and not a question of choice. In contrast, racially determined tribalism is presumed to trump any disparity of beliefs that individuals with different reason-based motivations might ordinary and passionately hold: “In the same way, the political spectra that preoccupy Europeans are not a feature of the Jewish mental landscape. For Jews, ultimately there is no Left or Right; no Capitalism or Communism; no nationalism or globalism. There is only one spectrum: what is bad for the Jews and what is good for the Jews. This spectrum represents the very pinnacle of ethnocentrism, and each and every aspect of host nation life is evaluated according to this spectrum and this spectrum alone.” This however has been shown to be fallacious in respect to Trotsky particularly in his self-identification as a “Social Democrat and nothing more”. Remarks that transcended racial identification. Bolshevik Jews generally were keen to identify as Bolsheviks and Soviet citizens in the case of Ehrenburg far more readily than simply as Jews. In Ehrenburg’s case it appears to have been a struggle of head over heart, which many Jews themselves have struggled with. It manifests in the separatism assimilation conundrum and has characterised the whole notion of the so called “Jewish Question”. The stance even put Ehrenburg at odds with Russian Jews and Jews around the world on occasion, who even saw him in some cases as perpetuating their own persecution by Stalin. The fallacy committed by Joyce (as with so many racists) is that they can speak of “our people” as if this racial identity denotes a stronger group identity which overrides political or class allegiance. They yet conflate (as Joyce does) a racially identified tribal imperative with political causes if it suits their purpose. In his case he conflates “our people” with Brexit and thus assumes a unifying cause for white Caucasians with sovereignty and independence. “There are limits to this success that our people have achieved, but we may allow ourselves to take a breath and enjoy the moment before pressing on. There is still much to do. November looms and after that a much greater task — to transform Brexit, Trumpism and all forms of European self-assertion into a movement for racial survival. What Freedland said with horror, we now say with focus, determination and joy: Victory is possible.” 361

ethnicities who have a weaker tribal identity. It floats the idea that they are devious and disingenuous in their motives because of it, as they promulgate nepotism. It supposes in some silly sense that all Jewish Bolsheviks were murderers, whilst other Bolsheviks who were Russian, Kalmuk, or some other ethnicity or race, were perhaps, or at least could be merely viewed as less dangerous, or even misled activists. They are somehow exploited by their Jewish leaders, simply because they aren’t Jewish. This assumption of a graded threat was reflective of Nazi racial thinking particularly, where Jews were identified as the most degraded race, and in this the hosts of mental deficiencies and the champions of political subversion. In Duke’s case also, it reveals specifically Judeophobic bigotry of an appalling kind. Another key question here is, what exactly is supposed to be wrong with some Jews wanting to express their interests in the political arena in the first place? For white nationalists, Jewish tribalism is clearly a point of concern, but they have no problem in identifying themselves as a racial tribe with a right to do so in this respect. The assumption tends to be that their tribal identity overrides the legitimacy of the political cause, as they act primarily, or exclusively for their own interests. It suggests that they cannot genuinely support an ideological cause impartially if it doesn’t specifically serve Jewish interests. But there is some kind of conflict of interest in this, precisely because they act ethno-centrically. The racially motivated imperative is found to be a highly dangerous impulse, but not in respect to themselves. In this, they seize a false moral high ground, and one impervious of criticism concerning their own very dangerous motives. Whereas disagreements between Jewish groups are largely ignored and any collective ethno-centric identity that they themselves glorify is labelled as corrupt. 362

In respect to Jews acting as a supremacist orientated tribal collective, there are two anomalies in the logic here. First the issue of Jews acting divisively amongst themselves. Second the issue of Jews acting divisively against a political ideology. In respect to the first issue it can be overridden claim some anti-Jewish writers. The analogy of the football team is sometimes given here, where it is claimed the team still acts as a team with clear objectives, despite its disagreements and dressing room scuffles. This is the kind of analogy Joyce draws (see op. cit 213) but it is one that reads as disingenuous. Such scuffles, quarrels and disagreements affect team performance, and would only serve to undermine the efficacy and likelihood of success should they be permitted to endure. Why, then, would Jews be so accepting of the disparate opinions and squabbles they have in fact always encouraged, or permitted amongst themselves, if division was ultimately self-defeating and detrimental to securing their long-term success and their common collective interests? 302 Concerning the second issue, political ideology should not be conflated with a racial tribal imperative that appears largely to be ill defined, illogical and borne of bigotry in turn. Neither does delineating political ideology from racial identity denote “shallow” thinking, as Joyce claims, if they do not support his own race-centric, white supremacist, anti-Semitic views. It is simply the common-sense notion that individuals are capable of having different opinions, different goals and objectives and different

The analogy by Joyce here of the football team spirit uniting the unruly players in a common objective assumes that all of them seek the same objective measured in terms of the general aim which is “success”. But “success” can be variously defined and determined. Its objectives might even be viewed very differently amongst individuals who yet all desire success. Some might wish to win the FA cup and not the Premiership. Inevitable quarrels could arise as to how best to determine let alone define what “success” supposedly entails that might severely undermine their campaign. 302


and conflicting strategies to achieve particular aims. These inform behaviour over and above racial profiling. The disparity of opinion is strengthened by individual preferences based on free choice and reason. They are continuously displayed and encouraged to be on display in the political arena. This freedom of choice owes little to an accident of birth, or a sometimes varied or constantly evolving notions of what exactly constitutes Jewishness, let alone national identity. 303 Zionism’s concern for a Jewish homeland was cast as a political and not a religious cause in its early years. A case then can be made that Jewish concerns and interests were foremost as a political imperative, but certainly not as a religious imperative, as the biblical edicts prohibited it. Clearly then, Zionism need not denote a cause that all Jews necessarily supported, due to some deep down ethno-centric identification or urge that trumped all else. Its “national Socialist” perspective clashed with many Jewish religious beliefs, at least as they were interpreted by orthodoxy, during its formative years. It could not, therefore, simply

In this, even the haplotype as a genetic template is slowly evolving. The social and political spheres too constantly redefine the notion of what Jewishness is and what it is supposed to be or could be. Jewishness in this respect is not eternal and unchanging. It is less comparable to the Platonic Form and more to the Aristotelian, inasmuch as it is a corollary of substance and in the shifting physical world that which it substantiates is subject to evolution. In this respect too, it would be presumptuous to think throughout the long course of human history the objective to succeed or dominate would remain unaltered, eternal or somehow not subject to differing opinions about what this could entail, either politically, socially, culturally or religiously. In this, one man’s wine is another man’s poison and disagreements as to the merits of both naturally invite discussion and disagreement, even amongst the Jews themselves. This is a question when all said and done of the individual and the differing opinions of what denotes a benefit and its consequences. Such opinions could easily be cast in national or international terms, in terms of assimilation or separatism, in terms of Zionism and Marxism, Communism and Capitalism, racial and the politically derived “national” identity and frequently have. Disparity of opinion in this undermines a uniform tribally determined objective, just as much as it fragments the notion of a mono imperative that can be erroneously attributed to “what is good for Jews”. 303


appeal to a history that identified Jewishness in historical and racial terms to countermand this, when those ideas were chiefly recorded in the Bible and other religious texts that founded the Jewish identity. In this, Jewish identity was intimately wedded to faith as much as race. Its Enlightenment and modern tendency to secularism caused further clashes amongst Jewish communities themselves, but its modern-day tendencies very much still require a recognition of both. Any controversial split amongst Jews, undermines any thesis that claims a racial derived collective group mentality trumps Jewish behaviour and interests. The history of the Jews has often been characterised at its core as recognising and even encouraging diversity of opinion. Theirs is (in some respects) rather a Socratic encouragement for philosophical disputation.

This open mindedness of a variety of opinions and

viewpoints is reassuringly democratic, but largely dispels Jewish tribalism as a coherent thesis. It also largely limits the ability of Jews to wield power effectively, when one powerful perspective needs to hold sway. To give a modern example, whilst the truth might be that lobbyists in AIPAC, as an example, who are Jewish, still seek to influence American policy to further a particular political cause in Congress for Israel, it does not necessarily denote that Israel has absolute control over the US government, nor wields a uniformity of opinion, simply because many activists in AIPAC, or the CFR, or the Federal Reserve happen to be Jewish. Neither that they act to impose a particular and clearly predetermined Jewish strategy on the US for their own ends, simply because they racially identify as Jews, and therefore must agree with Israel’s position on all matters. A nation which itself is continually in the throes of democratic debate. Such causes are pursued for political reasons 365

on both an individual and group basis, and these in turn encourage debate and, in some instances, ardent dissent even amongst their own kind.


Appendix I: some fake quotes Scattered around the Web are numerous pages of “Zionist Quotes” that purport to prove Zionism is a genocidal, racist conspiracy movement bent on destroying Arabs, and more generally trying to take over the world. Many of the quotes are forgeries. The quotes were fabricated to discredit Israel, Zionism or Jews more generally and in some instance boost the Palestinian cause. The fake quotes are manufactured in a number of ways by presenting fiction as fact, confabulation, quoting out of context, or omitting key phrases. Samples of fake Zionist Quotes are:

1. The Fake 'Zionist' - Tziporah Menache Even the Neo Nazis admit this is a fake. It is even cited on the Stormfront website, as a fake. There was evidently no such person as Tziporah Menache in the role of an Israeli spokesperson. “You know very well, and the stupid Americans know equally well, that we control their government, irrespective of who sits in the White House. You see, I know it and you know it that no American president can be in a position to challenge us even if we do the unthinkable. What can they (Americans) do to us? We control congress, we control the media, we control show biz, and we control everything in America. In America you can criticize God, but you can’t criticize Israel.” Israeli spokeswoman, Tzipora Menache, 2009. The fabrication first supposedly appeared on a Pakistani website. It was de-bunked not by Zionists, but by anti-Semitic and anti-Israel web sites, apparently because the web page contained a virus. 366

2. Former Israeli President Katsav was quoted in the Jerusalem Post, May 2001 as saying: “There is a huge gap between us (Jews) and our enemies, not just in ability but in morality, culture, sanctity of life, and conscience. They are our neighbours here, but it seems as if at a distance of a few hundred meters away, there are people who do not belong to our continent, to our world, but actually belong to a different galaxy.” Israeli President Moshe Katsav. The Jerusalem Post, May 10, 2001.

This quote is used repeatedly as evidence that Zionists are racists, who consider that Palestinians are inferior. The words were probably illconsidered, but they were a reaction to the brutal murder of 14 year old Koby Mandel and his companion. They were tempered by words of tolerance and moderation. The actual text that appeared on May 11, 2001 in the Jerusalem Post reads: “President Moshe Katsav said yesterday that Israel would never stoop to the brutality the Palestinians displayed in the stoning to death of two Tekoa teenagers this week. There is a huge gap between us and our enemies - not just in ability but in morality, culture, sanctity of life, and conscience”, Katsav told reporters at Beit Hanassi. “We would never stoop to the kind of brutality inflicted on the victims in Tekoa and Ofra”, he added. “They’re our neighbours here, but it seems as if at a distance of a few hundred meters away, there are people who don’t belong to our continent, to our world, but actually belong to a different galaxy.” Katsav said Israel must change its approach to the Palestinians but stopped short of voicing exactly what that new approach should bealthough he appeared to imply that retaliation is at times necessary. “Force is no solution to anything” he said, “but sometimes it’s essential.” Referring to the brutal murders of two young boys from Tekoa, Katsav said he was sure there are Palestinians and other Muslims who oppose terrorism, but it was terrifying to realise how much cruelty and hatred the Palestinians harbour against Israelis. 367

3. The fake world government quote. “We will have a world government whether you like it or not. The only question is whether that government will be achieved by conquest or consent.” (Jewish Banker Paul Warburg, February 17, 1950, testifying before the U.S. Senate). Warburg was testifying as an American citizen and peace advocate, not particularly as a Zionist, a banker or even speaking for “Jews”. He did however testify in support of a congressional resolution that would have broadened the powers of the U.N. The passages quoted proves his stance and desire for one world government fairly clearly, but how far this can be viewed as a specifically Jewish ideal hardly appears of relevance. Here is the above quote in context: STATEMENT OF JAMES P. WARBURG OF GREENWICH, CONN. “I am James P. Warburg, of Greenwich, Conn., and am appearing as an individual. I am aware, Mr. Chairman, of the exigencies of your crowded schedule and of the need to be brief, so as not to transgress upon your courtesy in granting me a hearing. The past 15 years of my life have been devoted almost exclusively to studying the problem of world peace and, especially, the relation of the United States to these problems. These studies led me, 10 years ago, to the conclusion that the great question of our time is not whether or not one world can be achieved, but whether or not one world can be achieved by peaceful means. We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest. Today we are faced with a divided world—its two halves glowering at each other across the iron curtain. The world's two superpowers— Russia and the United States—are entangled in the vicious circle of an arms race, which more and more pre-empts energies and resources sorely needed to lay the foundations of enduring peace. We are now on the road to eventual war—a war in which the


conqueror will emerge well-nigh indistinguishable from the vanquished. The United States does not want this war, and most authorities agree that Russia does not want it. Indeed, why should Russia prefer the unpredictable hazards of war to a continuation of here present profitable fishing in the troubled waters of an uneasy armistice? Yet both the United States and Russia are drifting—and, with them, the entire world—toward the abyss of atomic conflict.”

SUPPORT OF SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 56. “Mr. Chairman, I am here to testify in favor of Senate Resolution 56, which, if concurrently enacted with the House, would make the peaceful transformation of the United Nations into a world federation the avowed aim of United States policy. The passage of this resolution seems to me the first prerequisite toward the development of an affirmative American policy which would lead us out of the valley of death and despair. I am fully aware that the mere passage of this resolution will not solve the complex problems with which we are confronted. Our recognition of the inadequacy of the present United Nations structure, and our declared determination to strengthen that structure by Charter amendment, will not alone overcome the Russian obstacle. But it will, at long last, chart our own goal and enable us to steer a straight course toward a clearly seen objective. Moreover, it will unite us in purpose with the vast majority of the peoples of the non-Soviet world. Until we have established this goal, we shall continue to befog and befuddle our own vision by clinging to the illusion that the present structure of the United Nations would work, if only the Russians would let it work. That has been our position to date. Until we establish this goal, we shall continue to ask other peoples to unite with us only in the negative purpose of stopping Russia. Fear-inspired negative action makes poor cement for unity. Once we shall have declared a positive purpose—once we shall have cemented the united will of the free peoples in a common


aspiration— we shall be in a far stronger position to deal with the obstacles presented to the realization of that purpose.”

4. The Jewish Destroyers quote. “In everything, we are destroyers--even in the instruments of destruction to which we turn for relief... We Jews, we, the destroyers, will remain the destroyers for ever. Nothing that you will do will meet our needs and demands. We will destroy because we need a world of our own.” - Maurice Samuels, “You Gentiles”, p. 155.

Samuels was an eccentric Jewish radical author. Another quote again takes his ideas out of context: “In everything we are destroyers – even in the instruments of destruction to which we turn for relief. The very Socialism and internationalism through which our choked spirit seeks utterance, which seem to threaten your way of life, are alien to our spirit's demands and needs. Your Socialists and internationalist are not serious. The charm of these movements, the attraction, such as it is, which they exercise, is only in their struggle: it is the fight which draws your gentile radicals.” – p.152-3.

Here is the real quote (note the omission): “We Jews, we, the destroyers, will remain the destroyers for ever. Nothing that you do will meet our needs and demands. We will destroy because we need a world of our own, a God-world, which it is not in your nature to build. Beyond all temporary alliances with this or that action lies the ultimate split in nature and destiny, the enmity between the Game and God.” – p. 155. Samuels was speaking for himself of course and had no special relation to Zionism. He does however speak of the need for Jews to determine the nature of a God centred world over and above other belief systems.


5. Fabricated anti-Semitic quote. The following appears at a so-called “anti-Zionist” websites, but is general anti-Semitism, a fabrication that was not aimed specifically at Zionism. Israel did not exist in 1928 when this was concocted, so it is not “legitimate criticism” of Israeli policy. Letter from Baruch Levy to Marx: “The Jewish people as a whole will be its own Messiah. It will attain world dominion by the dissolution of other races, by the abolition of frontiers, the annihilation of monarchy, and by the establishment of a world republic in which the Jews will everywhere exercise the privilege of citizenship. In this “new world order” the children of Israel will furnish all the leaders without encountering opposition. The Governments of the different peoples forming the world republic will fall without difficulty into the hands of the Jews. It will then be possible for the Jewish rulers to abolish private property, and everywhere to make use of the resources of the state. Thus, will the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled, in which is said that when the Messianic time is come, the Jews will have all the property of the whole world in their hands” (from `La Revue de Paris', p. 574, June 1, 1928).

Concerning this citation anti-Semites are continually inventing secret Jewish conspiracies with which to inflame the passions of their followers. Such people avidly accept the explanation that all of the world’s troubles are caused by the Jews. Indeed, a regular business of producing forged Jewish documents exists, and it is very plain that hate peddlers have scoured the earth in search of such evidence to use for political advantage. To this end, we find in Revue De Paris, in its issue of June 1, 1928, carrying a long article entitled “The Secret Origins of Bolshevism: Henry Heine and Karl Marx.” This tells of a Jewish conspiracy to conquer the world and then ties this to Communism. As part of its claims, it quotes from an alleged letter from one, Baruch Levy, to Karl Marx, the co-founder of the modern Communist movement. Nowhere in the article is there any idea of who Baruch Levy could possibly be, excepting that he is referred to as a Neo—Messianist. The Baruch Levy letter outlines a Jewish plot to take over the world, but nowhere in the writings of Marx is there any mention of Baruch Levy and/or his alleged 371

letter. Revue De Paris does not state where it obtained the alleged letter. Its leitmotif appears almost identical with the central theme of the fraudulent Protocols of the Elders of Zion suggesting it too is a fraud. Dr. Herbert Aptheker, Director of the American Institute for Marxist Studies, has done additional research on the alleged letter from Baruch Levy to Karl Marx. In a letter, dated September 5, 1967, Dr. Aptheker stated: “I have examined five of the biographies of Marx . . . including those by Mehring, Ruhle, Postgate, Eastman, Lewis . . . and find no mention of anything in any way resembling the material you quote from Baruch Levy. In all my reading in Marxism ... considerable for about 33 years . . . I have never seen anything remotely like that. Let me add that I have examined the indexes of all 6 volumes . . . Volumes 27 through 32 . . . of the Marx-Engels Werke (Dietz Verlag, Berlin, 1963-1965) and find no mention of a Baruch Levy or any indication of any letter in any way similar to that you mention. These are the volumes which contain the letters . . . Briefe . . . of Marx and Engels, commencing in 1842 and going through 1870 (all so far published). I think one may therefore say great confidence that the letter is a hoax, as one would believe in any case from its contents.” 304

6. Begin and the Master Race Fake Zionist Quote. This is another popular quote and was fabricated. “Our race is the Master Race. We are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves.” Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin supposedly in a speech to the Knesset [Israeli Parliament] quoted by Amnon Kapeliouk, “ Begin and the Beasts" New Statesman, June 25, 1982.

“The Hoaxers – Plain Liars, Fancy Liars and Damned Liars”, Morris Kominsky, Branden Press, Boston, 1970. 304


7. Fake Zionist Quotes reputedly by Ariel Sharon. Ariel Sharon never said: “I don’t know something called International Principles. I vow that I’ll burn every Palestinian child (that) will be born in this area. The Palestinian woman and child is more dangerous than the man, because the Palestinian child’s existence infers that generations will go on, but the man causes limited danger.” This quote was supposedly from an interview with Ouze Merham. There is no such person. There was never such an interview. “Ouze” is not a Hebrew name. Miriam Sobh, a journalism student at the University of Illinois and member of an Islamic extremist group, published the quote in the Illini, a university newspaper. She apologised in April 2003. The quote surfaced again and was debunked by the editors of the Illini in December of 2004. After perpetrating this and other hoaxes, in 2005 Sobh graduated and was working at a Chicago affiliate of NPR. Subsequently she became editor of her own publication which she founded called “Hijabtrendz.” Ariel Sharon never said “We control America”. The quote was fabricated most likely by Hamas. There are other versions of this fabrication. Here is one: “Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.” - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio. In some versions Sharon supposedly said “I control America”. The quote was probably fabricated by Hamas in 2001. Investigation found that it started with an October 3, 2001 press release from the pro-Hamas group, IAP – the Islamic Association for Palestine, which attributed the quote to a report on “the Israeli Hebrew radio, Kol Yisrael.” Kol Yisrael political correspondent Yoni Ben-Menachem, who reports on Cabinet meetings, confirmed that he never made such a broadcast and that Sharon never made such a statement. Nor was it reported by any other news service.


Appendix II The Neturei Karta’s idea of the “true” Jew Zionism, even to this day, is viewed by certain minority orthodox Jews as fundamentally a blasphemous movement. It is even considered by some as anti-Jewish, due to its early promotion of secularism, as well as its political and racial emphasis on the nature of what Jewishness should be. In this, its emphasis on the political, cultural and racial, in preference to the religious notion of what Jewishness is, has led Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro to state: “Being Jewish is not an ethnicity. Being Jewish is not a culture. Being Jewish is not even a blood family. You can convert to Judaism. You can’t convert to a blood family. You cannot convert to a race. Judaism is a religion. That’s all it is. In the year 2448 after Creation, God came to Moses and the Jews on Mount Sinai and gave them the Torah. No I was wrong, that’s not true: God came to a group of random people who were not a nation at all, they were not Jews and gave them the Torah. Because they were given the Torah, they also received with it a mission…without the Torah, without Judaism, there are no Jewish people.” This, however, is a minority, ultra-orthodox view. It downplays Jewishness in terms of racial lineage, emphasising only the religious. It shows intolerance to those Jews who might not necessarily be of the orthodox sensibility, or even of a more general religious persuasion, who yet still identify themselves nevertheless racially or culturally as “Jews”. In this, however, defining Jewishness and Judaism is increasingly limited to a particular religious view, and this implies intolerance of other perspectives. Ultra-orthodox Jews in fact are often adamant in this that


their identity as Jews has in fact quite simply been stolen and they deride Zionists to the extent of even denying they are “real” Jews. 305 They often speak of persecution too by the state of Israel because of their beliefs; the chief bone of contention being that the existence of modern Israel is a blasphemy and a direct contravention of God’s commands. In this, they believe, true Jews must remain in exile and be so until the Redemption. God alone in this will redeem the Jews when they repent, and only when He sees fit. As it reads in Deuteronomy 30:1-: “And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call them to mind among all the nations, into which the Lord thy God has driven thee, and shalt return to the Lord thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul; that then the Lord thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations amongst whom the Lord thy God has scattered thee. If thy outcasts be at the utmost parts of heaven, from there will the Lord thy God gather thee, and from there will he fetch thee.” Certain orthodox sects believe Jews are forbidden to ascend en masse into the Holy Land. Accordingly, if they disobey the commandment, by going up without direct orders from the Almighty, the results will be catastrophic. Deuteronomy 1:41-45:

The Orthodox Torah aligned Jews (Neturei Karta Haredi) believe the Zionists present themselves as Jews by using Jewish symbols and names. However, it is all just a disguise for their false identity and the practise of heresy against God’s commands in the Talmud and Torah. See here and here. 305


“And you girded on every man his weapons of war and ventured to go up into the hill. And the Lord said to me, Say to them, neither go up, nor fight; for I am not among you; lest you be smitten before your enemies. So I spoke to you; and you would not hear, but rebelled against the commandment of the Lord, and went presumptuously up into the hill. And the Emory, who dwelt in that mountain, came out against you, and chased you, as bees do, and beat you down in Se’ir, as far as Hormah. And you returned and wept before the Lord, but the Lord would not hearken to your voice, nor give ear to you.” The Talmud enforces this prohibition in Kesubos (111a). Here the Almighty decrees upon the Jews to undertake 3 oaths: 1. Not to go up en masse by force to the Holy Land. 2. Not to rebel against the ruling nations of the time. 3. Not in any way to attempt to end the exile. The Talmud states that God made the Jews swear they would never “go up as a wall”. Commentators disagree as to whether this means an armed conquest of the Holy Land, or simply any kind of mass immigration, but according to either it is clear that the modern founding of Israel is forbidden. It has in any case (historically speaking) also clearly involved armed excursions, whatever the social, political or military justifications for that might entail. As a counterargument, religious Zionists claim the occupation of the land didn’t involve armed conquest, because the UN voted that there should be a Jewish state, and therefore it was a peaceful and legal succession of a land that is often today justified as having been largely unoccupied. As the British handed the state to the Jews, all wars after that point were purely defensive. 376

The reality of the political situation, however, tends to belie both camps’ claims. Following the end of the war, a massive wave of stateless Jews, mainly Holocaust survivors, began migrating to Palestine in defiance of British rules. The Holocaust united much of the rest of world Jewry behind the Zionist project. The British either imprisoned these Jews in Cyprus, or sent them to the British-controlled Allied Occupation Zones in Germany. The British, having faced the 1936–1939 Arab revolt against mass Jewish immigration into Palestine, then faced opposition by Zionist groups in Palestine. In January 1946, the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry was set up to examine the political, economic and social conditions in Palestine as they bore upon the problem of Jewish immigration and settlement and the well-being of the peoples living there; to consult representatives of Arabs and Jews, and to make other recommendations for ad interim handling of these problems, as well as for their eventual solution. Ultimately the Committee’s plans were rejected by both Arabs and Jews, so Britain decided to refer the problem to the United Nations. The British subsequently abstained from the UN vote, effectively relinquishing responsibility. They vacated the country, and let things take their own course. Many parts of the UN decision also never went into practice. Jerusalem was not made a city of Israel: rather half went to Israel and half to Jordan, causing confusion and conflict. The West Bank and Gaza did not become an independent Arab state either; rather half of the West Bank went to Jordan and the other half was occupied by the Zionists. Gaza went to Egypt. The “Holy Land” was, then, effectively split, not simply occupied by the Jewish people. 377

The Talmud warns the Jews that if they do not adhere to the commands (as given in the Torah and Talmud and revealed to Solomon as prophecy) the Almighty will disown them and throw their flesh like that of animals in the fields. Orthodox Jews therefore believe they should oppose the state of Israel period, as well as any claim to be Jews by those breaking God’s commands. The Neturei Karta even believe that Jewish suffering during World War II was a punishment exacted for not properly resisting the Zionist Movement, which in 1917 began occupying the Holy Land and oppressing the Palestinians; a violation then of the 3 oaths. In this too, they believe, Jews must be loyal to the governments under whose jurisdiction they reside, and that they should never entertain thoughts of rebellion against them. It is not within the capability of any Jew to end their exile, they claim, and they must remain exiled until the Redemption. These orthodox followers of the Torah often speak of the Zionists as Jew haters, who despise their religiosity and everything “true Judaism” stands for. They claim Zionists are constantly seeking to undermine Judaism by coercing all Jews into their heretical nationalist movement. The following proofs as to the truth of this hate claim (they maintain) can be provided in quotes provided by the Zionists themselves. “The Jewish people are a very nasty people. Its neighbours hate it and they are right.”306


As quoted by Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro. Rabbi Shapiro gives an assessment here.


- Vladimir Jobotinsky (early Zionist Leader and founder of the Revisionist Party which today is the Likud). Uri Zvi Greenberg, the ultra- militant Zionist who founded the Bris Ha Baryonim, also stated: “Those loathsome Jews are vomited out by any healthy collective and state not because they are Jews, but because of their Jewish repulsiveness.”307 Neturei Karta want to claim that Zionists are not Jews in the “real” sense. This, however, is simply not true, unless one wants to define Jewishness only in a particularly limited and specifically orthodox religious sense, which ignores DNA profiling, or alternative perspectives, even of what the religion could or should entail. Clearly, then, it is not that Zionists are not Jews, Zionists (at least as conceived) were simply secular Jews. Consequently, the Neturei Karta interpretation can be charged with failing to sufficiently consider the development of Jewishness in political, racial and cultural terms, and in this limiting its possibilities. It tends to interpret a Jew in an increasingly narrow religious sense and fails to similarly considers the positive benefits of Zionism, and more broadly Judaism’s development sufficiently in its modern manifestations. If one takes on board the following quotes, as claimed by the Neturei Karta and often cited by Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro, accepting that they have not simply been taken out of context to justify a religious perspective, it can be argued that Zionists were not simply Jews of “commanding character” as Churchill states. Indeed, if these quotes are to be accepted as true, they were subversives of the “true” faith and even absorbed the anti-Semitic Greenberg, in contrast to the Neturei Karta, Torah aligned Jews, believed the Holocaust was the tragic but inevitable outcome of Jewish indifference to their national destiny to work for the founding of the state of Israel. 307


tendency. Indeed, they rather looked at religious Jews with the same disgust and loathing as did the anti-Semitic “nationalists” in Germany and Russia. It is this perspective, then, which the Neturei Karta seek to promulgate, to draw clear water between the Haredi Jews and the heretical non-believers: the Zionists, and the subversives and propagators of a false idea of what Jewishness entails. To this end, they sometimes cite David Ben Gurion, the first PM of Israel and a Zionist, in Mimaamad L’iam (p.196), who is quoted as saying in respect to non-Zionist Jews, who did not accept Aliyah and the founding of Israel, that they were: “Sterile Jewish masses living parasitically off the body of an alien economic body.”

Yet this, like many of the comments cited to support the position, largely takes the comment out of context. Ben Gurion, for example, was not simply making some anti-Semitic comment against Jews because he hated them as a “heretical” Zionist opposed to his plans. In “From Class to Nation” (1933), the concern is with establishing and securing selfsufficiency as part of the independence of the Jewish people. This independence required cultural, religious, political and socio-economic strategies, in order to ensure that after Jews had emigrated to Palestine they were not simply dependent on others, as Jews had so often been previously as aliens after the Diaspora. Political independence, then, required economic self-sufficiency for Jews, which did not simply feed off the labour and economy of the Palestinians. 308 In this context see “The Making of Modern Zionism: the intellectual origins of the modern state” by Schlomo Avieri. See here. 308


As Ben Gurion states: “The very realisation of Zionism is nothing else than carrying out this deep historical transformation occurring in the life of the Hebrew people. The transformation does not limit itself to the geographical aspect, to the movement of the Jewish masses from the countries of the Disapora to the renascent homeland- but in a socioeconomic transformation as well: it means taking masses of uprooted impoverished, sterile Jewish masses, living parasitically off the body of an alien economic body and dependent on othersand introducing them to productive and creative life, implanting them on the land, integrating them into primary production in agriculture, in industry and handicraft-and making them economically independent and self-sufficient.” Neturei Karta, however, do not recognise Zionism’s concern for the improvement and security of Jews through this transformation. They see transformation only as a sin and part of the larger heresy that subverts the Jewish people away from the Torah teachings. Subversion has occurred at all levels to bring about detrimental change. A chief criticism of Zionism is the inter-related claim that the desire to transform is a desire to destroy the “true” Jewish character and their observance of God’s commands, as given in the Torah and the prophecy of Solomon. This reflects an anti-Semitic tendency that loathes the orthodox believer. “The starting point of Zionism is to take a typical Yid and imagine his diametrical opposite. Because a Yid is ugly we are going to instil the Hebrew [a term of Zionist self- identification] with masculine beauty. Because a Yid is weak we are going to give the Hebrew strength. Because a Yid is ashamed we are going to give the Hebrew pride.”309

The words of Jabotinsky, as cited from “From Herzl to Rabin The Changing Image of Zionism” by Amnon Rubinstein. As cited by Rabbi Shapiro. See here. 309


The aim originally (at least according to the Neturei Karta interpretation) was to form the diametric opposite of the real Jew (identified derogatorily here as the “Yid”) in both psychological, religious and political terms. In this interpretation, however, there is no positive improvement considered by them, only religious subversion. They do not, therefore, tend to view the development from weakness to strength from ugliness to beauty and shame to pride as virtues inculcating positive change. Transformation is seen only as an attack and a subversion that seeks to change the very nature of what Jewish believers truly are. The imperative continues today, they claim, with the persecution of the ultra- orthodox Jews who oppose Zionism’s unholy objectives. 310 As long as Jews are living in freedom amongst the nations around the world, the Neturei Karta claim, the Zionists have little control over them. They cannot entirely impose their will over them, but they nevertheless try, by spreading lies in the media and trying to exert an influence. They do this, they claim, because the media is primarily under Zionist control. The attacks are done to persuade Jews of the virtues of the Zionist perspective, to strengthen the unholy Israel nationally, socially and politically, whilst they constantly claim true Judaism and the Jewish people (or those who properly remain in exile) suffer and are persecuted as a result. Hypocritically, Neturei Karta claim, the chief Zionist lies centre on the inter-related claims they make that they themselves are Jews and that “Jews” around the world are a persecuted people. Zionists use this sense

An example being Rabbi Josef Antebi, who has sought to expose Zionists even after being tortured by them. See here. 310


of Jewish persecution to slander, bully or pressurise world leaders simply to further their own political causes for the benefit of Israel. As many Zionists are not of the faith, however, they cannot truly call themselves Jews. Their chief complaint of a continuing Jewish persecution therefore cannot be, and should not be used in respect to them, but often is used to heighten a victimhood status they themselves too often instigate in turn, simply to further a political “non- Jewish” agenda. The Neturei Karta see Zionists as persecutors and tend to rather downplay other more general anti-Semitic prejudices that might cause attacks against Jews particularly from Muslims and specifically Arabs, whose Palestinian cause they support. These would be racially based too, as they were for the Nazi pogroms of WW2, and would not be simply based on differences concerning religious interpretation. The persecutions might even be focused not simply on different interpretations of what Judaism should properly entail, but on a hatred for those who are alien in cultural or racial terms. Neturei Karta, however, do not accept that Judaism is anything other than a religion, which should ideally be of a particularly orthodox kind. They do, then, rather downplay the possibility of the persecution of secular Jews who racially identify as Jewish, and yet are targeted nevertheless, simply due to their “Jewish” appearance, or due to their cultural background, political leanings or manner of dress. The possible reasons for Jewish persecution in this are then too narrowly defined. Due to the religious emphasis, they also rather tend to limit the choices available to those who prefer religious alternatives, yet still deem themselves as Jewish nevertheless.


The Zionists’ aim, the Neturei Karta claim, is to frighten Jews who are in exile to seek Aliyah and immigrate to their “unholy” state.


In this, they

Aliyah in Hebrew means “ascent” or “going up”. Jewish tradition views travelling to the land of Israel as an ascent, both geographically and metaphysically. Anyone travelling to Eretz Israel from Egypt, Babylonia or the Mediterranean basin, where many Jews lived in early rabbinic times, climbed to a higher altitude. Visiting Jerusalem, situated 2,700 feet above sea level, also involved an “ascent”. 311

Aliyah is not simply a religious concept. It is an ideological, national and therefore political and cultural concept. It is both an important Jewish cultural concept and a fundamental component of Zionism. It is enshrined in Israel's Law of Return, which accords any Jew (deemed as such by halakha and/or Israeli secular law) and eligible non-Jews (a child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew), the legal right to assisted immigration and settlement in Israel, as well as Israeli citizenship. Someone who makes Aliyah is called an oleh (m.; pl. olim) or olah (f.; pl. olot). The term includes both voluntary immigration for ideological, emotional, or practical reasons and, on the other hand, mass flight of persecuted populations of Jews. The vast majority of Israeli Jews today trace their family's recent roots to outside the country. While many have actively chosen to settle in Israel, rather than some other country, increasing numbers have felt pressurised to leave due to prejudice or discrimination. While Israel is commonly recognised as a country of immigrants, it is also, in large measure, a country of refugees who fled persecution. Many religious Jews espouse Aliyah and regard it as the fulfilment of God's biblical promise to the descendants of the Hebrew patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Nachmanides (the Ramban) includes making aliyah in his enumeration of the 613 commandments. This stands in stark contrast to the Neturei Karta perspective. In the Talmud, at the end of tractate Ketubot, the Mishnah says: “A man may compel his entire household to go up with him to the land of Israel but may not compel one to leave.” The discussion on this passage in the Mishnah emphasises the importance of living in Israel: “One should always live in the Land of Israel, even in a town most of whose inhabitants are idolaters, but let no one live outside the Land, even in a town most of whose inhabitants are Israelites; for whoever lives in the Land of Israel may be considered to have a God, but whoever lives outside the Land may be regarded as one who has no God.” The Neturei Karta fundamentalism, then, can be seen to be a point of religious interpretation. An important perspective, but a question of interpretation of the Torah nevertheless. To some extent living in Israel is a necessity even to properly fulfil certain commandments of God. The Neturei Karta claim of heresy is then not entirely without problems. Sifre says that the mitzvah (commandment) of living in Israel is as important as all the other mitzvot put together. There are many mitzvot such as shmita, for example, the sabbatical year for farming, which can only be performed in Israel. 384

pressurise those identifying as Jews to accept piecemeal the virtues and principles of their heretical movement. The current acceptance of mass immigration into Europe has added to the pressure it is thought, exacerbating antisemitism, and causing hundreds of thousands of Jews to flee Europe to live in Israel. This charge is not without its problems. Persecution of American and European Jews to prompt Aliyah by Zionists (either posing as non-Jewish persecutors, or even acting overtly as Zionists) in any case seems highly improbable and difficult to implement, as there is no guarantee those Jews that did flee would necessarily choose Israel as their first-choice home. Figures to date show a marked European exodus of Jews to the US and Canada and not predominantly Israel. Another arm of the anti-Zionist conspiracy argument (not necessarily promulgated by the Neturei Karta) also rests on the interrelated claim that mass immigration of Middle Eastern and Africans (mostly of the Muslim faith) is simultaneously being encouraged to help drive Jews out of Europe and America into Israel. In respect to this latter claim, mass immigration does appear to have chimed with an increase in crimes specifically targeting Jews in Europe, but it has not simply been confined to Jews. Nor is it clear how the unrest caused by it could in turn specifically be of benefit to Israel if it caused a mass Jewish influx problem into the country. Nevertheless, conspiracy theorists want to claim this strategy has been championed by Zionist influenced political organisations and think tanks (such as the United Nations and Paideia organisation as examples) for Israel’s benefit and has largely been a success.


Related to all this is the logical problem of what exactly is a “true” Jew. Neturei Karta claim it is simply an orthodox religious interpretation. It is not a racial, political or cultural identification. A Jew from Somalia and a Jew from Poland may have little in common racially or culturally. They are supposedly united, however, in their religious beliefs and practices. Zionists who claim to be Jews, therefore, are doing so due to some false equivalence based on a political, cultural, national or secular identification that has no bearing on what constitutes “real” Jewishness. This being so, Neturei Karta should have no qualms with millions of “nonJews” (who yet identify as “secular”, or “racial” Jews) taking Aliyah and living in Israel. As “non-Jews” they cannot be said to have committed a heresy simply by living in Israel, nor can they be said to have broken the Covenant made between God and the “real” Jewish people. As falsely identifying “non-Jews”, therefore, they cannot be said to have transgressed or committed heresy.312 In this, it largely appears Neturei Karta are concerned only with the preservation of a Jewish identity in particularly limited, narrow, religious

In this the Haredi Neturei Karta Jews are hardly consistent in their use of terms. They claim on occasion Zionists are “self-hating Jews”, on other occasions they are “not true Jews”, or not “real Jews”. In this sense, not being a “true Jew” equates to not being a religiously orthodox Jew. Advocating secularism or identifying Jewishness merely in cultural, secular or racial terms, then, equates to being non-Jewish, as none of these identifiers equate to being a “true Jew”. The problem, therefore, evidently is how Zionists or any that are not Torah aligned and do not observes the 3 oaths can even be classified as Jewish at all let alone “self-hating Jews”. Consider Rabbi Shapiro’s live comments in Jerusalem here. The relevant comment being: 312

“They looked at the Jews, these “Jews”, in the same way the anti-Semites did. To them the Jews were ugly, despicable, weak and shameful. They looked at the Jews the way you would imagine a gorilla looked to a human being: weak, pale, ugly, useless. They were the Jewish versions of the anti-Semites. They hated Jewishness, but they were Jews themselves. Self-hating Jews against Jewishness. They hated Judaism, but they couldn’t live amongst the antiSemites, because the anti-Semites persecuted them as well.” 386

terms, but it is one they should take confidence in. It should not cause widespread alarm amongst their ranks, or even be deemed as a danger to their own perspective of the Jewish faith. Certainly, its activists and speakers seem passionate and unshakeable in their own convictions, as they spend most of their time arguing in public debates and media programmes against opposing views. Their concern is to chiefly educate the public about the “Zionist threat” and the dangers posed by the state of Israel, particularly concerning the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East. Their own fears and claims of persecution, however, seem more centred on trying to garner a sympathy vote to swell their own ranks in turn. The very charge they accuse the Zionists themselves of when they claim they harp on about “Jewish persecution”. It seems unlikely, however, that the majority personally would suffer persecution themselves by selfidentifying Jews, even if they have different perspectives on what Jewishness entails. Their small numbers, in any case, cannot in any real sense be deemed a threat to the Zionist cause. Indeed, it is more likely the case that it is their minority status which prompts their own sense of vulnerability, in the face of the increasing popularity and diversity of perspectives which Zionism (and more broadly Jewishness) offers in its modern manifestations.


Appendix III A critique of Kevin MacDonald’s biogenetic group evolutionary theory Dr MacDonald sees clashes between ethnic groups as part of the natural order. The key difference between Jews and non-Jews stems from the recognition that Jews have formed an elite in various European societies for several centuries. Jews then are: “deeply ethnocentric and adept at ethnic networking; wealthy and intelligent, aggressive in pursuit of their interests, prone to media ownership and the production of culture, and hostile to the traditional peoples and cultures of the societies in which they form an elite.”313 Jews have wielded power that is vastly disproportionate to their numbers, he claims, so that anti-Jewish attitudes and behaviour naturally arise when Jewish tribal interests conflict with their own. For MacDonald, the various themes of modern anti-Semitism arise in response to a Jewish tribal impulse often directed by a cabal, or “hostile elite”, whose attitudes and behaviour are in conflict with their own. In characterising this impulse, however, little is made of mutual cooperation between tribes, or productive striving for a common interest or goal. Dr MacDonald, as is the case with Dr Duke, focuses only on a history of supposed attempted usurpation, subversion and economic domination in many parts of Eastern and Central Europe prior to World War II. This notably was also punctuated by Jewish expulsions across the continent, but little is said of this as an injustice, nor does he appreciate that their diminishing presence supposes a diminishing threat because of this. The cultural subversion by Jews in the media and intellectual life; the displacement of native populations via mass migration; dual loyalty because of Jewish sympathies with foreign Jews, especially Israel since 1948; and the history of Jews as a “hostile elite” in the Soviet Union, are all played up however.

Interview with Kevin MacDonald, 23 April 2005 as cited in “Professor Kevin MacDonald’s Critique of Judaism”, Journal of Church and State p.779-806; for full citations of Dr MacDonald’s positions please refer to this essay. 313


A brief overview of Dr MacDonald’s work Professor MacDonald’s work is extensive. 314 The first book in his trilogy, “A People that Shall Dwell Alone: An Evolutionary Theory of Judaism” posits Judaism as an evolutionary strategy, which features such characteristics as endogamy, ethnic exclusivity, and in-group altruism. According to MacDonald, Judaism is a survival strategy, and one which is highly adaptable, as it has enabled the religion and Jewish values more generally to endure in numerous alien environments throughout history. In his view, the strategy has been largely successful, despite periodic reversals of fortune, anti-Semitic expulsions and the power dissipation of the Jewish diaspora. Much of the success of the survival strategy stems from, in MacDonald’s view, the ability to maintain genetic cohesion. They have achieved this though extensive kinship ties amongst themselves in the host nations, whilst remaining relatively segregated from the indigenous. From an evolutionary perspective, Jews have successfully resisted any pressure to assimilate. He fails, however, to acknowledge the examples in Soviet Russia and across Europe that detail a history of attempted assimilation. He fails to consider the intellectual efforts of, for example, Moses Mendelssohn, who sought to assimilate Jewish identity to Enlightenment values and encourage this as a philosophical, political and cultural movement. MacDonald views this imperative as lacking. He fails to note its absence curtails their ability to determine or affect societies to any great extent. Whilst lack of assimilation has enabled a degree of integrity regarding their own racial and cultural values, their minority status too presents limits on their influence and power.

His published books in evolutionary psychology include: Kevin B. MacDonald, ed., Sociobiological Perspectives on Human Development (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1988); Kevin B. MacDonald, Social and Personality Development: An Evolutionary Synthesis (New York: Plenum, 1988); Kevin B. MacDonald, ed.. Parent-child Play: Descriptions and Implications (Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1993); and Burgess and MacDonald, Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Development. His articles are similarly extensive. 314


MacDonald identifies separateness as a quality permeating the Old Testament and a contributing factor enhancing their ability to be competitive. The religion supported the ethos of a nomadic people being a “representation of the continuation of the kinship group”. The importance of lineage placed less emphasis on artefacts and icons and presented God as a conceptualised Patriarchal figure for the Jewish family as a whole. MacDonald claims Judaism has largely sustained tribal solidarity during periods of group failure. He notes this solidarity manifests “religious fundamentalism, mysticism, and messianism” among its members. This fails to recognise the tendency to splintering groups satisfactorily, which did arise during such periods, and their tendency to cause division amongst the Jewish communities themselves. In respect to the Roman Occupation of the Holy Land, numerous splinter groups arose, largely with different proposed solutions to the Roman presence: Sadducees, Pharisees, Zealots, Christians, Nazarenes, etc. This was a common Jewish response to occupation in the Roman era, and during its self-proclaimed history of persecution subsequently. Many disputes occurred between them and are notable even in the New Testament. A collective response for MacDonald, however, appears to have been triggered as a kind of self defence mechanism. An odd view that ironically has Freudian undertones. Non-assimilation is considered as the inevitable psychological response here, because sexual relations with outsiders were highly discouraged and, unlike the universalism and proselytising concerns of Christianity, or of Islam, Jews are unwelcoming of outside converts. None of this theorising about ethnic exclusivity, however, supports the DNA profiling of Jewish men intermixing with Europeans in recent DNA studies. In respect to the religious, he acknowledges the possibility of conversion in theory (and it does occur) but he rather tends to view it as discouraged in practice. He tends to assume this again is largely due to the imperative of wanting to maintain a rather fixed racial profile: the Jewish lineage he views has an inbuilt proclivity to protect itself from any outsiders. Any converts then are generally treated as outsiders and a potential alien threat. The bloodline lineage must be maintained in its purity, and this is sustained both as a religious as well as a racial imperative. Tribal identity is then reinforced and behaviour to act in the common interests of the tribe reinforced. However, Macdonald’s identity theory tends to conflation of the religious and the ethnocentric. Whilst Judaism indeed lacks the proselytising 390

feature characteristic of other world religions, not all Jews need necessarily be religious, nor do they necessarily need to exhibit a tendency to shun other races to survive. The tendency, moreover, too readily presumes the simplistic view that a Jew from Britain and a Jew from Ethiopia are simply Jews: but whilst they could be in the religious sense, they might not necessarily be in the uniform cultural or racial sense he largely assumes. Location tends to dissipate tribal identity in this respect as new ethno-cultural values arise. Whilst the assumption more generally made is the religious identity is a universalism. This also tends to downplay a variety of evolving religious perspectives of what Judaism could entail. MacDonald finds a high degree of social and political egalitarianism in Judaism. Group altruism amongst Jews is strongly encouraged. The Talmud enforces class harmony amongst them it is presumed, but this rather ignores the Rabbinic leader emphasis. This also expresses itself in a strong sense of collective economic responsibility, he claims, which in turn supposes others are disadvantaged in favour of Jews. Yet this does not sit happily with the furtherance of a Jewish supremacist thesis. If other majority groups are disenfranchised by the Jews, the consequences could be economically disastrous for all. Jews are too easily and simplistically presumed to have a natural tendency to want to operate in a vacuum, apart from others, whom they need to promote and ensure the success of (at least in some instances) in order to protect their own interests in turn. Altruism and charity are also too easily dismissed as virtues alien to them, in respect to helping others simply out of a sense of philanthropy or civic responsibility. Various social norms and mores favour altruism amongst Jews, enshrined in a religious ideology, and enforced by controls within the Jewish community. To facilitate and further it, however, more widespread altruism would necessarily need to be encouraged amongst the minority Jewish community in respect to other groups. For MacDonald, however, altruism is only ever of concern in respect to helping their own and not others, without even fully considering its detrimental effects on the Jewish group’s supposed self-interests itself. The inward-looking competitiveness of MacDonald’s thesis is rather a selfish concern, which ultimately would be self-defeating for the Jews. MacDonald claims eugenic practices have endowed Jews with superior intelligence: a quality which has enabled Jews to be successful in competition with others. Talmudic regulations also encouraged high birth 391

rates and the wise were encouraged to have many children. 315 In traditional societies, however, there was a correlation between fertility and wealth for all groups, Jews and non-Jews alike. Macdonald wants to identify a specifically Jewish work ethic as the cause, because it linked economic success to literacy and business acumen primarily, and this ethos led to a confluence of wealth, intelligence, and high fertility in Jewish communities, which in turn had effects on their intelligence. But he fails to accept this work ethic could also ensure similar success and intelligence for other ethnicities. He also fails to consider the impairing influence of ethnocentrism that a “Jews only” approach might exert on intellectual capabilities over generations. MacDonald notes that Jewish efforts to maintain exclusivity have exacerbated periodic anti-Semitic reactions. In his “Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism” he asserts that these reactions were mass movements by Gentile groups in response to displacement by competitive Jews. Ethnic separatism also tends to lead to resource competition, exacerbating inter-group tension grounded in a genuine conflict of interests. MacDonald takes issue with traditional theories of anti-Semitism, which trace the cause to peculiar traits in Western civilisation; such as Christian theology, or the particular social class of Jews in a capitalist society, or pathological child-parent relations, or sexual repression. 316 He points out that anti-Semitism has appeared in non-Western societies as well. Further, anti-Semitic stereotypes and conspiracy theories demonstrate a remarkable similarity cross-culturally he claims. Rejecting conventional theories, MacDonald believes psychological research on social identity theory provides an adequate explanation for anti-Semitic uprisings.317 Essentially, he argues, Jewish ethnocentrism, especially in the economic sphere, produces a heightened sense of group identity and this was similarly exacerbated in the various Gentile See “A People that Shall Dwell Alone: An Evolutionary Theory of Judaism” (Westport, Ct.: Praeger, 1994) p. 36, p.203-212. Also p. 46-, 47-48, 41, 143, 154. 315

Ibid., 93-96. Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (Westport, Ct.: Praeger, 1998), 8. 316

MacDonald, Separation and. Its Discontents, 28. 317

Ibid., 27-88. 21. Ibid., 28.


populations in turn as a defence mechanism. Expulsions then occurred. Consequently, anti-Semitism develops largely as a reaction to successful Jewish group evolutionary strategies, because it is an escalating competitive scenario. Since the Renaissance, the West was an individualistic society, whereas the Middle East comprised of various subgroups that emphasised the collective. A value system also characteristic of Communism in theory, if not in practise, with the notion of the collectif. In a society composed of various competing groups, Jews, as a group with an isolating tendency, were not able to attain the same levels of pre-eminence as in the West, because self-aware Islamic groups, for whom ethnicity and religion were requirements for entry, effectively stopped them from advancing. Since Jews could not attain positions of power in the Middle East, therefore, anti-Semitic reaction rarely reached an extreme level of hostility. According to MacDonald, however, Jews have had a marked advantage over the host demos in the West. This has been because they pursued a collectivist strategy, and one which has been more effective than individual strivings. Individual strivings, characteristic of the West, have been due to the relative lack of ethnocentric identity and a tendency to view nationalism as dangerous. However, the tendency to collectivism sits unhappily with Jewish tendencies to isolationism. Collectivism supposes not simply a strengthening of the Jewish group, but an assimilation of various groups: a tendency which in fact is required in order to achieve success. Whereas isolationism is similarly required, in order to justify the maintenance of their own specific values, but itself enforces a limitation on success or power as the group strives to maintain exclusivity. MacDonald believes the tendency to collectivism eventually engenders a severe backlash from the host demos. This occurs in order to resist the Jewish presence: host societies have reacted by developing their own collective affinities and “evolutionary group strategies� as a defence mechanism against Jews in turn. These arise to protect what is perceived as a dangerous group, but little is made of them exhibiting dangerous tendencies as a group themselves. The sense is the Jewish presence in itself somehow triggers a justifiable response in others, which itself is presumed dangerous only in respect to Jews, but it is somehow justified as a natural reaction in others, as it originated from Jews. Historically, then, Jews have caused their own persecution, but the reasoning is a rather unfair tautology that seeks only to blame Jews for any persecution they also experience. 393

MacDonald links this tendency to psychology and current research on social identity processes. He contends that these strategies tend to mimic Judaism, because they encourage endogamy, group altruism, and ethnocentrism. MacDonald cites various examples of such movements, which have punctuated Western history: medieval feudalism, the Spanish Inquisition, National Socialism, etc. These all display the similar idea of a collectivist/ in group mentality. Anti-Semitism first appeared in the West with the Christian Church claims MacDonald. He makes no mention of Jewish persecution amongst the pre-Christian Greeks or Romans of which there are historic examples.318 By the third century, Judaism had become a powerful The first prominent event being the revolt of 167-160 BC, when Judah Maccabee led an uprising against the Seleucid Greek rulers of Judaea, characterised by some Jews as a virtuous struggle against persecuting overlords. In the first four biblical books of Maccabees, the Seleucids emerge as brutal monsters who tortured Jews for fun and who banned them from carrying out their ancestral practices in the Temple. As John Ma has recently shown, however, the reality was probably more complex: the Seleucids withdrew Jewish control of the Temple and then restored it after a deputation of loyalist Jews interceded. If this reconstruction is right, it points to a much more complex picture of Greco-Jewish relations than the propaganda found in Maccabean literature. 318

Another was the Roman sack of Jerusalem in AD 70, which had an even more profound effect on relationships between the Jews and others. The fledgling Flavian dynasty, in the aftermath of the disastrous ‘year of the four emperors’ (AD 69), needed a big victory over an intimidating foreign foe. A Jewish rebellion beginning in 66, unfortunately, fulfilled this need; Jerusalem was torched and the population massacred. Romans then began describing Jews in monstrously exaggerated language. Anti-Jewish sentiment had a profound effect on the emerging Christian movement, which increasingly sought to differentiate itself from Judaism. It would, however, be a bad argument to see the sack of Jerusalem and subsequent anti-Jewish rhetoric as the fulfilment of a long-term strategy, as if relationships between Greeks, Romans and Jews were inherently hostile and destined for violence from the start. The horrors of 70 were the result of political improvisation, not destiny, or caused by some deep rooted racial tribal identification imperative. However, there is no denying the existence of tensions and sporadic bouts of violence between communities, or that long before AD 70 some Greco-Roman writers said demeaning things about Jews. But Roman Imperial conquest appears not to have been based on an inherent antipathy or a “tribal urge” to conquer them simply because they were who they were either. Greek anti-Semitic literature in the late first century AD is almost entirely based on Against Apion, by Josephus, who defended Jews against the slew of antisemitism that followed the war. The attitude was rather due to the political events however, rather than any “alien” cultural values deemed a threat. There is no systematic, representative 394

competitor. The Church sought to counter this dominance and antiSemitism was given official license. One justification accused Jews of practising deicide leading to their bar from the better professions and government service. Moreover, they incurred legal and civil liabilities. Evidence suggests that the government was often reluctant to implement such measures but succumbed to public and ecclesiastical pressures nevertheless.319 In later centuries anti-Semitism experienced a revival during the medieval period, when the Church again sought to exclude Jews from economic and political spheres of influence. This reached its zenith in the thirteenth century. Notably for MacDonald, anti-Semitic measures were preceded by a period in which Jews had attained a great deal of power and influence and were expanding in numbers. This suggests that resource competition triggered a reaction claims MacDonald. As Christianity became more universal, a renewed anti-Semitism reflected the emergence of a highly collectivised and exclusionary medieval mindset. Anti-Semitism figured prominently in the Spanish Inquisition, which MacDonald sees as resulting from resource competition with the so-called “Conversos”, who converted to Christianity from 1391. They rapidly became an elite class in Spanish society, whilst (some claimed) remaining selection of Greco-Roman views about Jews to provide a wider view. Alexander Polyhistor’s now-lost On the Jews, composed in Greek by a captive former citizen of Miletus in the early first century BC would have provided more objective evidence. Surviving fragments show no trace of sensationalism or bias, only a curious concern to study and record ethnography. Importantly, however, it illustrates the crosscultural influences between Jewish and Greek culture in the Hellenistic period. Ultimately thanks to Alexander we also know of Greek epic poems written by Jews on Jewish themes, a remarkable Greek tragedy composed by one Ezekiel on the theme of the Israelite exodus is an example. This suggests a high degree of civic integration, rather than separatism and it rather defuses grand theories about Jewish supremacism. Before 70, and to some extent even afterwards, Jews flourished in Greco-Roman cities throughout the eastern Mediterranean and appeared to contribute and enrich European culture. This more balanced view counters MacDonald and emphasises the dangers of over simplification that contributes to a prejudiced unreliable historical assessment for political motives. At a time when identities seem to be polarising around the world, it is important to remember that cultures are not necessarily coherent, stable or ‘essential’ entities that can be racially aligned in any case. Interethnic violence is a moral choice taken by individuals, not necessarily entirely reliant on historical events or tribal imperatives. 319

MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents, 108.


a covert community, widely believed to be insincere in their Christian beliefs. A major function of the Inquisition was to scrutinise the genetic ancestry of individuals suspected of not being of authentic Spanish blood. These measures were codified in a body of law, which protected pure Spanish blood and sought to uncover efforts to conceal their ethnic background. In that sense, the racism, which developed during this epoch, was again reactive in nature. MacDonald sees the Inquisition as being essentially a response to earlier failed attempts to enforce racial and group assimilation. He notes that the blood laws (limpieza) did not apply to those who had voluntarily converted prior to the year 1391, but to those who converted after that date, on the suspicion that they were crypto-Jews, who continued as an endogamous minority of dubious orthodoxy. The culmination of antiSemitic reaction led to expulsion in 1492. Therefore, MacDonald concludes, the Inquisition was racist, but only in a retroactive sense, inasmuch as it was concerned with punishing the racialism of the Jews (ibid p.124-125). According to MacDonald, National Socialism was another inevitable reaction presumed to be caused by the Jewish presence. He sees the racial nationalism and cohesive collectivism of the National Socialist movement as a radical departure from the Western tradition of individualism directly because of this presence. He claims a strong element of resource competition contributed to the development of German anti-Semitism. A common theme to sustain the theory is the anti-Semitic literature during that period, which saw Jews as eclipsing Germans in a racial struggle for survival. It doesn’t sit easily with their very small percentage numbers in Germany however, even if they were in prominent positions of power disproportionate to their numbers. Hitler believed Jews posed an existential threat to Aryans. This despite his belief in Aryan racial superiority. How minority Jews posed a racial threat, particularly concerning their tendency to non-assimilation and isolationism, rested on their being perceived as a threat chiefly through racial interbreeding. This contrasts with MacDonald’s claim of ethnocentric superiority being maintained by tribal exclusivity. It illustrates the conflicting dichotomy that parallels the themes of exclusivity and assimilation, individualism and collectivism that do not appear to have been satisfactorily explained. It does, however, appear to be an illogical argument based on prejudice and chiefly fear as to the power of their supposedly malevolent influence. 396

In several respects MacDonald sees German National Socialism as reflective of early Judaism. Like early Judaism, he claims, National Socialism was concerned about eugenics and “blood purity”. There was a high level of group altruism and self-sacrifice. For example, recurring themes in the Hitler Youth advocated an extreme racial nationalism, group altruism, and perpetuated hostility and aggression towards outgroups. These were reflective of a Jewish psychology. 320 Ideas of the national “tribe” exemplified this he claims. An ethno-nationalist supremacism suffused National Socialist propaganda, mirroring a Jewish tendency. There was much emphasis on fertility also, which echoed Jewish values, as German women were encouraged to bear many children. The concern with blood ties and the emphasis on nationalism were expounded in Mein Kampf. Hitler could be viewed then as seeing both Judaism and National Socialism as competitive group evolutionary strategies, where one had to be nullified for the future survival of the German people. In respect to this, the Aryan race is viewed in similar terms to the Jewish; as a people locked in a struggle for racial survival and pre-eminence. The comparisons between both, however, tends to undermine any sense of a predominantly Jewish tribal identity characterising imperatives unique to it. It leaves the door ajar for cross tribal perspectives, or a supra tribal, more humanistic universalism that rather undermines his idea of a specifically Jewish threat or tendency.

The purpose of Jewish Intellectual groups As a minority, MacDonald argues, Jews have often developed and promoted intellectual movements to further their own group interests and combat anti-Semitism. “The Culture of' Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements”, notes that there has been considerable Jewish hostility to traditional Western culture, manifest in various intellectual movements throughout history. Those mentioned specifically are Freudian psychology, the Frankfurt School, and Boasian anthropology. These Jew-centric schools have sought to undermine the European-derived civilisation of America and replaced it with a society more congenial to Jews. It is unclear whether MacDonald 320

Ibid. p. 133.


views this as a conscious deliberate strategy or not, but it is cast in terms of it being an inevitable and innate psychological reaction. The inevitability of this tendency is cast as a tribal tendency, which rather tends to downplay its likelihood of being combatted by those Jewish individuals who might oppose its prevalent values. As MacDonald sees it, since the Enlightenment, Jews generally have figured prominently in adversarial cultural movements against the religious, moral, aesthetic, and behavioural norms of “Gentile” society. Any benefits to both are too often ignored, as are the Jewish dissenters who might seek to oppose particular movements. MacDonald, unlike Duke, categorically rejects an overarching conspiracy as given in “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion”. He even concedes that Judaism does not constitute a unified movement in some respects, in spite of its “collectivist” tendencies to protect group interests. He points out too that not all segments of the Jewish community, Jewish social scientists and intellectuals, have been involved in these various movements that supposedly seek to sustain Jewish interests and dominance. Whilst tribalism need not denote wholesale Jewish universalism, nevertheless he believes the basic tendency of Jewish activism has been to manipulate their environment in a deliberate manner which certainly serves their own primary interests. A central theme being that the leaders of these movements saw their involvement as furthering specifically Jewish interests, particularly in respect to the eradication of anti-Semitism as an example. It is less clear that this can be argued as an immoral concern however, unless one finds xenophobia a recognisable and justifiable virtue. Moreover, the impulse defined as specifically Jewish could in any case be claimed of any ethnic group that feels itself under an existential threat and does not necessarily have to be Jew specific. MacDonald claims Franz Boas and his cultural relativist school of anthropology succeeded more than any in removing biological conceptions of race and racial differences from the social sciences. It did this by successfully challenging the ability of Darwinian evolutionary theory to provide an adequate theory of cultural differences. 321 The consequence of the school’s popular acceptance meant effectively that (by the beginning of the 1930s) American racialist scholars were disregarded. MacDonald claims even today Jews are still at the forefront of discrediting more recent attempts to biologise the social sciences. He argues that this pattern continues, as evinced by Stephen Gould's “The Mismeasure of


MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, p.25. 398

Man�, which he characterises as a highly politicised critique of evolutionary approaches to human behaviour and hereditary views on IQ. MacDonald cites evidence that Boas strongly identified himself as a Jew and consequently saw his work as combating anti-Semitism and theories that elevated the status of European civilisation. Jewish interests, therefore, were protected. This, however was promulgated as a deceit and required Boas to rely upon several prominent Gentile scholars to conceal the broadly Jewish character of the school. Margaret Mead being amongst them.322 In this, he fails to consider the necessity to do this due to unfair prejudice against Jews, specifically in academic circles. Nor does he see it more generally as a contribution to knowledge in any positive way, other than to further Jewish interests. The deceptive nature of the Jewish enterprise here, however, can be justified in the light of the anti-Semitic bias towards Jewish scholars more generally. It was a tactic utilised too by Freud at the start of his attempt to receive academic recognition and acceptance from a prejudiced and sceptical world. However, it need not necessarily be indicative of devious aims for achieving Jewish supremacism, as much as a concern to ensure racial prejudice did not hamstring objective assessment of theories, otherwise disregarded out of hand. Jung’s presence in the school was prudent, but it should not be thought he was simply included to mask more devious aims, nor that he did not share common ideas, nor that he was not fully accepted within the inner coterie because he was not a Jew. Freud made it clear in fact that he hoped Jung would be the inheritor and flag bearer of his intellectual legacy. MacDonald also examines the influence of Jews on the political Left, focusing mainly on whether Leftist Jews can continue to identify as Jews, due to their more universal tendencies and whether they see radical politics as compatible with Jewish interests. Due to claims of universalism, MacDonald contends that historically Jews in these movements often retained a strong Jewish identity. What is more, Jewish support for Leftist causes ebbed and flowed, dependent on whether they furthered Jewish interests or not. Historically, Jewish support for Communism is indicative of a pattern of shifting allegiances, dependent on whether it supported Jewish interests. This, however, need not be thought of as an exclusively Jewish imperative, but a human trait. It is simply a tendency for individuals or groups to seek 322

Ibid. p.27.


out what is best for them, rather than what is worst. Neither does this sufficiently consider the altruistic nature for contributing to the welfare of others sufficiently, however misguided such intentions might ultimately be. He notes that Jews figured very prominently among the Bolsheviks during the revolution. The fact that the Tsarist regime was recognised as antiSemitic was an important motivating force for Jewish involvement in Leftwing politics too during and prior to that period. He further asserts that the Jewish element constituted a necessary component without which the movement would not have succeeded. But he rather limits the tendency to act in terms of a collective Jewish imperative that remains aloof to the needs of others, but who yet might aid their own interests in turn. Recognition of the altruistic motive does rather undermine the thesis of an exclusively tribal imperative to act. MacDonald notes that opposition to the Tsarist government and support for Bolshevism during the early post-revolutionary period spanned the entire Jewish community. This again is a contentious and erroneous view, as Solzhenitsyn has made clear. He again cites prominent capitalists, such as Jacob Schiff, who provided financial support for anti-Tsarist revolutionaries as proving this was an international Jewish imperative. However, once Stalin turned on the Jews, their fortunes changed. Removed from leading positions in government, the military, and the media, Jews would consequently go on to form the backbone of the dissident movement in the Soviet Union.323 In the long run, MacDonald does not see ideologies such as Communism as a viable Jewish strategy for countering anti-Semitism. The authoritarianism of highly collectivist social and economic structures in the style of Socialism and communism encourages the institutionalisation of anti-Semitism to a high degree. Why this should occur if Jews predominate in such positions of influence is something of a curate’s egg. 324 Neither does the idea of Jewish culpability for the success of the Russian Revolution ring true when so many departed or fled after securing positions of authority and power post revolution. It in fact suggests the presumed Jewish imperative to secure advantage was at best an unintentional consequence and easily relinquished and therefore unsought.

323 324

MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, p.98. Ibid. p.100 400

The psychoanalytic movement, founded by Sigmund Freud, comes under MacDonald’s scrutiny. Freud, a Jew, was deeply concerned with antiSemitism and at times critical of the Gentile society in which he lived. Freud regarded anti-Semitism as a psychopathology stemming from the sexual repression encouraged in a largely Christian Gentile society. MacDonald finds that psychoanalysis had a deleterious influence on Gentile society, inasmuch as it undermined institutions surrounding marriage and sex. If such subversive influences take hold, they lead to lowinvestment parenting. 325 These consequences, however, have been more dangerous for Gentiles disposed to individualism, MacDonald argues, because Jews as a highly intelligent, upwardly mobile group, have stronger family bonds, more internal controls on their behaviour, have more defence mechanisms, and are therefore generally less prone to the negative effects of Western liberalism. Jews supposedly stand apart, and in doing so protect themselves from the pernicious effects of Freud, that they rather disingenuously encourage and promote amongst others. 326 The perspective supposes a rather devious motive in Freud’s concern as a Jew also. It presumes he sought sexual liberation as a “cure” only to compound Gentile ills. Nor does it seem particularly sensible or productive that Jews alone should be viewed as rejecting such a method to cure their own ills, simply because they apparently have more selfcontrol and more self-awareness of the dangers of the strategy and thus can shun its tendencies more successfully themselves. MacDonald tends to imply the Freudian cure for sexual neuroses has always been deliberately intended to be subversive. The consequence if genuine (and there is more reason to believe Freud genuinely believed his purpose was to cure) would in any case have encouraged sexual liberation for Gentiles, and thus in an age of non-chemical contraception, have encouraged child birth more freely amongst them. Free of their restrictive neuroses, they would not have felt fixated by an Electra or Oedipus complex and have been able to more freely express their natural sexual inclinations. The offspring adding to increased numbers, which would aid their advantage in any competition for power in the future. The Frankfurt School of Social Research also comes under intense criticism. He accuses it of deliberately seeking to “pathologise” Gentile group allegiances. The Frankfurt School originated in Germany, shortly


Ibid. p.135.


Ibid. p.149-150. 401

after Hitler's ascent to power in 1933, and left for America after the National Socialist regime moved against it. Many of its researchers relocated to the University of California, and other elite American universities, and then sought to theorise how the phenomenon of fascism was able to take hold in psychoanalytical terms. A psychological/political phenomenon they sought to stem. Most notable in this regard was “The Authoritarian Personality”, written under the direction of T. W. Adorno, and published by the American Jewish Committee. Intrinsic to the theory was the psychoanalytic idea that disturbed parent-child relations originated from the suppression of human sexuality, and this factor led to psychological complexes that in turn led to the manifestation of authoritarian tendencies. 327 “The Authoritarian Personality”, MacDonald points out, recognised that anti-Semitism was often associated with Gentile movements for national cohesion. A key theme was that Gentile participation in cohesive groups with high levels of conformity was symptomatic of a kind of pathology. This thesis was promulgated to maintain their weakness and encourage a tendency to individualism. However, MacDonald points out that this touchstone was not applied to Jews, for whom the detrimental effects of group cohesion and affinity were overlooked and necessary to advantage their own interests. Parental authoritarianism and collectivist tendencies are justified as leading to anti-Semitic mass movements, such as German National Socialism for the Frankfurt School. According to MacDonald, such an expression of Gentile group solidarity is often delegitimised as “Rightwing extremism”, as evinced by, for example, Seymour Martin Lipset and Earl Raab's study on the topic.328 A self-conscious Gentile pursuit of group interests therefore requires treatment, as it is “irrational” and indicative of “psychopathology”. The view tends not to make enough of the dangers of the authoritarian personality manifesting as an expression of absolute individualism however. It focuses too much on the notion that it is an inevitable consequence of the effects of tribal competition and the presence of a Jewish liberalism tending to collectivism. Jewish interest groups sought to make American society more heterogeneous by promoting a liberal “open borders” immigration policy he claims. He provides evidence to demonstrate that the major Jewish

327. 328

Ibid. p.178. The Politics of Unreason: Right-wing Extremism in America, 1790-1970. 402

organisations (e.g., the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Congress, and the American Jewish Committee) have promoted, since the 60s, an immigration policy that would allow for a more diverse pool of immigrants and lead eventually to a more racially and ethnically diverse population. The key word would be “tolerance� and Jews would thrive within it. MacDonald claims the programmes of the cultural Marxists were meant to encourage heterogeneity. Jews have advocated similar proimmigration efforts in Western Europe, Canada, and Australia. The objective being the same as in America: to make the countries more ethnically and racially heterogeneous, thus diminishing the likelihood of a strong racial or national identity to stifle the emergence of cohesive antiSemitic mass movements.329 Although MacDonald conceded that other entities, such as ethnic and business groups, have also sought to shape immigration policy, he maintains the most important influence in the period leading up to the change in policy inaugurated by the 1965 immigration law was Jewish, even though the majority of the population opposed mass immigration. Multiculturalism, MacDonald asserts, is used by Jews as a safety valve against anti-Semitism, insofar as it makes it more difficult for the formation of a unified, cohesive group of Gentiles to collectively oppose Judaism. It is no coincidence that the most significant anti-Semitic movements have emerged in societies characterised by a strong religious and ethnic identity. Therefore, ethnically and religiously, pluralistic societies are more likely to protect them.330 In this, he fails to address the problems multiculturalism aggravates for Jews themselves sufficiently. National identity is weakened and national strength economically and politically is lessened if disparate groups are encouraged through immigrant influx. Social problems occur if they do not assimilate effectively. How Jews are supposed to function and capitalise on this dysfunction tends to be self-defeating to their own interests, unless it is viewed as merely a short-term exploitation of the poor in dire circumstances to further their own advantage. The idea of exploitation of the weak and those in need by Jews, however, is a classic anti-Semitic value and one clearly apparent in Goebbels’ propaganda 329

MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, p.294-97.

330 "The Numbers

Game; Ethnic Conflict in the Contemporary World," Population and Environment 21 (2005): p.413-25. 403

films and literature. It assumes the chief skill of the Jew is a divide and conquer approach, aided by usury, and their occupation is usually best fitted to the pawnbroker. Prejudiced stereotypes at best. It too readily sees Jews as an eternal alien: a parasite working to capitalise on the destruction of their host nation, before fleeing from the inevitable consequences they are largely blamed for causing. Indeed, the real question needs to be asked of MacDonald as to why they would simple seek this when it largely invokes a threat against themselves. The strategy seems positively nihilistic, rather than genuinely productive to their future interests. It suggests an ignorance that defies belief and a misguided concern to stem anti-Semitism which clearly only exacerbates it. In this, Jews act oblivious of the longer-term consequences. They act like an ignorant physician, incapable of affecting a cure, as they continue to administer a quick fix that only causes them a sickness they simply wish to rid themselves of in turn.

Two clashing concerns in collectivism and individualism A key theme of “The Culture of Critique” is that Jews have worked in concert with others to foster a multicultural society, where individual groups tend to form separately. In doing so a more congenial environment for Jews is supposedly created, where nationalism is dissipated. An environment where it is less likely that a homogeneous mass Gentile group will be arrayed against the Jews as an outgroup. However, MacDonald also believes that a multicultural society is unsustainable. He asserts the European-derived peoples have a unique genetic disposition that permits them alone to sustain the values of individualism necessary to sustain occidental institutions and practices. The values of Jewish collectivism, and the values of liberalism that the Jewish presence encourages, tends to promulgate a backlash eventually. Once the European derived population falls below a certain critical mass, ordered society tends to devolve into a free for all “every group for itself” scenario, suggestive of social and cultural chaos. Furthermore, it exacerbates a need to enhance national identity. A progression that fosters anti-Semitic tendencies once more. MacDonald depicts a bleak future for the West, which leads either to oblivion for the Europeans, or a period of quasi-medievalism, where they develop a collectivist orientation as an antidote to the excessive individualism and liberalism foisted upon them. In this they seek to reaffirm their European ancestry and identity, in order to preserve their cultural and ethnic traits. However, the tendency to seek salvation 404

through collectivism has not been consistently reconciled with respect to the tendency to individualism, nor the tendency to a backlash. Concerning the Jews too, both a collectivist progression and the feature of individualism characteristic of the groups desire to remain a group apart does not appear to have been satisfactorily reconciled. 331 The manner in which Jewish tribalism incorporates both collectivist and individualist tendencies is not fully differentiated or delineated consistently in historical terms. A key part of this resting on the simultaneous tendencies to seek both assimilation and to remain as a group apart. In “Understanding Jewish Influence: A Study in Ethnic Activism”, MacDonald identifies four background traits for Jews to maintain their exclusivity: • • • •

ethnocentrism, intelligence, psychological intensity, aggressiveness.

These traits reinforce exclusivity, he claims, but have enabled Jews to organise and combine to exert a powerful influence on the societies in which they live.332 Clearly, in this, the features of both collectivism and individualism are exhibited, but the way one impairs or counteracts the other in society, or within the Jewish community itself, is not fully appreciated or considered. In this, the duel features of a tribe exhibiting both collectivism and individualism are fairly simplistically delineated, but tribalism appears to contain the characteristics of both, inasmuch as it requires a collective identity, whilst yet striving to remain a group apart. The question is what is the deleterious influence on their paradoxical nature and how might this limit any supposed subversive influence? One supposes even if it accepted that the supposed danger would be severely curtailed. Collectivism is to the fore when MacDonald traces the genesis of Jewish ethnocentrism to their Middle Eastern origins. Jews and other Middle Eastern cultures evolved under conditions that favoured the formation of large groups dominated by males. Essentially, these groups were extended families that practiced endogamy and marriage between uncles and 331

MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, p.310-22.


Understanding Jewish Influence: A Study in Ethnic Activism ( 2004), p.9.


nieces. These characteristics were the opposite of the cultural tendencies found in the West, which favoured individualism, rather than group identity. Heightened ethnocentrism is tied to a long sense of Jewish persecution throughout history, which engenders a strong sense of group grievance against European and Christian civilisation. This, however, fails to make enough of the interbreeding with non-Jewish Mediterranean females evident in some studies of their DNA, as has been previously detailed. He too readily assumes again that Jewish lineage seeks only racial and cultural exclusivity in this, when the scientific studies disprove it. High intelligence too is one of the qualities of Jewish exclusivity, MacDonald maintains, and has given Jews a marked advantage in their affairs with Gentiles. He cites previous research that suggests Jews exhibit a significantly higher average IQ than the population at large. The contrary presumption is then assumed by logical inference, that Jews would be more successful and influential if interbreeding for non-Jews (via immigration) was encouraged, whilst Jews continue to maintain their racial purity and preserve their exclusively Jewish intellectual acumen. But this argument is the opposite to the very real claim that mixed race interbreeding brings new strengths and abilities, whilst inbreeding (common amongst Royal families for example) over the centuries only tends to produce weakened or even malformed stock. In support of Jewish intelligence quota, MacDonald cites data indicating that although Jews constitute only about 3 percent of the American population, they account for 45 percent of the people on the Forbes richest 400 Americans. Furthermore, 20 percent of the professors at leading universities are Jewish, and 40 percent of the partners of the leading New York and Washington D.G. law firms are also Jewish. This view of their abilities contrasts with Duke, who tends to the view Jewish “inbreeding” exacerbates physical and mental deficiencies, but both tend to display a highly inconsistent concern with the virtues of ethno-nationalism in these concerns that quite clearly verges on objectionable racism.

So called “Jewish” behaviour strategies MacDonald sees Zionism as a manifestation of Jewish ethnocentric concerns. He finds it the most important example of Jewish extremism in the contemporary world. The most extreme elements within the Jewish community ultimately give direction to the community as a whole. 406

Although Zionism originally emerged as a radical minority movement among only very committed segments of the Jewish population, it eventually spread and became mainstream within the Jewish community as a whole.333 But the influence of it on the larger community actually unsettled the community, insofar as it instilled fear that support could lead to charges of betrayal of the faith. Split loyalties in this were divisive, and thus counterproductive to furthering their welfare. These also still exist, undermining the efficacy of a collective imperative to act, even if that at times was indicative of a majority view. It has always led to conflicting loyalties and dissent within at least some Jewish communities, even immediately preceding the Holocaust, which limits the credibility of the thesis that it was some natural manifestation of a tribal imperative that collectively tended to support and always seeks to represent solely Jewish interests. In recent years, the Neo-conservative movement has been at the forefront of the effort to support Zionist interests, MacDonald claims. He claims the movement can be characterised as fundamentally a Jewish intellectual and political movement, which in truth should not even be classified as conservatism in its real sense.334 He finds it is more representative of Leftist Jewish concerns if the truth be told.335 He characterises the movement as a network of professional and family groups led by primarily Jewish publicists and organisers. Any non-Jews that work in its ranks are drawn upon merely to harness “the wealth and power of the United States" in support of Israel and Israelis, and/or to mask the true Jewish concerns within the movement. Statistically, by 1945, one poll found it was favoured by 80.5 percent and only 10.5 percent opposed the creation of Israel. For our purposes, however even this serves split still serves to weaken any notion of a tribal imperative that Jews particularly act as a collective. 333

Notable Jewish figures in the Neo-conservative movement include Nathan Glazer, Sidney Hook, Stephen Bryen, Charles Krauthammer, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, Douglas Feith, Abram Shulsky, Michael Ledeen, Bernard Lewis, Daniel Pipes. The non-Jewish figures such as Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld supposedly disguise the essentially Jewish character of the movement for MacDonald. 334

The movement emerged from a group of originally Leftist intellectuals including Max Shachtman, an early admirer of Leon Trotsky, who would go on to become a Gold Warrior and a Social Democrat in the late 1940s. MacDonald points out also that the chief "guru" of the Neo-conservative movement, Leo Strauss, believed that individualist, Western societies were best suited to meet Jewish needs. 335


It is revealed however in its solid political support for Zionism: a tendency that has prompted the United States to become increasingly involved in the Middle East, often supporting the policies of the Likud Party. Furthermore, he accuses Jewish Neo-conservative activists as the principal driving force in this, in order to foment the most recent war in Iraq and to help the longer-term strategy of a future Greater Israel in the Middle East. 336 The main contribution of Leo Strauss’ philosophy, according to MacDonald, was to establish a strategy for Jewish survival in the diaspora.337 His influence on Neo-conservativism was marked in this, as he tended to advocate the importance of an aristocratic rule of kings, who would merely pay lip service to the traditional religious and political beliefs of the masses, whilst at the same time not believing them and acting to further less Constitutional values. 338 MacDonald accuses the Neo-conservatives of applying a double standard, inasmuch as they extol multiculturalism in the West, while insisting upon ethnic exclusivity in Israel. He blames the Neo-conservatives for encouraging (along with the political Left more generally) a massive drive to facilitate non-European immigration into the Western world purely for Jewish advantage. Less clear is how exacerbating cultural divisiveness


Kevin MacDonald, "The Conservatism of Fools: A Response to John Derbyshire."

Strauss asserted that the crisis of the West consists in it “having become uncertain of its purpose.” His solution was a restoration of the vital ideas and faith that in the past had sustained its moral purpose. Classical Greek political philosophy and the Judeo-Christian heritage were deemed the essentials of the “Great Tradition”, but he does argue the American “Founding Fathers” were correct in their understanding of the classics and their principles of justice. 337

For Strauss, political community is defined by convictions about justice and happiness, rather than by sovereignty and force. He repudiated the philosophy of John Locke as a bridge to 20th-century historicism and nihilism, and defended liberal democracy as closer to the spirit of the classics than other modern regimes. For Strauss, the American awareness of evil in human nature, and hence the need for morality, was a beneficial outgrowth of the premodern Western tradition. O'Neill (2009) notes that Strauss wrote little about American topics, but his students wrote a great deal, and that Strauss's influence caused his students to reject historicism and positivism. Instead, they promoted a so-called Aristotelian perspective on America that produced a qualified defense of its liberal constitutionalism. 338

Ibid. p.69. 408

between for example a greater influx of Muslims and Middle Eastern Arabs is beneficial to small scale Jewish communities in Europe. MacDonald also returns to one of his pet theories that European peoples have travelled an evolutionary trajectory resulting in a unique genetic profile that has caused them to evolve a unique civilisation. Among the most notable differences between the West and other cultures are marital practices, social isolation, and individualism. Whereas the West has a long tradition of monogamy, other cultures in the Middle East and Africa have a long tradition of polygamy. Monogamy was due to environment exerting an effect on behaviour claims MacDonald. Due to the harsh conditions of the Ice Age, it was nearly impossible for males to support and control additional females and their offspring. These conditions persisted and the population eventually developed tendencies towards monogamy, even after the conditions which gave rise to it ceased. This is nonsense, however, as it fails to explain why Jews themselves who hailed from environments encouraging polygamy developed monogamous beliefs and practises also.339 The denial with Occidental practises, or even that they helped form them is often downplayed. Environmental factors tend to be popularly supposed amongst white nationalists who favour racial, or “natural”, rather than


As clarified in the Jewish Encyclopaedia: “In Judaism the Law tolerated though it did not enact polygamy; but custom stood higher than the Law. From the period of the return from the Babylonian Exile, monogamy became the ideal and the custom of Jewish married life. That monogamy was the ideal may be seen from several facts. Not only does the narrative of Genesis, containing the story of the first man and woman, point to monogamy, but Gen. ii. 24 is best explained in the same sense. So, too, in the story of the Flood, in which the restoration of the human race is depicted, the monogamous principle is assumed. Also the polygamous marriages of some of the patriarchs are felt by the narrator (J) to need excuse and apology, as being infringements of a current monogamous ideal. Even more unmistakable is the monogamous ideal displayed in the Wisdom literature. The "Golden A B C of the Perfect Wife" in Prov. xxxi. 10-31 is certainly monogamous; in fact, throughout the Book of Proverbs "monogamy is assumed" (Toy, "Proverbs," p. xii.; comp. Cheyne, "Job and Solomon," p. 136). Ben Sira, moreover, as well as Tobit, confirms this conclusion (comp. History of Susanna 23, 69), though, while Ben Sira's view of woman is lower on the whole than that of the canonical Proverbs, Tobit's is quite as high as the highest ideal. Job is monogamous. So is the Song of Solomon. Harper gives a most convincing argument in this sense in his edition of the Song of Solomon (Cambridge, 1902; comp. especially pp. xxxi. and xxxiv.).” 409

social factors as exerting an influence on human behaviour. 340 They aren’t consistently or rationally argued for in respect to Jewish values however. MacDonald postulates Europeans have been less subject to group selection processes than Jews and other Middle Eastern ethnic groups. Drawing upon the research of Fritz Lenz, he claims the harsh environment of the Ice Age engendered a tendency towards social isolation among the various Nordic peoples.341 Consequently, Northern Europeans did not develop (to the same degree) the collectivist mechanisms for group competition. They also tended to require a much higher level of group conflict to trigger such tendencies. It could be argued, however, that harsh environmental factors lead not just to social isolation but engender a tendency to form groups in order to protect individual interests. An individual has less chance of survival alone, and more chance in a group. The larger the group the better. Individualism, MacDonald posits, is a unique trait to the West. The tradition of American individualism particularly is viewed as militating against the formation of an effective mass movement arrayed against Jews. People from individualist cultures tend to have a more favourable view of strangers and are less likely to hold negative views on out-groups. However, this rather paradoxically supposes a general trait. MacDonald similarly believes that such individualist societies are ideal environments for collectivist, group-oriented strategies, such as Judaism alone to thrive and dominate. The idea of success, however, is rather too often presumed to be in terms of a competitive usurpation, rather than facilitating any mutual collaboration that might strengthen mutual interests. As MacDonald sees it, both Jewish organisations and individual Jews have worked on a number of fronts to wage a culture war against the Europeanderived population of the West: “Jewish organisations in America have been a principal force—in my view the main force—for erecting a state dedicated to suppressing ethnic identification among Europeans, for encouraging massive multi-ethnic immigration into the U.S., and for erecting a legal 340 Only

about 3 per cent of mammal species are monogamous and it has been a puzzle as to why it evolved in some monkeys and apes but not others. Gibbons, for instance, are strictly monogamous, but other great apes, such as polygynous gorillas and chimpanzees, are not. These traits do not appear to be climate induced. 341 Fritz Lenz, “The Inheritance of Intellectual Gifts” in E. Baur, E. Fischer, and F. Lenz,

Human Heredity, trans. E. Paul & C. Paul (New York Macmillan, 1931), 657, in MacDonald, “What Makes Western Culture Unique?”, 22. 410

system and cultural ideology that is obsessively sensitive to the complaints and interests of ethnic minorities: the culture of the Holocaust.”

Such views similarly fail to adequately explain how Jewish exclusivity exacerbates alienation and resentment in terms of an undeserved antagonism by the indigenous of the host nation. MacDonald more generally tends to ascribe too much influence to Jews as a whole, rather than Liberal Protestants, or other more non-racially defined political groups, in shaping the liberal strategies of post-war American society. In this, he tends to want to argue that the extent of Jewish influence on society and in the political sphere is both homogenous, extensive and powerful, but conversely that they are yet able to remain segregated, aloof and apart in their exercise of power, in spite of all this requiring assimilation and deep interaction and networking as a uniform (albeit minority group) to control and influence a given culture or society. Any diversity of opinion within the Jewish group, of course, more markedly lessens the efficacy of the group ability to influence in turn.

Conclusion Professor MacDonald tends to exaggeration concerning the impact of Jewish interests on United States' immigration policy. A policy he claims they have used to weaken American society and its “white Western culture”. “In A People That Shall Dwell Alone”, MacDonald's insistence on explaining so many aspects of Judaism, based on a rather deliberately chosen tribal strategy, also clashes with its evolutionary determinism. He also fails to view the decline of the West in more general terms, as a malaise inherent in Western civilisation itself. In this, he only seeks to blame the Jews. But in this, the characteristic of the malaise might well be ideological, rather than simply racially tribal, or a cultural tendency inherent within civilisations irrespective of any minority groups presence. Nor need it be one restricted to a particular race or ethnicity, let alone various ethnic minorities still more broadly identified as Jewish. The ideological component in any case should be more suitably expressed in terms of an excessive Liberalism and a subversion of the true morality of Individualism to a dangerous Collectivism, rather than a religious or specifically Jewish tribal cause per se. The origins of this, however, appear to be identified by MacDonald as entirely “Jewish” and the intellectual 411

schools derived from them as seeking an almost exclusively progressive subversion. The general bias has caused Steven Pinker to assert that MacDonald’s theories: “collectively add up to a consistently invidious portrayal of Jews, couched in value-laden, disparaging language.”342 Dr MacDonald has no qualms either in admitting that his work is essentially an intellectual attack that: “if believed by non-Jews, would cause them to attempt to lessen Jewish power and thereby further their own interests…” Because of this he freely admits that: “…my work could be said to provide intellectual legitimacy to antiJewish attitudes and behaviour.” He is, therefore, freely admitting that his work incites anti-Semitic attitudes. He does not seem to care, however, and even defends his position, claiming: “Zionist theories provide intellectual legitimacy to the dispossession of the Palestinians, or that psychoanalysis or the Frankfurt School provide intellectual legitimacy to anti-Western attitudes. At the end of the day, what counts is whether indeed my writings are intellectually defensible.” His views, however, are justified by a prejudice that informs his work throughout. He clings to assumptions that are far too value laden and biased. For example, the Frankfurt School is not seen as a movement for liberalising culture in any positive or constructive way: freeing individuals from repressive authority figures that inhibit learning, stemming ethnocentric nationalism that might lead to Nazism, etc, but rest solely on an interpretation that the Frankfurt School has deconstructed and subverted traditional values, or modified them in a manner that has entirely harmed current culture, norms, personal and national identity, exclusively to further Jewish interests. The assumption here of course is that traditional values are always best. But it is clear in this also that there is not necessarily a broad consensus generally on whether Liberalism, as a 342

Lipstadt, History on Trial, p.154 412

political and social force for change, is the corrupting influence that Dr MacDonald largely assumes it is. What is clear also, is that it is not just Jews who would share the view that Liberalism (or “Progressivism” as it is now termed) is a force for good. Large swathes of the Left and Right in Party politics, would be inclined to this view. Nor is it the case that Jews, who might share his own more “Paleo conservative” “Right-wing” view, which clearly finds modern Liberalism a fault, would necessarily abandon their views given the choice in favour of perceived loyalties to a more ethnocentric interest, even given advantageous circumstances. Some individuals do act with a sense of political integrity and are principled in spite of supposed long term gains for their distant cousins. In this, a natural proclivity to subversion and a tendency to support the tribe is too readily assumed. Neither is it one that necessarily guarantees a collective or unanimously agreed imperative as to the best course of action to be undertook to protect their too often falsely assumed uniform interests. Indeed, if ethnocentric interests are a primary imperative, as he supposes, they might even feel they are best served simply by maintaining stability and the status quo. In this, therefore, he rather too often assumes Jews exhibit a natural and progressive tendency to subvert, weaken and destroy. So too that the perceived collapse of western civilisation is entirely a phenomenon to be blamed upon them, when it might simply be an inevitable and natural progression typical historically of civilisations that have arisen and fallen in the past.


Profile for Steven Parris Ward (Ph.D)

De Natura Judaica  

Debunking anti Jewish conspiracy theories.

De Natura Judaica  

Debunking anti Jewish conspiracy theories.