Socialists admit there was a conspiracy of Jewish bankers behind communism, but deny communism was instigated as another Jewish-serving racket

From:
America's Unknown Enemy:Beyond Conspiracy
(American Institute for Economic Research) -- by the Editorial Staff --

V. What Do International Bankers Want?

Although reliable evidence supports several of the claims made in conspiracy literature, the preoccupation among conspiracy proponents with the distant historical "connection" between Wall Street bankers and the Bolshevik Revolution may also have diverted attention from banking policies that influence international events. According to conspiracy theory, that Wall Street banking firms with Jewish managers helped to finance the Bolshevik Revolution is proof that many international bankers were Jewish Communists in league with the "bigger conspiracy to control the world." These conspirators allegedly had (and have) little fear of Socialists because they are confident they could (and can) control them. We agree that the policies advocated today by some international bankers, academicians, and multinational corporate leaders, if implemented, would introduce central control over global economic activity. But while the Bolshevik precedent may have indicated the bankers' willingness to engage in commerce with totalitarian regimes (as they evidently have throughout recorded history), there simply is no other relevant and demonstrable relationship to link that past episode with present policy. The case against "global management" will not be strengthened, in our opinion, by tortuous attacks against "Jewish plotters" or "Wall Street Communists." The case against central management of economic activity (with its overriding importance to individual sovereignty) can be supported with much more telling argument and evidence than that offered by conspiracy theorists.

There is, to be sure, corroborating evidence from a variety of sources indicating that Wail Street bankers did help to finance the Bolshevik Revolution. But this does not establish that they, themselves, were Communists. According to Antony C. Sutton, in Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, three independent sources, including his grandson, maintain that Jacob Schiff (who was Senior Partner in Kuhn, Loeb, and Company and father-in-law of Felix Warburg) provided an approximately $20 million loan to the Bolsheviks. Sutton also offers documentation that a consortium of banking interests, including inter alia the Morgan group and the Rockefeller-Standard Oil group, were involved in providing financial support for the new regime. Gary Allen attempts to implicate Paul Warburg also. According to Allen, Lenin "took some $5 to $6 million in gold" into Russia through a deal "arranged by the German High Command and Max Warburg." "The picture," he writes, "takes on another dimension when you consider that the brother of Max Warburg was Paul Warburg."

Contrary to conspiracy notions, however, such financial deals are not necessarily evidence that the bankers were Communists, or even that they wanted the Bolsheviks to triumph. While it is understandable that conspiracy theorists express disbelief that international bankers would finance a regime whose professed goal was to strip men such as themselves of their wealth unless they were committed Socialists themselves or expected to direct the course of revolution, there are several other possibilities.

For example, that the German banker Max Warburg participated with the German High Command in arranging financial backing for Lenin seems consistent with the aims of German military strategy. The Germans wanted Russia out of the war, and they obtained such assurances from Lenin in return for financial aid. However, there is no evidence that Paul Warburg -- who resigned from the Federal Reserve Board as a result of combined anti-German and anti-Semitic sentiment -- played any role whatsoever in the matter, or that he acted in any other treasonable way. He may have, but the fact of opportunity does not establish a fact of culpability. Indeed, many Americans had close relatives fighting for enemy countries at that time, yet those Americans were not thereby guilty of treason

The Ethnic Element

Nor was the aid that Jewish American bankers gave to the Bolsheviks conclusive evidence that they sympathized with the Communist cause. Antony Sutton suggests that individuals such as Jacob Schiff were willing to invest millions of dollars in the hope that such aid might contribute to the emancipation of Russian Jewry, which for centuries had suffered discrimination at the hands of czarist regimes. An illustrative telex message appealing for aid from Russian Jewish bankers to prominent New York Jews (Jacob Schiff, Louis Brandeis, Oscar Strauss, Louis Marshall, and Henry Morgenthau) conveys an innocent context in which financial aid might have been extended:[1]

We Russian Jews always believed that liberation of Russia meant also our liberation. Being deeply devoted to country we placed implicit trust [in] temporary Government. We know the unlimited economic power of Russia and her immense resources and the emancipation we obtained will enable us to participate [in the] development [of our] country. We firmly believe that [a] victorious finish of the war owing [to the] help [of) our allies and United States is near.

When, a year after the Revolution, Schiff learned from Russian Jewish bankers of "Bolshevik devastation," he appealed to the U.S. State Department to give consideration to pleas for allied intervention against the Bolsheviks.

Although some Jews no doubt were Communists, widespread early Jewish support for the Bolshevik Revolution apparently was prompted not by ideological sympathy for the Communists but by sympathy for the oppressed members of the Russian Jewish community and by expectations that as Jews they might get preferential treatment should Jewish bankers attain positions of influence in the new regime. Russian bankers who appealed to Schiff and others for aid to the Bolsheviks may have had a special interest in the cause -- but not necessarily because they subscribed to Communist dogma. As events transpired, the Communist regime perpetuated anti-Semitism, and many of the same bankers in Russia who initially supported the revolution subsequently suffered death, exile to Siberia, or deportation. They paid a dear price for their miscalculation...MORE...LINK
------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

The fact that Zionist elements of communism were later hoisted upon their own petard by non-Jewish elements of communism does not disprove the fact that totalitarian communism (as opposed to 19th Century anarchism hijacked by Jews Karl Marx and Moses Hess from libertarians like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Mikhail Bakunin, and turned into totalitarian communism) was originated for Jewish-serving purposes, just as Jewish neoconservatism and partners first hijacked liberal centrist Democrats and later Wall Street Republicans in order to triangulate the American political system for the purposes of serving Zionist interests.

Organized Jewry originates all manner of "secular," crypto-Zionist intellectual movements in order to co-opt ignorant Gentile useful idiots or corrupt, greedy and venal Gentile partners in crime into doing its bidding; that's part of its modus operandi.

This would be obvious to everyone by now if Jewry and its partners hadn't been able to get away with shouting down critics of their various totalitarian enterprises (Western statist-leftism, neo-fascist Zionism) with shouts of "anti-Semitism" for so long.

At this point, anyone who plays the "anti-Semitism" card should be assumed to be part of an organized Jewish racket, either as a material beneficiary or an ignorant, programmed useful idiot.

Were communism and socialism originally implemented as a Trojan Horse for Jewish exceptionalism and international Zionism?

(By Chris Moore) -- After together murdering millions of Christians, dissidents, Cossacks and peasants in the early years of the Soviet Union, Leon Trotsky and Joseph Stalin finally reached a cross-roads in a doctrinal dispute and power struggle. Later, Trotkyists and Stalinists the world over also famously broke with one another over the question of how socialism should be implemented -- in one country first, which became the Stalinist model, or internationally (in multiple countries simultaneously), which was the Trotskyite model. Most Jewish communists adopted Trotskyism.

One explanation for this is simply Jewish ethnocentrism, since Trotsky himself was Jewish. But taking into consideration that: 1) Moses Hess, the originator of the phrase "Religion is the opiate of the masses," tutored both Karl Marx and Frederick Engels (whose Communist Manifesto was and is the intellectual basis of communism and socialism), but Hess was himself a Jewish Zionist; 2) many Russian Jewish communists started out in the Jewish Bund, and Jews later became disproportionately prevalent in the Soviet hierarchy likely by means of ethnic-networking; 3) many Soviet Jewish Communists later abandoned Stalin and his nationalist communism for socialist-Zionist Israel, or for America; 4) the FBI found that up to 60 percent of Communist Party members in circa 1940's America were Jewish; 5) many Trotskyite Jewish-American Communists later became staunch Zionist neoconservatives and neoliberals...Taking all of that into consideration, is it possible and even likely that most Jewish "communists" and "socialists" never really believed in the universal brotherhood and social justice platform and platitudes of communism at all, and simply viewed it as a promising vessel for international Zionism and Jewish-nationalist exceptionalism? And beyond that, is it possible that there is no scientific or "objective" basis to communism whatsoever since both "communism" and "socialism" were largely contrived and internationally promoted and proselytized by Jewish exceptionalists merely as a Trojan Horse for Jewish nationalism and international Zionism all along?

This begs another question: Have today's Jewish-American Zionists, as epitomized by the Israel lobby and both its in-the-open and closeted adherents, merely switched their former "communist" and "socialist" crypto-Zionist packaging for more openly Zionist (but still subversively hostile to Gentile political and social interests) neoliberal and neoconservative packaging?; and would the combined entirety of Jewish Zionism's economic, political, social and cultural influence in the U.S. explain America's ongoing Middle East wars to the detriment of its own geoolitical interests, and to the benefit of Israeli hegemony in the Levant and beyond?

Over his career, neocon agitprop David Horowitz transitioned from Red fascist to Zionist fascist, but his Judeofascist essence has remained the same

(By Chris Moore) -- Jewish-American Zionist activist and agitator David Horowitz personifies American Judeofascism's transition from Red fascism to Zionist fascism; he was indoctrinated into a career of subversion early on, and his subversive ethic remains to this day.

In the beginning, Horowitz's parents were committed Communists, and David was a prototypical red-diaper baby.

David Horowitz’s RADICAL SON: A GENERATIONAL ODYSSEY is a powerful autobiographical account of his political and spiritual journey from the left to the right. Horowitz was a “red diaper baby.” Both his parents were committed members of the Communist Party. Horowitz grew up in the closed world created by the Party, attending Party schools and even a Party summer camp. Though as a young man Horowitz renounced his childhood Stalinism, he still clung to the dream of socialism. As a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley, in the early 1960’s, Horowitz helped create the New Left, a radical movement dominated by students who hoped to rescue and renew the left project by uniting Marxism with what they believed were more humane and liberating values.

Long-time FBI director J. Edgar Hoover knew a thing or two about the "values" embraced Red fascists like the Horowitz's, which he documented in testimony before Congress in 1947:

"The mad march of Red fascism is a cause for concern in America. But the deceit, the trickery, and the lies of the American communists are catching up with them...They know that their backs will soon be to the wall...

"Herein lies the greatest menace of communism. For these are the people who infiltrate and corrupt various spheres of American life. So rather than the size of the Communist Party, the way to weigh its true importance is by testing its influence, its ability to infiltrate. ...

"The communists have developed one of the greatest propaganda machines the world has ever known...The objective, of course, is to develop discontent and hasten the day when the communists can gather sufficient support and following to overthrow the American way of life..."

Unfortunately, Hoover was never able to nail all Communist subversives like the Horowitz's for their treason, and their son David learned all of their dirtiest tricks, and eventually moved into a leadership position in the New Left himself:

Horowitz quickly became a leader in the radical movement, writing books criticizing American Cold War policy which became widely influential in leftist circles. On the strength of his intellectual reputation, Horowitz became one of the editors of RAMPARTS, the leading radical journal of the 1960’s. Here Horowitz became involved with the Black Panther Party. Overlooking the Panthers’ violence and criminal activities, Horowitz convinced himself that his new associates were earnest revolutionaries like himself. When the Panthers murdered an accountant he had placed with them, Horowitz began a process of reevaluating his convictions. He came to believe that the radical movement of the 1960’s had been a mistake, with revolutionary zeal a mask for arrogance and self-promotion.

The term "neoconservative" was originally a shorthand reference to formerly Red fascist Communists (mostly Jews like Horowitz) who transitioned into fascist Zionism under the guise of "conservatism." It has since become a full blown ideology embraced by many statist-liberal-capitalists (neoliberals) and ostensibly mainstream conservatives in Establishment Washington, as well.

In 2008, journalist Jacob Heilbrunn wrote a book documenting the Jewish background and motives of the neocons called They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons, reviewed here by Philip Weiss:

It is hard to imagine a title more overdue than They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons. Ever since neoconservatism’s chief contribution to world betterment, the Iraq War, began losing its luster, its adherents have gone into a kind of hiding, and the media has given them cover. Former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and New York Times columnist David Brooks, one or both of whom are neoconservatives, have suggested that the word is an anti-Semitic epithet. Others try to avoid it entirely: when Bill Kristol, who was definitely once a neoconservative, was hired by the New York Times as a columnist, the paper called him a “conservative” and said his father Irving Kristol, one of the movement’s founders, was a leader of “modern conservatism.”

Jacob Heilbrunn asserts that neoconservatives have so far gotten away “scot-free” with planning the greatest foreign-policy disaster since Vietnam. And so his book will call them to account. Not quite.

Heilbrunn achieves one important chore: a forthright social narrative of the neocons as a Jewish movement. Tracing ideological currents in the Jewish community from the 1940s to the 1970s, Heilbrunn, a journalist who himself flirted with neoconservatism, describes how the neocons were propelled by resentments against WASP elites—the men who had ignored the Holocaust, they felt, and “frozen out” Jews from the establishment. It would be hard to overemphasize Heilbrunn’s accomplishment. There has been endless prevarication about the fact that neoconservatism is an element of the Jewish experience, even from liberal Jews...

Was the resentment of the WASP elites really motivated by the Holocaust and being frozen out, or was it motivated by the fact that authorities like J. Edgar Hoover hounded their Red fascist racket into oblivion?

Regardless, Philip Weiss has a blog called Mondoweiss that recently ran a post by Zoe Zenowich that documented the latest antics by perennial Judeofascist agitprop Horowitz, who himself long ago transitioned from his Red fascist identity to a Zionist fascist one. The opportunistic Horowitz is apparently piggy-backing on neocon demagogue Rep. Peter King's hearings on alleged Islamic-American radicalization (King is a Republican from New York who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee) by holding hearings of his own on college campuses.

Brooklyn College had its own Peter King hearing last night when right-wing commentator David Horowitz spoke to a feisty crowd of students and faculty...

Outside the library where the lecture was held, security guards insisted that ten or so peaceful protesters huddled in the rain stand behind steel gates they had brought out for the occasion. Inside, security guards searched bags before running a handheld metal detector over everyone entering the lecture hall—security measures I have never before experienced in my four years of attending guest speaker events at the college. In his opening comments, Horowitz remarked, “How does it feel to go through a check point? I’ll tell you one thing, I feel safer and that’s what check points are about—making people feel safe when they’re under attack by terrorists and Middle East Jew haters. “ Later, Horowitz added, “check points are there to protect the innocent from the guilty.”...

Horowitz, who admitted he had actually never even been to Israel, proceeded to give everyone a lesson in Middle East politics: according to him, Muslims in the Middle East are “Islamic Nazi’s” who “want to kill Jews, that’s their agenda.” He added later, “all Muslim associations are fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Horowitz appeared to be too delusional to even be quoted, or taken seriously if it weren’t for the audience members who so fervently agreed with what he was saying.

The most revealing moment came when a young Arab-American woman directed a question to Horowitz and the audience: “You talk about Muslims as if you know them—We have a Muslim American Society, we have a Palestine Club [on campus]. I want to raise the question to any of the Jews in this room, and students, have you guys ever been threatened by a Muslim on campus or an Arab?” To this, the crowd almost unanimously spun around in their seats to face the young woman and replied “yes.” Someone shouted, “and we’re scared when we see Muslims on buses and airplanes too.”

Horowitz encouraged anti-Muslim hate by telling the crowd, “no other people have sunk so low as the Palestinians have and yet everybody is afraid to say this,” claiming that Muslims are a “protected species in this country” and that he’s “wait[ing] for the day when the good Muslims step forward.”

The scary thing is that people listen to such hateful rhetoric and nod along. What would they say if someone said the same about Jewish people?...

So what are Judeofascist's like Horowitz and ideological neocon bootlickers like Rep. King, himself the recipiant of large amounts of Zionist money, attempting to accomplish with all of this?

Nothing short of the Israelification of American society by whipping up fear and hysteria, and manipulating Americans into transferring ever more taxpayer dollars into the "national security" and "Homeland Security" rackets. Note above how Horowitz glorified the concept of "check points," which are a common feature of Israeli society. Note how former Homeland Security czar Michael Chertoff, himself a Judeofascist, implemented the TSA scanner check points in airports all across American, and true to fascist modus-operandi, made a fortune for himself doings so.

These are the types of demagogic and taxpayer-thieving wealth-transfer activities from the American middle class and working class to the Zionist-racketeering class that have been going on for years now in Judeofascist/neocon-neolib occupied Washington, and will only continue to get worse until the entire Judeofascist-corrupted Establishment is flogged from the American temple once and for all.

Perhaps we can start with self-serving, opportunistic Judeofascists Zionist agitprops like David Horowitz, who has demonstrated his anti-American treason at every turn throughout his life.

Is there any good reason that a Zionist-racketeering, Judeofascist Israel-firster such as himself shouldn't face an investigation for treason, or at the very least, a tribunal hearing for deportation to Israel?

After all, menacing Judeofascist Bolsheviks like Emma Goldman were deported from America to the Soviet Union for the safety and betterment of American society during the reign of the Communist menace; so why shouldn't Judeofascist Zionists like Horowitz face expulsion to their own ethno-ideological homeland of Israel, which, along with their own pocketbooks, is their primary loyalty anyway?

In J. Edgar Hoover's words, the Judeofascists Bolsheviks sought to "overthrow the American way of life," and today, so do the Judeofascist Zionists and their cynical, self-serving fascist Big Government collaborators of both Left and Right.
-------------------------
Neocon agitprop David Horowitz meandered from Red fascism to Zionist fascism, but his Judeofascist essence remained constant

Ethnically cohesive Judeofascist-Left operated under left-liberal and Communist guise before finally openly embracing its bigoted Zionism

From:
Joe McCarthy and the Jews: Comments on Jewish Organizations’ Response to Communism and Senator McCarthy, by Aviva Weingarten (2008).
(Occidental Observer) -- by Kevin MacDonald

Beginning in the 19th century, liberal/leftist politics has been a hallmark of the Jewish community in America and elsewhere. The attraction of Jews to the success of the Bolshevik Revolution was an entirely mainstream movement among large numbers of Jews in America and led to one of several anti-Jewish stereotypes during the 1920s and 1930s — stereotypes that were aided and abetted by people like Henry Ford and Father Charles Coughlin. Into the 1930s the American Communist Party (CPUSA) had a Yiddish-speaking Jewish section. and Jews around the world had positive attitudes toward the USSR, at least partly because Jews had achieved elite status there.

After World War II, however, anti-Semitism declined precipitously in the US, and Jewish organizations were poised to spearhead the transformations in civil rights and immigration legislation that would come to fruition in the 1960s. By 1950 the Jewish community was part of the establishment — well connected to the power centers in the media, politics, the academic world and the construction of culture generally.

But there was a major problem that the organized Jewish community was forced to confront—a problem stemming from the long involvement of the mainstream Jewish community in communism and the far left, at least until the end of World War II, and among a substantial number of Jews even after this period. In Jewish Organizations' Response to Communism and Senator McCarthy, Aviva Weingarten points to a “hard core of Jews” (p. 6) who continued to support the Communist Party into the 1950s and continued to have a “decisive role" in shaping the policies of the American Communist Party (CPUSA) (p. 9).

Weingarten notes that unlike other communists, Jewish communists continued to have an ethnic identity (p. 10) and often participated in the wider Jewish community. This is a refreshing change from a long history of Jewish apologetics over this issue. The standard line, not only among Jewish activist organizations but by academic authors such as Yuri Slezkine, has been that Jews ceased being Jews when they joined the Communist Party or participated in other far left causes. As a result, the focus of Chapter 3 of The Culture of Critique is to demonstrate that Jewish radicals retained a strong Jewish identity and a sense of pursuing specifically Jewish interests. Most egregiously, the American Jewish Congress — by far the largest Jewish organization in terms of membership — continued to be associated with the far left and was formally affiliated with organizations listed as subversive by the US Attorney General. The CPUSA viewed members of the AJCongress as “democratic forces” in their attempt to create “democratic and anti-fascist” policies in the World Jewish Congress (p. 25).

This history of Jewish involvement in communism and sympathy toward communism was now combined with the new situation of the Cold War in which the Soviet Union had become the mortal enemy of the United States.

I suppose that in the ideal Jewish world of 1950, Jewish organizations and the great majority of Jews would have smoothly transitioned to a world of what became mainstream liberal politics: the movements for civil rights, for non-European immigration, and for removing any sense that the United States had a European, Christian identity. But, as Weingarten’s book makes clear, Senator Joseph McCarthy made this transition a delicate matter because McCarthy’s investigations into communist infiltration of the government often targeted Jews — not because they were Jews but because Jews were highly overrepresented among communists. And Jewish defendants accused of communist affiliations were typically represented by Jewish attorneys (p. 30). The result was that Jewish organizations were terrified that the public would be reinforced with the stereotype of Jewish communism.

Such fears were well-founded. A survey by the American Jewish Committee in 1948 found that 21% answered affirmatively the question “Do you think most Jews are Communists?” And an informal survey showed that more than half the people mentioned Jews in responding to the question “What do you think of the atom [spy] stories in the newspapers?,” even though the question didn’t mention Jews (p. 34).

The matter was compounded by the fact that many of the causes championed by the Jewish organizations in the area of civil rights, immigration, and globalist internationalism were also championed by the CPUSA. And throughout the period, the CPUSA viewed Jews as a group that was particularly susceptible to communist messages and recruitment and therefore actively courted them.

In particular, the CPUSA and pro-communist sympathizers continually tried to paint as anti-Semitism any targeting of Jews as communists, no matter how well founded. A paradigmatic case was the spy trial of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. The CPUSA-inspired National Committee to Secure Justice in the Rosenberg Trial held meetings defending the Rosenbergs in Jewish community buildings. “Headlines in the Daily Worker in the form of ‘Anti-Semitism and the Rosenbergs’ were an inseparable part of this campaign” (p. 32) — a view that the Rosenbergs themselves promoted. Indeed, as Stuart Svonkin points out, the Rosenbergs saw themselves as Jewish martyrs and viewed their political radicalism as intimately bound up with their Jewish identification...MORE...LINK

Judeofascist infiltration and subversion of US: Before the Israel lobby, it was Jewish double agents like Rep. Sam Dickstein getting rich from Soviets

From:
Seeing Reds
(The American Conservative) -- by Justin Raimondo --

Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America, John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr, and Alexander Vassiliev, Yale University Press, 704 pages; and Alger Hiss and the Battle for History, Susan Jacoby, Yale University Press, 272 pages

...How little things change. This is precisely what Larry Franklin, the Pentagon’s top Iran analyst, said in his own defense when he was caught turning over vital secrets to Israeli officials via AIPAC employees Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman. Far from considering himself a traitor, he fancied himself a patriot for trying to advance the special relationship between the two countries. Convinced that American policymakers weren’t responding to the alleged threat from Iran decisively enough, he took it upon himself to supply the Israelis with closely held intelligence about al-Qaeda and U.S. troop movements in Iraq because he considered American and Israeli interests to be the same.

This also describes the mindset of Rosen and Weissman, who had the charges against them dropped after years of legal delaying tactics and an orchestrated campaign by the Israel lobby. Of course, the accusation of McCarthyism was pinned on the Justice Department for daring to indict them along with Franklin, and yet, as we can see in the pages of Spies, “Tail-Gunner Joe” was right. The U.S. government, during the war years particularly, was inundated with Communists who were turning over our secrets to the Soviets as fast as they could glean them.

Soviet penetration of every aspect of American political and social life was the KGB’s goal, and during what Eugene Lyons called the “red decade” of the 1930s, this was incredibly easy: the ideological zeitgeist was not only conducive but welcoming. The supposed identity of U.S. and Soviet interests was even easier to justify during the war years, when “Uncle Joe” Stalin was America’s best friend (and Britain’s), and Lend-Lease Act dollars were pouring into the effort to save the “workers’ fatherland.”

The so-called Popular Front strategy of the Communist Party was very successful, involving as it did a grand coaltion with New Deal liberals and fellow traveling intellectuals—such as the crews at The New Republic and The Nation—of which the Communists were the spearhead. In the run up to World War II and during the conflict, the Communists made up the left wing of the Rooseveltian revolutionaries, who sought, as Archibald MacLeish put it, to “remake America,” a task quite suited to the Communists’ taste. Yet there was no sense that this was an alien conspiracy, or at least a great effort was made to make it seem “patriotic” to be under the discipline of the Communist Party. Communism, enunciated CP leaders, is “20th century Americanism.” Little did anyone of consequence then suspect that these 20th-century “Americanists” were rifling through our secrets and sending them off to Moscow.

The sheer scope of Soviet covert operations in the U.S. and their undoubted success is chronicled in painstaking detail by Haynes and Klehr. From the collection of scientific and technical data—including the making of the nuclear bomb—to vital political and inside information about the internal deliberations of the U.S. government on matters of interest to Moscow, the Red fifth column infiltrated.

Journalism was a prime target. There were, of course, plenty of party-liners, but in Spies we are presented with evidence that a substantial Communist cadre in the Fourth Estate reported to their KGB handlers and, in certain cases, acted as sources and conduits for sensitive material.

George Seldes and Bruce Minton, co-publishers of the left-wing newsletter In Fact—who delighted in smearing antiwar conservatives—were both Soviet agents, the latter “deeply embedded in the Communist underground and one of its links to the KGB.” Another journalist crusader was John Spivak, who made a career out of linking America First to the Nazis after receiving orders directly from the KGB’s chief officer in the U.S., Jacob Golos. After the invasion of the Soviet Union by Hitler’s troops, hacks like Seldes and Spivak, along with John Roy Carlson, were used to smear the antiwar movement as the “Nazi transmission belt,” as one anti-isolationist tract put it...

The Soviets further succeeded in placing a number of agents as congressional staff members, and in Rep. Sam Dickstein (D-N.Y.), who according to Allen Weinstein’s The Haunted Wood was paid $1,250 a month by the Soviets, they had an actual member of Congress. It was Dickstein who lorded it over the House’s Special Committee on Un-American Activities, the precursor to HUAC, and embarked on a witchhunt against any organization or individual who dared speak out against U.S. intervention abroad, labeling them Nazis, fascists, and saboteurs. Long before McCarthy, there was Dickstein, who “exaggerated the extremist threat far beyond its small size, claiming that the German American Bund had two hundred thousand armed men who were ready to don their brown uniforms and overthrow the government.” He coerced and abused witnesses dragged before his inquisition and “lectured them about their moral shortcomings.”

Dickstein wasn’t just a traitor and a Communist: he was also a crook. Indeed, “Crook” was the KGB’s cover name for him. In the winter of 1936, the New York congressman approached Soviet Ambassador Alexandr Troyanovsky with the bright idea of paying him as much as $6,000 for the Un-American Committee’s files on White Russian exiles in the United States. At a series of meetings detailed in the KGB archives, Dickstein dickered until he got the Soviets to agree to a fee that, in 2008 dollars, amounted to more than $200,000 annually. In return, he promised to launch an investigation into White Russians, Trotskyists, and other opponents of the Soviet regime. When Walter Krivitsky, a KGB official, defected to the West and denounced Stalin, Dickstein interceded, unsuccessfully, with the immigration authorities to deny him a visa extension. Dickstein was eager to make himself useful. His Soviet handlers, however, were less than satisfied with his efforts and several times cut off his stipend. He resigned from Congress in 1945 to become a judge of the New York Supreme Court. He died in 1956, with no one the wiser as to his KGB affiliation...MORE...LINK
-------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

A clear pattern of behavior is emerging from these self-serving Jewish fanatics, be they Zionists or Communists: treason, relentless agitation, warmongering, subversion, corruption, insatiable greed, self-enrichment at the public trough (or in the case of the Jewish Dickstein, self-enrichment from both the U.S. and Soviet public troughs)...

What motivates their relentless treason? Is it "saving the Jewish people" from "anti-Semitism"? If that were the goal, then why is lining their own pockets so paramount? Indeed, isn't it the behavior of Judeofascists themselves that puts the Jewish people in perpetual jeopardy?

Their system seems to work something like this: identify themselves with, or emerge from, the larger Jewish community; conspire largely with fellow Judeofascists and treasonous goyim to manipulate, swindle, rob, plunder and murder both domestically and abroad; when opposition emerges to the criminal Judeofascist racket, declare that opposition "anti-Semitic"; convince Jewish society and the general citizenry that those who criticize or attack the Judeofacist racket are anti-Jewish and motivated by hate; enlist a multiplicity of useful idiots to defending their "cause"; and then laugh all the way to the bank.

Why don't more Jews stand up and condemn the murderous Judeofascist rackets? Their silence suggests complicity.

Which is it, "Judeo-Christian" Western civilization, or "anti-Semitic" Western civilization?

Neocon identity project: they will always hate us, because we’re Jews
(Mondoweiss) -- by Philip Weiss --

Here is an important exchange. Recently Jerry Muller, a Jewish professor of history at the Catholic University in D.C., published a splendid book called Capitalism and the Jews. Muller argues that Jews are great at commerce because of cultural training, family habits and dedication to texts, as well as from the tradition of filling a marginalized role in Europe, as usurers. Then capitalism became the defining order of European society in the 19th century, Muller says, and nationalism rose hand in hand with capitalism, because capitalism required literacy and education and nations could provide the structure for such development; and Jews became elevated within those nations as the professionals, and anti-Semitism was the response of people who lost status or who were in competition with Jews. It is a vital argument because it understands anti-Semitism as a real if hateful response to real sociological shifts, including the role of Jews as intermediaries between landowners and peasants in Eastern Europe (a hobbyhorse of mine) and follows along in the work of Yuri Slezkine, The Jewish Century, and Albert Lindemann--Esau’s Tears, which also “explained” anti-Semitism in terms of the rise of the Jews.

Now what is the exchange I began by referring to? At Amazon, the book was reviewed positively by Ira Stoll, the neoconservative former editor of the New York Sun. (I think this is the sage who said that those of us who demonstrated against the Iraq war in February 2003 should be investigated for “treason.”) But Stoll takes exception to some of Muller's analysis:

Mr. Muller gets out onto the thinnest ice when he blames Jewish involvement in revolutionary activity and communism for inflaming European anti-Semitism. Sometimes, he frames this claim cautiously: "To be sure, in much of eastern Europe anti-Semitism long antedated the Bolshevik Revolution, and would have been a substantial factor in interwar politics even without the prominence of Jews in the Communist movement."

Other times he is more assertive: "In Germany, where political anti-Semitism had been on the wane before 1914, the role of the Jews in the postwar revolutions was the key element in the revival of anti-Semitism on the right."

That the Jews were being denounced as greedy capitalists at just the same time as they were being denounced as dangerous Communists suggests to me that the denunciations were, at bottom, more about hating Jews than about hating either capitalists or communists.

I.e., they hate us because we are who we are, they hate us no matter what we do. When actually Muller shows that Jews were drawn both to capitalism and anti-capitalism, and that revolutionary ideology clearly played a role in the Nazi stigmatization of Jews in the 30s. But no, any theory that seeks to associate anti-Jewish hatred and crime with an actual grievance must be expunged.

This is in the end a war over Jewish identity right now. If nothing we do has anything to do with the resentment against us, we can continue to run the Israel lobby in American foreign affairs and colonize and ethnically-cleanse Palestinian lands and, when Obama demurs, insist on having out the disagreement behind closed doors, because the goyim will hate us anyway and the lobby is the only power we have.

But if we actually have an effect on our own reputation we can be mindful of our presence in a multicultural world. And I would state, as Muller does historically, that we have tended to be a privileged group...MORE...LINK
------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

The neocon Stoll recites a common Zionist trope with this argument:

"That the Jews were being denounced as greedy capitalists at just the same time as they were being denounced as dangerous Communists suggests to me that the denunciations were, at bottom, more about hating Jews than about hating either capitalists or communists."

This ignores the fact that both Communism and hyper Capitalism (as opposed to free enterprise) are antithetical to Christian moral authority and Western harmony -- which is a major reason many Jews are drawn to each. In both cases, the goal of these Jewish subversives is to tear down a society that penalizes their ethnic collectivism and racketeering, and replace it with a construct advantageous to themselves and their ways. True, Soviet Communism eventually turned on the Jews when the Jewish Bolsheviks became too powerful and were basically on the cusp of turning the entire enterprise into a mere Zionist (Jewish supremacist) front (just as they have done with American hyper-Capitalism). But it must be remembered that Jewish supremacism was probably the primary original motivation and secret intent of many of the Jewish intellectuals who invented Communism to begin with -- either consciously or sub-consciously.

Also, note how the neocons speak out of both sides of their mouth depending on who they're talking to. On the one hand, when addressing gentile audiences and issues, they preach the sanctity of the "Judeo-Christian civilization," and hold forth on how we're joined-at-the-hip-allies embarking on a common cause with common values in the War on Terror and clash of civilizations war on Islamic extremism. On the other hand, when addressing Jewish questions and issues, they go on and on about how Western civilization has always hated and persecuted Jews simply for being Jews, with no rational basis whatsoever.

So which is it, Judeo-Christian Western civilization or anti-Semitic Western civilization? Their tenacious support and intrigue on behalf of Zionism indicate which the neocons truly believe, hence I would argue that the last person a gentile Westerner would ever want to be in a fox hole with is a Jew with mixed emotions and conflicting attitudes about whether or not he even wants to defend the innately "anti-Semitic" gentile next to him. In fact, the a gentile may be under as serious a threat from the Christian-hating Jew at his side as he is from the enemy trying to gun him down from the front.

The entire mindset is reminiscent of Netanyahu giving speeches in Israel on the indispensability of Zionism to the survival the Jewish people because of the virulent, irrational and irascible anti-Semitism of the gentile world on one day, and then lecturing that same gentile world on how it should shower ever more Judeophile welfare on the Jewish state, and fight ever more Judeophile wars for the Jewish state, the next day.

Chutzpah, thy name is Jewish supremacy!

The Longest Manipulation: How statists, authoritarians and profit-seekers all play the "anti-Semitism" card

Tuesday, March 01, 2005 ::: The Longest Manipulation: How statists, authoritarians and profit-seekers all play the "anti-Semitism" card
(By Chris Moore, LibertarianToday.com) -- The world is eminently familiar with the holocaust of some six million Jews and other designated "enemies" of National Socialism (Nazism) that took place in Germany and Europe during World War II. Thousands of articles and hundreds of books and movies have been produced on the subject, and grieving over the Holocaust has become an annual, State-encouraged ritual as pundits, politicians and celebrities from around the world gather on Holocaust Memorial Day to pay homage to those who lost their lives. According to author Norman Finkelstein, an entire Holocaust Industry (the title of a book he wrote on the subject) has even sprung up around the phenomenon
But less familiar is another holocaust that took place prior the Nazi Holocaust, one that murdered at least four times as many. Perpetrated in the Soviet Union by Communists largely against Christians and other "enemies of the State" over a span of some fifty years starting with the Bolshevik revolution in 1917, the first holocaust has yet to fully enter the consciousness of much of the world. And fewer still are aware that the first holocaust triggered the second.
In part, this ignorance is due to special interests with their own agendas working to scapegoat Christianity for World War II crimes instead of laying the blame where it truly belongs. In fact, just as some have made memorializing the Nazi Holocaust their life’s work, others have made establishing and maintaining the alleged link between Christians and Nazism their specialty.
For example, in the book Explaining Hitler: The Search for the Origins of His Evil, author Ron Rosenbaum cites Jewish scholar Hyam Maccoby, best "known in America through his combative polemics in Commentary [the influential magazine of the American Jewish Committee] which challenge Jews to cut through the warm fog of ecumenical hopes and cast a cold eye on the responsibility of Christian culture and Christian belief for the Holocaust."
Rosenbaum quotes Maccoby as follows: "Christians say the Holocaust is part of the evil of humanity. It isn’t the evil of humanity. It’s the evil of Christendom."
Author Daniel Goldhagen apparently took Maccoby’s remonstrations to heart and produced two volumes, A Moral Reckoning: The Role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust and Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust, notorious for implicating huge swaths of Europeans and Christians in Hitler’s atrocities.
But the connection between Jews and Communism has been mostly ignored or, when addressed, explained away as a persecuted people’s natural reaction to historical bigotry and anti-Semitism. Even though the Soviet holocaust predates the Nazi holocaust, the reverse argument—that anti-Semitism may be a persecuted people’s reaction to historical genocide committed by Jewish authoritarians—is out of bounds. In fact, mentioning the Jewish ethnicity of many of the commissars, apparatchiks and Party members responsible for assembling and maintaining the Communist super-structure used to perpetrate atrocities against Christians and others deemed as threats to the State has been declared anti-Semitic in and of itself.
The only exceptions to this seems to be when the observation is made by someone of Jewish heritage. A recent example is Professor of History at the University of California, Berkeley Yuri Slezkine’s book The Jewish Century, wherein he describes Communist Jews as "Stalin’s willing executioners."
Another example is an article by syndicated writer and radio talk show host Chuck Morse (also Jewish) who wrote a column that concisely summarized the relationship between Jewish authoritarians and Communism:
"Communism introduced unprecedented levels of atrocity and totalitarianism to Europe in the years before Hitler, starting with the 1917 Bolshevik coup itself, Stalin's collectivization of farms, wars against the Kulaks, the engineered famines of 1931-32 which killed upwards of 5 million Ukrainians, the communist inspired atrocities of the Spanish civil war and other examples. Jewish Bolsheviks played prominent roles in the Russian coup including, among others, Trotsky (Bronstein), Zinoviev (Apfelbaum), Kamenev, Radek, and Uritzky…"
"It is an unpleasant fact that many of the worst Communists, those associated with many of the worst atrocities, were of Jewish background. Lavrenti Beria brought about the infamous Katyn massacre and other atrocities. Lazar Kaganovich, who personally claimed to be responsible for 20 million killed, stood atop the rubble of a Christian church proclaiming, 'Mother Russia has been cast down, we have torn away her skirts!' Genrikh Yagoda sent hundreds of thousands to work on the Baltic Sea canal project where countless numbers of Russians, Ukrainians, and Baltic's perished. Natalfy Frenkel and Mathias Berman founded the infamous Gulag system, with camps commanded by figures such as Rappoport, Solz, and Spiegelglas, all of whom are mentioned at length in the work of [Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]. Ilya Ehrenburg, the World War II communist counterpart to Goebbels, incited Soviet troops to rape and maim German, Polish, and Czech women as a form of punishment…"
Of course, Stalin eventually turned on his Jewish henchmen, and later on all Jews, but not before the connection between Jewish authoritarians and Communist atrocities committed against Christians was firmly established in the minds of many Europeans.
"Because Kaganovitch, Yagoda and some other senior Communist party and NKVD officials were Jewish, Hitler's absurd claim that communism was a Jewish plot to destroy Christian civilization became widely believed across a fearful Europe," writes The Toronto Sun’s Eric Margolis.
Hitler thus deftly and demonically exploited the Jewish association with Communism to implicate all Jews as a threat to the very survival of the German people. But it should be remembered that he did not originate the concept of scapegoating a religion as an existential threat to a people and their culture, and then murdering its practitioners in an act of "justifiable preemption". That had been done previously by the Communists. Hitler was merely following suit.
Was it fair for Hitler to scapegoat and murder millions of Jews for the heinous acts of a few fanatical Jewish authoritarians? The overwhelming contemporary consensus is a resounding "no!" Was it fair for Jewish authoritarians and their Stalinists partners to murder millions of Christians for the historical sins committed by a few fanatical "Christian" authoritarians? Unfortunately, the contemporary zeitgeist often either ignores the question completely or offers up a less resounding "no, but...". The caveat is deliberate.
At first glance, it seems odd that the Jewish-authoritarian/Communist connection, as a primary motive for the Nazi Holocaust, has been ignored and downplayed for so long. After all, if the Holocaust truly was singularly evil, as so many scholars maintain, wouldn’t it be important to shed light on all of its causes?
Some would argue the silence is mainly the result of Jewish groups steadfastly working to shape history to their own best interests to save themselves from another horrible backlash. However, the artifice of arguing that the deaths of tens of millions of Christians must be suppressed in order to protect the reputation of Jewish authoritarianism only makes sense to Jewish authoritarians, Christian-haters, and those with a parallel agenda. Unfortunately, those with a parallel agenda are legion—and many of the legion reside on the political Left.
In a recent exchange with the New Republic, Paul Gottfried, Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College, indirectly put his finger on the Left’s motives for framing 20th Century history as a cautionary tale against unbridled Christianity instead of a cautionary tale against unbridled statism.
In a defense of historian Ernst Nolte who "painstakingly analyze(d) the ‘rationality’ of those who made an automatic connection between Jews and communists in explaining the rise of anti-Communist anti-Semitism in the epoch that gave birth to National Socialism," Gottfried notes that it is common for Leftists to suppress comparisons between Soviet and Nazi totalitarianism. The Soviet holocaust is minimized by the Left not to prevent the Nazi Holocaust from being minimized—as some historians absurdly attempt to maintain. It is minimized to discredit anti-Communism, says Gottfried.
It seems the statist Left, which still draws much of its inspiration and world view from Marxism, wants to keep anti-Communism off balance—even today—to protect its own moral legitimacy and preserve the myth of its moral virtue. It accomplishes this by downplaying the Soviet holocaust, scapegoating Christianity for the Nazi holocaust and inferring that rigorous anti-Communism (historically a Christian enterprise) is akin to anti-Semitism.
An example of this came in 2003, when Martin Hohmann, a conservative member of the German parliament, compared the actions of Jewish Communists in the Russian Revolution with those of the Nazis. He was roundly condemned by the Left and even threatened with a criminal complaint for "incitement" under German laws outlawing "far-right" statements in public.
Hohmann defended himself by noting that the point of his comparison was not to blame the Germans for Nazi crimes or Jews for those of the Bolsheviks, but rather to blame "the godless with their godless ideologies."
This, of course, does not sit well with the Left. So rather than own up to its own historic (and current) hostility towards organized religion and the role that that hostility played in the Soviet holocaust (including the part enthusiastically embraced by FDR), the statist Left has painstakingly gone about constructing a false consciousness wherein Christianity and right-wing fanaticism are solely responsible for World War II and the Nazi holocaust; and Communism, secular Jewish authoritarianism and statism played little or no role whatsoever. Fixate on the evil of Nazism, say the Leftists. Anything less detracts from Jewish suffering and is thus anti-Semitic—and possibly illegal as well.
Perhaps cognoscente of the Jewish role in Communism, organized Jewish interest groups in America and elsewhere have gladly played along with the Left’s elaborate scapegoating of Christianity. In fact, over time, the false consciousness constructed by the Left has become the mainstream Jewish reality—and the American reality.
And the Left has taken the concept to new heights by silencing all of its critics by inferring a Nazi-like bigotry lies at the heart of their motives. For example, the entire phenomenon of political correctness—wherein generally recognized "victim" groups are completely insulated from legitimate criticism of their behavior for fear by their would-be critics of being charged with a "hate crime" or with "inciting hatred"—is one of its manifestations.
And Jewish authoritarians, as members of the ultimate victim group in what is construed as the ultimate hate crime, have leveraged their specially recognized status to the hilt. Over the years, it has been leveraged in defense of hostility towards Christian customs and culture; leveraged to render comparisons between the genocide of the Jews with the genocide of any other religious group or people worthy of contempt; leveraged in defense of a convicted traitor and spy like Jonathan Pollard and on behalf of ongoing Israeli spying on America; even leveraged to harass and intimidate American Christians seeking a more balanced approach to the never ending Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Jewish political capital has been leveraged to such an extent, in fact, that even The New York Times has taken note—and is concerned: "Jewish organizations and advocates of Israel fail to grasp that they are no longer viewed as the voice of the disenfranchised," Ami Eden wrote in the Times recently. "Rather, they are seen as a global Goliath, close to the seats of power and capable of influencing policies and damaging reputations. As such, their efforts to raise the alarm increasingly appear as bullying."
Of course, the Times itself has long been close to the seats of power and long played a role in encouraging Jewish authoritarians towards the belligerence they exhibit today—by advancing their delusions of self-righteousness. For example, it was a Times correspondent, Walter Duranty, who helped cover-up State crimes in the Soviet Union for years by celebrating Stalinism and downplaying the atrocities being committed by the Communist regime—reporting for which Duranty was awarded a Pulitzer Prize in 1932.
Was this allowed by the Ochs-Sulzbergers —the family that has controlled the Times since 1896—out of loyalty to Judaism, or out of loyalty to the Left’s false construct of right-wing Christian Nazism as the apex of evil? Probably both.
But it’s not just Leftists who have encouraged the Jewish victim mentality. There are those on the Right who have encouraged it as well.
One is well-known Washington Post columnist George Will, who can best be described as the Court conservative to statist Washington.
In 2001, Will wrote an essay in Newsweek magazine about a brutal 1941 massacre that took place in the village of Jedwabne, Poland of that town’s Jewish population by local Christians immediately following Nazi occupation—brutality apparently bereft of motive. After delving in significant detail into the savage nature of the townspeople’s attacks ("hooks and wooden clubs were used. A head was hacked off and kicked around") Will posed the question: "Why in Jedwabne did neighbors murder their neighbors?" His startling conclusion: "Because it was permitted. Because they could."
Not once did Will mention previous atrocities committed by Jewish Communists against Christians; not once did Will mention the tens of millions of Christians previously murdered—many at the hands or behest of secular Jewish authoritarians.
Would that have justified the vicious behavior? Of course not. Would it have provided some historical context that pointed to something other than the conclusion that even modern humanity is disposed towards barbarian-like savagery without a strong authoritarian hand to guide it through global multi-culturalism (or the latest version of whatever the statist elite decides multi-culturalism should be)? Yes it would have, but that wasn’t the conclusion that George Will wanted drawn.
Why not? Because the supposed imperative to save historical "victims" is a useful pretense employed by globalists in pursuit of their primary goals: money, power and Empire.
Will’s manipulativeness betrays the extent to which the interests of the statist Right overlap the interests of the statist Left when it comes to maintaining the official State narrative.
But with the war in Iraq, the statist Right and the Left (at least those on the Left willing to second guess the Church of Statism) have had an irreconcilable parting of ways—and the anti-Semitic accusation has been leveraged yet again, this time by the Right.
Because so many neocons are of Jewish background with personal and political ties to Israel and its Likud Party (some have business ties as well); and because neocons played a key role in laying the propaganda groundwork and manufacturing the false evidence necessary to take the nation to war (from both inside and outside of government), support for the war in Iraq has been construed as a litmus test on support for Judaism and Israel.
In fact, the neocons and President Bush have deliberately encouraged this interpretation by emulating Israeli tactics and policies and by tapping into the Jewish establishment to support their cause. Doing so has allowed them to hide behind the smokescreen long utilized by the Left: those opposed to their initiatives must have something against "the Jews."
Europe is mostly opposed to the Iraq war? Suddenly reports of "Europe sees a rise in anti-Semitism" start appearing in the press. Elements within the American left are increasingly opposed to the war? Look at new reports of "The Democratic Party's anti-Semitism problem." This sudden media emphasis is designed to paint the people opposed to unnecessary intervention around the globe as the ones with the problem; the people opposed to another statist war as evil anti-Semites.
The Christian Right, for whom Israel and "the Jews" play a key role in what Christian Zionists believe to be the pending End Times Rapture, has entered into the bargain as well, and some Evangelicals have become willing partners in the grand manipulation.
As Justin Raimondo of AntiWar.com notes: "…the neocons are happy to applaud their Christian cohorts, egging them on to more militant acts of defiance against an increasingly pagan culture, while privately despising Christianity in all its manifestations and publicly celebrating the "pagan virtues."
"But the Christian fundamentalists don't mind being patronized and treated with ill-disguised contempt by their secular neocon allies, just as long as certain theological and political goals are met: a theocracy on the home front and Armageddon in the Holy Land…"
It is the Jewish lobby, the End Times Evangelicals, and the politicians that cater to all of them, that have played up the myth that America and Israel are somehow irrevocably intertwined; that we share the same values and same fate; that opposition to the policies of one is the equivalent of a declaration of war on both.
"…Israel is our ally – and in that we've made a very strong commitment to support Israel – we will support Israel if her security is threatened," says President Bush.
And if the Israeli lobby has its way, that support will come at the expense of America’s ties to Europe.
"Anti-Americanism in the Islamic world and anti-Americanism in Europe are in fact linked," says Natan Sharansky, the acknowledged right-wing Zionist who is Israel's minister for Jerusalem and Diaspora Affairs and, reportedly, Bush’s Middle East muse. "Both bear an uncanny resemblance to anti-Semitism."
And so with helpful prodding from the Jewish lobby, the Right has picked up a variation of the false construct relied upon by the Left for so long: irrational anti-Semitism lurks in the heart of anyone who questions their motives and behind any inquiry into their agenda. The demagogue "anti-Semite" smear is used as a blunt instrument to silence critics yet again.
But playing the "anti-Semite" card has reached its limits, as have all trumped up "victim" justifications for putting the interests of Americans second to the interests of a few special interests run amok. The internet is aflame in recrimination against conspiratorial Jewish authoritarianism, neoconservatism and End Times Evangelicalism, which is why the New York Times—infamous for its powers of selective denial—has been forced to finally address the issue.
The Old Media have lost control of the dialogue and can no longer sustain the fantasy narrative built upon a foundation of half truths and lies. A younger generation is asking questions and wants answers. Real answers—not the politically correct pap served up through the faux pas filter of The New York Times and the rest of the mainstream media. And not the State-sanctioned conservatism that decries State-designated "Islamofascist" bogeymen in order to manipulate Americans into backing wars carried out primarily at the behest of a small minority of militant Jewish and Evangelical authoritarians and the Empire-builders and profiteers that constantly manipulate and cater to them.
Saying America has to invade the Middle East and construct a totalitarian super structure to prevent another Holocaust or 9/11 just won’t cut it much longer with an internet generation in America and around the world that is increasingly aware of, for example, what the first totalitarian super structure accomplished in the Soviet Union.

Greedy Jewry made seamless transition from swindling Communism to swindling Zionism, always using "anti-Semitism" as convenient rationale

From:
Would Julius and Ethel be Zionists had they lived?
(Mondoweiss) -- by Philip Weiss --

The Nation has an excellent piece by Victor Navasky on the latest chapter in the Rosenberg saga-- a new book that fingers Ethel Rosenberg's brother and sister-in-law the Greenglasses as the spies. I will save you the details, it's not my cup of tea. But what impressed me about Navasky's piece was his willingness to look on the Rosenberg saga for what I have always seen it as, a reflection of the Jewish response to modernity...

What I hear Navasky saying is that the Jewish attraction to Communism was sociocultural, that it reflected in part the Jewish experience of anti-Semitism in eastern Europe...

Jerry Muller says it best in his recent book, Capitalism and the Jews-- when he says that often before the ideology came political identity formation issues...

Muller says that integrationists were the largest group, and sought to make peace with modernity while keeping a distinctly Jewish identity. They were least concerned about anti-Semitism and tended to be pro-capitalist. As for Jewish communism, he treats it in part as a revolutionary/idealistic Jewish response to pervasive anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe...

Both authors show how the primal Jewish response to anti-Semitism and modernity predicts a lot of Jewish political behavior. And this explains why many nationalists and Communists have a lot more in common even today than either group has with the integrationists; for they are both more concerned with anti-Semitism than the integrationists are, they just have different ways of addressing it. My mother, for instance, took the side of the Rosenbergs back in the '50s, brought me up to see the case as a bright-lights demonstration of how the U.S. treated Jews; and today she supports Israel because it is the place that the Jews made in a hostile world. She's never been an active Communist or an active Zionist; but the two currents flow through her worldview, and they are not incompatible.

Obviously these are historical generalizations. Many former Jewish Communists are today anti-Zionist; they are a key component of anti-Zionism in the U.S. today. But I'd say that many more former Communists have morphed into liberal and rightwing Zionists-- look at Israel itself-- because even their Communism had an ethnocentric basis...MORE...LINK
-------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

Given their imperialist warmongering and perpetual designs on private monopoly (e.g. Jewish-dominated Hollywood, banksterism, mass media; and ethnic-rackateering in other industries) even a lot Jewish capitalists aren't free market advocates at all, but rather imperious, authoritarian-driven, control freaks. In fact, so much of what they do, from Communism to Zionism to their swindling version of Capitalism, is driven by insatiable greed that the question as to whether financial swindle and massive wealth theft and transfer from average Gentiles in their host societies to themselves entirely drives their various psychotic ideologies.

No wonder so many Gentile money-grubbing swindlers and hidebound racists in America (and advocates U.S. imperialism and Zionism, manifested in offensives like the Iraq war) themselves have a soft-spot for organized Jewry; lowlife thieves, swindlers and base racists tend to stick together -- birds of a feather. Indeed, how much of this pseudo-Christian, "Judeo-Christian" trash is in fact spiritually Jewish? How many historic "Christian" colonialist (the onese driven not by freedom and opportunity, but rather greed and racism) were not Christian at all, but rather Judeo-Christian trash working in spiritual collaboration with money-grubbing Jewry?

As I repeat, admittedly ad nauseum: Judeofascists and their spiritual collaborators -- the mediums for evil on earth.

The Eternal Dilemma of the Authoritarian Jew

A recent post on Mondoweiss goes to an important Neocon motive for orchestrating the Iraq war that has been roundly ignored by the mainstream media and the US Establishment: the Jewish-American Zionist desire to eliminate an enemy of Israel and expand the sphere of influence, security and glory of their spiritual homeland.

"The problem with the neocons is that they have by and large acted out of a strong sense of essentially religious concern with the security needs of the Jewish state, but suppressed that component of their thinking in the public square," writes Philip Weiss.

Weiss is right as far as he goes, but he doesn’t go far enough. Actually, the problem with the Neocons is that they are suffering the Eternal Dilemma of the ideologically authoritarian Jew: How can I craft policy that will serve my own needs while simultaneously convincing the gentile community the policy actually serves its needs? What do I do when the gentile community inevitably finds out that the policy I have crafted does not serve its needs as I have advertised?

The answer? Eventually there will always be a conflict of interest, at which point in time an authoritarian system will need to be in place to force the gentile community to accept the state of affairs beneficent to the authoritarian Jew and crafted by him.

The Neocons didn't so much suppress the religious-motive component of the Iraq war as hide it behind accusations of anti-Semitism hurled at anyone who brought it up in order to buy time. The Department of Homeland Security was crafted in order to put an authoritarian system in place to deal with the Eternal Dilemma when it inevitably arose. It hasn't worked because America is an open society, and because the Iraq war unraveled before the cement supporting the totalitarian structure could dry, which allowed the political heat that they originally envisioned would be shielded by the state to get to the Neocons.

To what extent does the Eternal Dilemma guide the thinking of the authoritarian Jew and govern other areas of his life (beyond his political life)? I suspect it has nearly total control of his intellect, which makes the authoritarian Jew a prisoner of his own belief system and a danger to everyone, more so because he isn’t even aware of the intellectual demon that thrives on the quandary that governs him.

Or is he unaware? An argument might be made that the authoritarian Jew is well aware of this demon, but chooses to live with it because it provides him stimulation, sustenance and can even be used to make him wealthy or powerful -- so long as it doesn’t get him killed first. It’s a chance the authoritarian Jew is often willing to take.

Henry Makow has written of the high that authoritarian Jews get from their intellectual demons, and how those demons drive them to commit heinous acts of murder, perhaps the ultimate example being Jewish Communists:

‘The greatest mass slaughter in history was not the Jewish holocaust but the Ukrainian Holodomor. By Stalin's own estimate, ten million Ukrainians died, mostly at the hands of Bolshevik Jews.

‘The extermination of the Ukrainian Kulaks was directed from the Kremlin where the Bolshevik leadership lived together and maintained a fraternal atmosphere suffused by their fervent collectivist idealism i.e. their egregore. This is how historian Simon Sebag Montefiore describes the scene in the Kremlin during the Holomodor. (Of course he doesn't mention that most of the main players were Jews.)

"This pitiless fraternity lived in a sleepless frenzy of excitement and activity, driven by adrenalin and conviction. Regarding themselves like God on the first day, they were creating a new world in a red-hot frenzy... " ("Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar", p. 40)’

Of course, once Hitler saw the rules by which the Jewish Communists were playing in Russia, the Holodomor and all the other wanton mass murders perpetrated by the Jewish Communists in the Soviet bloc countries against gentiles and dissidents, he adopted those rules himself, which resulted in the Holocaust.

And so it goes…

--Chris Moore

My answer to those who claim anti-Zionists seek to finish the work started by the Holocaust

(By Chris Moore) -- There likely would have been no Holocaust (as overblown and exploited by Zionist fascists and their collaborators as it is) if not for Jewish fascists masquerading as Communists carrying out genocide in Russia.

Karl Marx’s Jewish Zionist guru, Moses Hess, hatched a vision to exterminate the German people in the 1800’s, and the Jewish Bolsheviks got the ball rolling in early Soviet Russia by exterminating the Russian nobility and elite (many of whom were of European/German background) along with millions of average Christians and peasants, which made many Germans view Jewry in its entirety as an existential threat (whereas they should have simply targeted for deportation the Zionist/fascist Jews, many of whom were also masquerading as Communists in Germany.)

Fascist Jewry used communism as a Trojan horse for Jewish supremacism, just as it has used (pseudo) “liberalism” (of the militant, statist-authoritarian, neoliberal variety) and, just as transparently, neoconservatism, as ideological Trojan horses for Jewish supremacism in the United States.

Of course, it hasn’t worked alone; thugs, con artists, gangsters and other low-cunning, racket-running gutter snipes have always been attracted to/allied with Zionist Jewry and its fascist racket wherever it goes, and it matters not whether they’re of the left-wing or the right-wing variety.

Thus, it is the amoral gangsters and soulless money-worshippers who don’t want to confine fascist Jewry to the Levant (Communists, “liberal” totalitarians, neolibs, neocons, Judeo-Christian Zionists) in order that they may conspire with it in theft, mass murder and other evil enterprises (under the auspices of “government” and "nationals defense") who are far more likely to facilitate a new Holocaust than those who criticize Zionism (both Diaspora and Levant) as the fascist racket it is.

The only way to “save” fascist Jewry is to save it from itself, and from its thug partners in crime who encourage and profit from its fascism, and will see that it takes the fall instead of them when history finally demands accountability.

Religiously supremacist, ethnically cohesive Zionist Jewry increasingly difficult for its corrupt U.S. partisans and collaborators to paper over

From:
Uri Avnery on Religious Jews
(Occidental Observer) -- by Kevin MacDonald --

Uri Avnery is an insightful observer of the Israeli scene and Judaism in general. In a recent column, he notes that the early Zionists were anti-religious, at least partly because prominent orthodox rabbis were anti-Zionist. But David Ben-Gurion subsidized “a few hundred” Yeshiva students so they could spend their time studying rather than working or joining the military. Now, these “Torah-shielded parasites” ”constitute 13% of the entire yearly crop of those liable to the draft. Moreover, 65% of all Orthodox male citizens do not work at all and live on the public purse.”

However, a small group of nationalist religious Jews were also encouraged by Ben Gurion. This group has prospered as well, giving rise to Gush Emunim (“the Bloc of the Faithful’), “the ideological core of the settlement movement. Nowadays this camp is directed by Rabbis whose teachings emit a strong odor of Fascism.”

This trend toward fascism is more pronounced because these two religious groups have grown together ideologically over the years, so that “the two factions are very close to each other today and together constitute an Orthodox-national-religious bloc. Indeed, the Orthodox have now become much more nationalist: “The youngsters of the Orthodox faction are seduced by the nationalist melody, unlike their fathers, for whom Israel was just like any goyim-state to be milked.” (The latter comment on the mentality of diaspora Judaism, which would be seen as egregious anti-Semitism if written for an audience in the diaspora, presumably reflects the critique of diaspora Judaism common among secular Zionists of an older generation. [Avnery was born in 1923 and came to Palestine in 1933.])

Avnery sees this new religion as unprecedented in Jewish history: “The Jewish religion in Israel is a mutation of Judaism, a tribal, racist, extreme nationalist and anti-democratic creed.” I rather doubt this, on the basis of other work. For example, the premise of Shahak & Mezvinsky’s Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel is that this is exactly what traditional Judaism was, and this fits well with the group evolutionary strategy idea. See my summary here, p. 9ff. As they note, there are strong continuities between traditional Jewish communities and contemporary Jewish religious fundamentalism in Israel: “Present day fundamentalists attempt to re-create the life of Jewish communities before the Enlightenment (i.e., prior to about 1750).”...

Avnery notes that the Orthodox have 5-15 children per woman. As always, demography is destiny. Avery suggests that the government effect a separation of religion and state, but at this point that is a political impossibility. In the future, it will be even less of a possibility.

Absent external factors, the logical prediction is that the reality of Israel as a racialist, expansionist, religiously fanatic ethnostate will be more and more difficult to gloss over—even for the aggressively pro-Israel media and for politicians subservient to the Israel Lobby...MORE...LINK
-------------------------
Above: Ethnically cohesive Jewish Zionists on parade in Israel

Below: Ethnically cohesive Jewish Zionists and their corrupt Israel-first political stooges on parade in the U.S.
-------------------------

Chris Moore comments:

To me, it's obvious what happened with Nazism: Judeo-"Christian" Nazis simply evolved to mirror the Judeo-Bolshevik Communists, and the most sociopathic Aryans (plenty of them with more than a few drops of broiling Jewish blood running through their veins -- and hence Judeofascist inclinations) made their way to the top just as did the most sociopathic Bolsheviks. Being incapable of feeling guilt has its materialist and careerist advantages. But sociopaths make for an ignoble, dishonorable, unprincipled and unrefined leadership, as contemporary America demonstrates, as well -- hence the need for a strong Christian moral order in which nobility can rise to the top and vulgarians, Zionists, fascists, communists and other base thugs and sociopaths are kept in the gutter, where they belong.

What will it be: Containment of Israel or World War III?

Sunday, July 30, 2006 ::: What will it be: Containment of Israel or World War III?
(By Chris Moore, LibertarianToday.com) -- Worldwide, the religion of Islam has about 1.3 billion adherents; Judaism has about 15 million.
The neocons, Judeo-Christian Zionists and Jewish nationalist Zionists (the three groups that make up Judeofascism in America) have always known that without American intervention, the long-term prospects for Israel in its current racialist incarnation are bleak. It is Jim Crow state of 7 million people, 77% of whom are Jews, who’s “democratic” government grants them privileged-class status over gentiles. And they reside amidst a sea of millions of gentile Muslims.
Additionally, the majority of Jewish Israelis (for a number of reasons, most of which have to do with sheer bigotry) despise those Muslims and have sought to root them out of their midst using government-organized terror and violence since Israel’s inception. (Occasionally, the Muslims have responded in kind.)
What, then, has become the phenomenon of a few million Jews (not including their fanatical Judeo-Christian allies) trying to take on an Islamic population many times their size is not unlike the early decades of the Soviet Union wherein a small minority of Jewish Communists joined with fanatical Marxist ideologues and used a powerful State to terrorize and murder millions of Christians, whom they also regarded as backward and inferior.
Because there were so many crypto Jewish nationalist in the upper echelons of the Communist Party in those days, critics of the Soviet Union, like critics of Israel today, were said to be “anti-Semitic” and opposed to the fair treatment for Jews that the Soviet state supposedly ensured. Not irrelevant to its current incarnation as a violently bigoted (national) socialist state, many Communist Jews later sought refuge from retaliation for their Soviet crimes against humanity in Israel, which welcomed them with open arms.
Like their statist Soviet pre-cursors, American Judeofascists have also operated by using a powerful central state and appropriating money and arms from its government to further their murderous cause. Only in this case, it’s the U.S. government; and Washington has been subsidizing Judeofascism for years at the behest of that movement’s various lobbies and lackey politicians in the form of aid to Israel. Most Muslims know this, as do most politically astute Americans.
And this is why America was attacked on 9/11.
On that fateful day, a group of Muslims, who believed they were acting on behalf of the dirt-poor Islamic masses, hit back against the country whose government has long supplied the resources used by Israeli Judeofascists to subjugate and murder them. They also hit back against the country whose government for years backed anti-Islamic Arab dictators like Saddam Hussein, who only after his invasion of Kuwait became an enemy of the U.S., mainly because it was feared he might one day also represent a threat to Jewish Israel and to oil-rich, U.S.-allied Arab tyrants. Today, our government still backs dictatorial Arab regimes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan because like Saddam, they too are willing to pit their Muslim sects against one another in order to rule over the entire internecine mess with an iron fist--for the right price.
The only surprise about 9/11 was the fact is that it took Islamic militants so long to strike back domestically at the U.S. government for financing Jewish and Arab-authoritarian terror for so many decades.
It is unfortunate that innocent Americans paid the price for this instead of the Judeofascists themselves. After all, the average American is only culpable for Washington’s inhumane policies against Muslims to the extent that he or she has allowed the tenacious Judeofascist lobby to coerce the U.S. government into financing this ugly state of affairs.
But then, as a tiny minority here (just as it was in the Soviet Union), that is part of the Judeofascist strategy: burrow deep into the general population that it hopes to one day leverage against its enemies, attain positions of power and influence and then act in its name so that when that population is retaliated against, the Judeofascist-instigators can paint the hit as an attack on the entire society itself.
In the Soviet Union, Judeofascist Communists routinely and arbitrarily singled out Christians for persecution. When Christians sometimes violently defended themselves, the Judeofascist called this a “counterrevolutionary” or “terrorist” attack on the entire State and used it as an excuse to bring the wrath of the Soviet system down upon all “bourgeoisie” Christians, whose main trespass was subscribing to Christianity. (“Anti-Semitism,” by the way, was declared a crime in the Soviet Union.)
Former Israeli prime minister and ongoing neocon darling Benjamin Netanyahu unwittingly hinted at this strategy at play in contemporary America when, after hearing about the 9/11 attacks, he blurted out that they were “a good thing for Israel.” He said this because he knew that they would provide an opportunity for Zionist Fifth Columnists in America to begin the process of co-opting the U.S. military on Israel’s behalf to bring its wrath down upon Islam.
Of course, today we know that the U.S. government has been riddled with Zionists for years, mostly of the Jewish nationalist stripe, who are inextricably intertwined with Israel. Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and Scooter Libby are but three examples of open Jewish nationalists then working in the upper echelons of the Bush administration who were instrumental in manufacturing the “evidence” that led to the Iraq war from their positions within the government. And openly Jewish nationalist media figures such as William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer and Mort Zuckerman (who has owned the New York Daily News, US News & World Report, and Atlantic Monthly), are but three examples of Zionists who were crucial elements in the lie-America-into-war operation from the mass media end.
They and hundreds of other Jewish nationalist Fifth Columnists all used their positions of influence and power to disseminate false evidence against Saddam, and then relied upon the countless Judeo-Christian Zionists residing across middle America to provide the localized “grassroots” Fifth Column necessary to perpetrate the fraudulent Iraq war upon the American people and the Iraqis themselves.
Some of these Fifth Columnists are traitors to America, others are merely useful idiots being manipulated on behalf of Judeofascism. But recall what nearly all of them were shouting from the rooftops in the run-up to war: Saddam Hussein is connected to 9/11; Saddam Hussein has WMD; Saddam Hussein is a threat to America. And so we invaded.
Unfortunately for them, like most fundamentally deceitful enterprises tend to, the war has gone poorly. And even their numbers haven’t been enough to prevent more earnest representatives of the government, the media and the general public from getting to the truth: all their claims were lies.
After the invasion, even George W. Bush was forced to admit that Saddam had no connection to 9/11. And the WMD hunters his own administration sent to Iraq concluded that none were there to be found.
What does this tell you? Are these honest people? Were their pre-Iraq war certitudes honest mistakes? Or did they knowingly send American troops to Iraq under false pretenses? Given that the false evidence against Saddam was manufactured and disseminated mostly by Zionists, the answer should be self-evident: many of them knowingly betrayed America. So the question becomes…why?
Some say to monopolize oil, some say to perpetuate the Keynesian military-industrial-complex. I believe there are elements of truth to both of those theories. But I also believe the primary motive--the only one driven by a powerful combination of religion, ambition, emotion and ideology--was Israel. And it would take such fundamental forces to inspire these elements to perpetrate the diabolical betrayals that they have.
The Judeofascists were (and still are) eager to get even more Americans killed than died on 9/11 by sending our troops to Iraq in order to escalate the battle against Israel’s Islamic enemies to ever-greater heights. I believe Israel and its Judeofascist emissaries want to force America and eventually the entire West into a world war against all of Islam. They want this “clash of civilizations” so that American troops will die in the battle instead of Israeli ones, and they want it in order to increase the power of the capital of Judeofascism, Israel, so it can spread its megalomaniacal racialist beliefs across the Middle East and perhaps to the corners of the globe.
They are willing to use the U.S. military to accomplish this; they are willing to use nuclear weapons to accomplish this; and they are willing to use your children to accomplish this.
Will you let them?
The only way to stop Judeofascism is to root its most tenacious representatives out of the U.S. government; and to root those loyal to the Israeli government, both Christian Zionist and Jewish nationalist, out of American civil society. Of those who were knowingly involved in the operation to lie America into war, some should be arrested for treason, others merely deported to Israel--which is their primary loyalty anyway. That way they can be contained there the same way Ronald Reagan contained Communist ideologues in the Soviet Union: through the use of carrots and sticks.
Recall that Reagan frightened the Marxists with strength, but gave them incentive to reform. The combination, applied over a number of years, was enough to defeat them before the confrontation escalated to an all-out nuclear exchange. The Judeofascists should be similarly contained through limited American carrots (drastically-reduced aid to what will become a skeleton Israeli state) in conjunction and partnership with the stick of Islam, which will continue to intimidate and frustrate their diabolical ambitions through constant, steady pressure. That way Israel’s continuing existence will be a function of its ability to get along with its Islamic neighbors instead of a function of its ability to murder and subjugate them.
The alternative is a war with Islam instigated by Judeofascism’s American Fifth Column, which has already proven itself capable of epic acts of deceit and betrayal. And there is no reason to believe that if left unchallenged, the Judeofascists will stop at anything less than world war.
In response to Hezbollah’s defense of Islam and Lebanon against Judeofascism’s latest onslaught, neocon Judeofascist Newt Gingrich has already called upon the Bush administration to declare World War III. And such calls will only continue, either until Judeofascism is contained, or until it gets its way and achieves a mass conflagration in the service of its sinister, racialist vision carried out under the guise of attaining Israeli “security.”
Chris Moore is publisher of www.LibertarianToday.com

Democrat Harry Truman had disdain for cut-throat, supremacist Jewry, so why is the Democratic Party so dominated by Jewish Zionists today?

(By Chris Moore) -- Here's an entry from President Harry S. Truman's July, 1947 Diary found at TrumanLibrary.org. It captures Truman's frank and accurate assessment of the ruthless, self-serving, cut-throat character of organized Jewry, of which he says "when they have power, physical, financial or political neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the under dog."

[The entry for this day is written on three loose pages, interleaved in the diary book.]

6:00 P. M. Monday July 21, 1947

Had ten minutes conversation with Henry Morgenthau about Jewish ship in Palistine [sic]. Told him I would talk to Gen[eral] Marshall about it.

He'd no business, whatever to call me. The Jews have no sense of proportion nor do they have any judgement on world affairs.

Henry brought a thousand Jews to New York on a supposedly temporary basis and they stayed. When the country went backward-and Republican in the election of 1946, this incident loomed large on the D[isplaced] P[ersons] program.

The Jews, I find are very, very selfish. They care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as D[isplaced] P[ersons] as long as the Jews get special treatment. Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the under dog. Put an underdog on top and it makes no difference whether his name is Russian, Jewish, Negro, Management, Labor, Mormon, Baptist he goes haywire. I've found very, very few who remember their past condition when prosperity comes.

Look at the Congress[ional] attitude on D[isplaced] P[ersons]-and they all come from D[isplaced] P[erson]s.

Note the Jewish operator Truman refers to above, Henry Morgenthau, was the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury during the FDR administration who sabotaged Gen. Patton's plan to take out the Communists after taking out the Nazis, and who convinced Roosevelt to instead harshly punish all Germans and coddle Jewish Soviet invaders.

Of course, if Truman were alive today, he would have made the distinction between Zionist Jews (Jewish supremacists) and individual Jews. It's Zionist Jews who are selfish and demand special treatment, like the Zionist Jews who today dominate Truman's Democratic Party, and have stacked it at the highest levels so disproportionately with...Zionist Jews -- a racket that dominates much of elite U.S. left-liberalism, as well.

For example, 25% of all Democratic Senators are Jewish, even though Jews are under 2% of the U.S. This has come at the expense of other minorities, especially Blacks, who have only one senator (1%) despite comprising 25%+ of Democratic Party voters.

So let's add African American to all the other peoples listed above that Zionist Jews don't give a damn about, and that are being re-enslaved along with everyone else by the Beltway elites who are in bed with the Zionist Jews and their self-serving, Zionist agenda that straddles both the establishment left and the right.

The struggle against Zionism is the moral struggle of our time, and Zionists and their left-right Gentile accomplices must be recognized as the poisonous, perennial enemies of the American way of life and Western civilization that they are, and unapologitically thrashed from political power.

As Harry Truman inferred above, Nazis, Communists and Zionists are all equally evil, equally sadistic and equally cruel.