russia-insider--2020-10-19--Adolf Hitler's Spot-On 1936 Speech on the Evil of Soviet Bolshevism (Transcript)

`` Such is the difference between the Bolshevik and the National Socialist revolutions : The one transforms prosperous and peaceful countries into a waste of ruin and devastation , whilst the other , re-builds a broken-down and poverty-stricken Reich into an economically sound and prosperous state . ''
`` The aim of Bolshevism ... is to exterminate all that is healthy and replace the same by depravity and degenerate elements .
We do not want a situation here in Germany , as in Russia , in which 98 % of official key positions are held by alien Jews . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ published on RI in May 2019 Delivered at the September 1936 Nuremburg Nazi party rally .
Source : The Ethnic European .
“ We do not deny the grave concern which we feel at the thought of other nations becoming a victim of Bolshevism towards which we are deadly antagonistic .
This deadly enmity of ours is not based on an obstinate refusal to recognise any ideas that may be contrary to ours .
But this hostility is based on a natural feeling of revulsion towards a diabolical doctrine that threatens the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phase in the fight of National Socialism against Communism did not take place in Russia .
Soviet Communism tried to poison Germany between the years 1918 and 1920 , and its methods of penetration into this country was much the same as its present-day military efforts in moving the Bolshevik military machine closer and closer to German frontiers .
We have stamped out Bolshevism , which Moscow ’ s blood-fiends such as Lewin , Axelroth , Neumann , Bela-Kuhn , etc .
tried to introduce into Germany .
And it is because we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Soviet rulers to meddle in our domestic affairs have not yet ceased , that we are forced to regard Bolshevism beyond our frontiers as our deadly enemy .
We have fought Bolshevism in Germany as a philosophy that endeavoured to poison and destroy our people .
And Bolshevism will continue to be fought if it attempts to introduce its sordid Spanish methods into Germany ( Spanish Civil War ) .
It is not the aim of Bolshevism to free nations from their ailments .
Its object is to exterminate all that is healthy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ degenerate elements .
We do not want a situation here in Germany , as in Russia , in which 98 % of official key positions are held by alien Jews .
Under no circumstances do we want our national intelligence debased .
Communism , however , can not deny that in Russia today 98 % of all official positions are held by Jews who not only can never be classed as members of the proletariat , but who have never earned an honest penny in their lives .
We have fought Bolshevism because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slaughter house on Russian and Spanish lines .
Such is the difference between the Bolshevik and the National Socialist revolutions .
The one transforms prosperous and peaceful countries into a waste of ruin and devastation , whilst the other , re-builds a broken-down and poverty-stricken Reich into an economically sound and prosperous state .
The German people were familiar with the true nature of Bolshevism whilst the peoples of Britain and the United States were kept in ignorance .
Censorship protected Jewish-owned finance houses and corporate interests that were investing in Bolshevik USSR @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bigger task to put five million people back to work than to burn down houses and churches and allow hundreds of thousands of workers and peasants and others to kill each other .
We have also fought Bolshevism on general economic grounds .
From time to time , the world hears of hunger famines in Russia .
Since 1917 , that is , since the victory of Bolshevism , there is no end to this form of distress .
Russia , starving for close on 20 years , was one of the richest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compared with Germany , Russia possesses eighteen times more land per head of population , and yet what a sorry form of economic policy this country must have to deny its people a decent form of livelihood .
If Bolshevism in Russia , however , does not succeed in getting nine farmers to produce sufficient to at least support one non-farmer what then would have happened in Germany , where two and a half farmers produce enough to support seven and a half non-farmers ?
What would have happened to Germany and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic malpractice had ever been allowed to take root here ?
We have fought Bolshevism because a victory for it in Germany would have spelled starvation for perhaps 50 % of our population .
If Russia were incapable of supporting not even eight people per square kilometre , then in Germany under Bolshevik rule , not even ten million would have had the necessary minimum standard of living .
For here in Germany , our 68 million people occupy the same area , which in Russia would not support more than 5 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it would use the German workers as cannon fodder for the attainment of its goal .
We National Socialists , however , do not want our military forces to be used for forcing upon other nations something that they do not want .
Our Army does not swear an oath that it will carry our National Socialist ideology to other nations .
British politicians in England have so far not had the opportunity of learning what Communism in one ’ s own country stands for .
But we have .
As I am @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Judeo-Soviet teaching in Germany and stamped it out .
I flatter myself that I possess more understanding of the true character of Bolshevism than those armchair critics who at most have read up on the subject a little .
Today , I follow the spread of Bolshevik poison throughout the world just as assiduously as I followed its poisonous trail years ago in Germany , and never lost an opportunity of warning the country .
The abhorrent mass-murders of nationalists , the burning alive of wives of nationalist officers after soaking them in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of nationalist parents as for example in Spain , should serve as a warning to help to break down resistance in other countries .
”

"Such is the difference between the Bolshevik and the National Socialist revolutions: The one transforms prosperous and peaceful countries into a waste of ruin and devastation, whilst the other, re-builds a broken-down and poverty-stricken Reich into an economically sound and prosperous state."
"The aim of Bolshevism ... is to exterminate all that is healthy and replace the same by depravity and degenerate elements. We do not want a situation here in Germany, as in Russia, in which 98% of official key positions are held by alien Jews."
Delivered at the September 1936 Nuremburg Nazi party rally. Source: The Ethnic European.
“We do not deny the grave concern which we feel at the thought of other nations becoming a victim of Bolshevism towards which we are deadly antagonistic. This deadly enmity of ours is not based on an obstinate refusal to recognise any ideas that may be contrary to ours. But this hostility is based on a natural feeling of revulsion towards a diabolical doctrine that threatens the world at large and Germany. The first phase in the fight of National Socialism against Communism did not take place in Russia. Soviet Communism tried to poison Germany between the years 1918 and 1920, and its methods of penetration into this country was much the same as its present-day military efforts in moving the Bolshevik military machine closer and closer to German frontiers.
We have stamped out Bolshevism, which Moscow’s blood-fiends such as Lewin, Axelroth, Neumann, Bela-Kuhn, etc. tried to introduce into Germany. And it is because we see day by day these efforts of Soviet rulers to meddle in our domestic affairs have not yet ceased, that we are forced to regard Bolshevism beyond our frontiers as our deadly enemy. We have fought Bolshevism in Germany as a philosophy that endeavoured to poison and destroy our people. And Bolshevism will continue to be fought if it attempts to introduce its sordid Spanish methods into Germany (Spanish Civil War). It is not the aim of Bolshevism to free nations from their ailments. Its object is to exterminate all that is healthy and replace the same by depravity and degenerate elements. We do not want a situation here in Germany, as in Russia, in which 98% of official key positions are held by alien Jews. Under no circumstances do we want our national intelligence debased.
Communism, however, cannot deny that in Russia today 98% of all official positions are held by Jews who not only can never be classed as members of the proletariat, but who have never earned an honest penny in their lives. We have fought Bolshevism because its leaders had planned for us a slaughter house on Russian and Spanish lines. Such is the difference between the Bolshevik and the National Socialist revolutions. The one transforms prosperous and peaceful countries into a waste of ruin and devastation, whilst the other, re-builds a broken-down and poverty-stricken Reich into an economically sound and prosperous state. The German people were familiar with the true nature of Bolshevism whilst the peoples of Britain and the United States were kept in ignorance. Censorship protected Jewish-owned finance houses and corporate interests that were investing in Bolshevik USSR.


russia-insider--2020-10-20--How I Came to See That Many 'Anti-Semitic Canards' Are Actually True

This article from our archives was first published on RI in October 2018 The author is the founder and editor of The Unz Review , a leading conservative American political website .
He is also a silicon valley entrepreneur , and a one-time candidate for the governor of California .
He was once described as 'the smartest guy in his class ' at Harvard ( Class of 2004 ) .
His biography on Wikipedia is interesting .
He is Jewish , raised in a Yiddish speaking household , and writes frequently on the Jewish Question .
I recently published a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they primarily focused on other matters , the subject of anti-Semitism was a strong secondary theme .
In that regard , I mentioned my shock at discovering a dozen or more years ago that several of the most self-evidently absurd elements of anti-Semitic lunacy , which I had always dismissed without consideration , were probably correct .
It does seem likely that a significant number of traditionally-religious Jews did indeed occasionally commit the ritual murder of Christian children in order to use their blood in certain religious ceremonies , and also that powerful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ role in financing the establishment of Bolshevik Russia .
When one discovers that matters of such enormous moment not only apparently occurred but that they had been successfully excluded from nearly all of our histories and media coverage for most of the last one hundred years , the implications take some time to properly digest .
If the most extreme “ anti-Semitic canards ” were probably true , then surely the whole notion of anti-Semitism warrants a careful reexamination .
All of us obtain our knowledge of the world by two different channels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own personal experiences and the direct evidence of our senses , but most information comes to us via external sources such as books and the media , and a crisis may develop when we discover that these two pathways are in sharp conflict .
The official media of the old USSR used to endlessly trumpet the tremendous achievements of its collectivized agricultural system , but when citizens noticed that there was never any meat in their shops , “ Pravda ” became a watchword for “ Lies ” rather than “ Truth.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Google searches for that word and its close variants reveal over 24 million hits , and over the years I ’ m sure I ’ ve seen that term tens of thousands of times in my books and newspapers , and heard it endlessly reported in my electronic media and entertainment .
But thinking it over , I ’ m not sure that I can ever recall a single real-life instance I ’ ve personally encountered , nor have I heard of almost any such cases from my friends or acquaintances .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve ever come across making such claims were individuals who bore unmistakable signs of serious psychological imbalance .
When the daily newspapers are brimming with lurid tales of hideous demons walking among us and attacking people on every street corner , but you yourself have never actually seen one , you may gradually grow suspicious .
Indeed , over the years some of my own research has uncovered a sharp contrast between image and reality .
As recently as the late 1990s , leading mainstream media outlets such as The New York Times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school such as Princeton for the supposed anti-Semitism of its college admissions policy , but a few years ago when I carefully investigated that issue in quantitative terms for my lengthy Meritocracy analysis I was very surprised to reach a polar-opposite conclusion .
According to the best available evidence , white Gentiles were over 90 % less likely to be enrolled at Harvard and the other Ivies than were Jews of similar academic performance , a truly remarkable finding .
If the situation had been reversed and Jews were 90 % less likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warranted by their test scores , surely that fact would be endlessly cited as the absolute smoking-gun proof of horrendous anti-Semitism in present-day America .
It has also become apparent that a considerable fraction of what passes for “ anti-Semitism ” these days seems to stretch that term beyond all recognition .
A few weeks ago an unknown 28-year-old Democratic Socialist named Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez scored a stunning upset primary victory over a top House Democrat in New York City , and naturally received a blizzard of media coverage as a result .
However @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had denounced the Israeli government for its recent massacre of over 140 unarmed Palestinian protesters in Gaza , cries of “ anti-Semite ” soon appeared , and according to Google there are now over 180,000 such hits combining her name and that harsh accusatory term .
Similarly , just a few days ago the New York Times ran a major story reporting that all of Britain ’ s Jewish newspapers had issued an “ unprecedented ” denunciation of Jeremy Corbyn ’ s Labour Party , describing it as an “ existential threat ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was fostering ; but this apparently amounted to nothing more than its willingness to sharply criticize the Israeli government for its long mistreatment of the Palestinians .
As an even more striking illustration , the Second World War ended over seventy years ago , but what historian Norman Finkelstein has so aptly labeled “ the Holocaust Industry ” has grown ever larger and more entrenched in our academic and media worlds so that scarcely a day passes without one or more articles relating to that topic appearing in my major morning newspapers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exploration of the true nature of anti-Semitism should probably avoid the mere media phantoms of today and focus on the past , when the condition might still have been widespread in daily life .
Many observers have pointed to the aftermath of the Second World War as marking a huge watershed in the public acceptability of anti-Semitism both in America and Europe , so perhaps a proper appraisal of that cultural phenomenon should focus on the years before that global conflict .
However , the overwhelming role of Jews in the Bolshevik Revolution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quite naturally made them objects of considerable fear and hatred throughout the inter-war years , so the safest course might be to push that boundary back a little further and confine our attention to the period prior to the outbreak of the First World War .
The pogroms in Czarist Russia , the Dreyfus Affair in France , and the lynching of Leo Frank in the American South come to mind as some of the most famous examples from that period .
This approach is certainly demonstrated in the first of his major @ @ @ @ @ @ @ late 19th century France , probably one of history ’ s most famous anti-Semitic incidents .
Although he concludes that Captain Alfred Dreyfus was very likely innocent of the charge of espionage , he notes the seemingly strong evidence that initially led to his arrest and conviction and finds—contrary to myth-making by numerous later writers—absolutely no indications that his Jewish origins played any role whatsoever in his predicament .
However , he does note some of the underlying social context to this fierce political battle .
Although only one Frenchman in a thousand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earlier a group of Jews had been the leading culprits behind several huge financial scandals that impoverished large numbers of small investors , and the swindlers afterward escaped any punishment by means of political influence and bribery .
Given this history , much of the outrage of the anti-Dreyfusards probably arose from their fears that a Jewish military spy from a very wealthy family might be able to walk free using similar tactics , and the public claims that Dreyfus ’ s brother was offering enormous bribes to win his brother ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s discussion of the 1913 Leo Frank Affair , in which a wealthy Northern Jew working in Atlanta was accused of sexually-assaulting and murdering a young girl , is even more interesting .
Once again , he notes that contrary to the traditional narrative , there seems absolutely no hint that Frank ’ s Jewish background played any role in his arrest or conviction .
Indeed , at his trial it was instead his very highly-paid defense attorneys who unsuccessfully sought to “ play the race card ” with the jurors by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ local black worker by means of racially-charged invective .
Although Lindemann regards Frank as probably innocent , my own reading of the evidence he presents suggests the overwhelming likelihood of his guilt .
Meanwhile , it seems undeniable that the outpouring of popular anger against Frank was produced by the vast ocean of outside Jewish money—at least $ 15 million or more in present-day dollars—that was committed to the legal efforts to save the life of someone widely regarded as a brutal murderer .
There are strong suggestions that far more improper means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ influence-peddling , so that after Frank was convicted by a jury of his peers and thirteen separate legal appeals were denied , a governor with strong personal ties to the defense lawyers and Jewish interests chose to spare Frank ’ s life a few months before leaving office .
Under these circumstances , the lynch-mob that hung Frank was viewed by the community as merely enforcing his official death sentence by extra-judicial means .
I also discovered that the leading figures in the anti-Frank movement had views far nuanced than I had expected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Watson had previously been a strong defender of Jewish anarchist Emma Goldman , while ferociously denouncing the Rockefellers , Morgans , and Goulds as the “ true destroyers ” of Jeffersonian democracy , so his outrage that Frank might escape punishment for murder seemed motivated by the extreme wealth of Frank ’ s family and his supporters rather than any pre-existing anti-Semitic sentiments .
The unmistakable conclusion of Lindemann ’ s analysis is that if the defendants in both the Dreyfus and Frank cases had not been Jewish , they would have suffered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any wealthy and politically mobilized Jewish community to rally around them , they would have received their punishments , just or unjust , and immediately been forgotten .
Instead , Theodor Herzl , the founding father of Zionism , later claimed that the massive anti-Semitism revealed by the Dreyfus Affair was the basis of his personal ideological awakening , while the Frank Affair led to the establishment of America ’ s Anti-Defamation League .
And both these cases have entered our history books as among the most notorious examples of pre-World War I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president of Israel , later promoted the story that he himself and some other brave Jewish souls had personally defended their people with revolvers in hand even as they saw the mutilated bodies of 80 Jewish victims .
This account was totally fictional since Weizmann happened to have been be hundreds of miles away when the riots occurred .
Although a tendency to lie and exaggerate was hardly unique to the political partisans of Russian Jewry , the existence of a powerful international network of Jewish journalists and Jewish-influenced media outlets ensured that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worldwide distribution , while the truth followed far behind , if at all .
For related reasons , international outrage was often focused on the legal confinement of most of Russia ’ s Jews to the “ Pale of Settlement , ” suggesting some sort of tight imprisonment ; but that area was the traditional home of the Jewish population and encompassed a landmass almost as large as France and Spain combined .
The growing impoverishment of Eastern European Jews during that era was often assumed to be a consequence of hostile government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extraordinary Jewish fecundity , which far outstripped that of their Slavic fellow countrymen , and quickly led them to outgrow the available spots in any of their traditional “ middleman ” occupations , a situation worsened by their total disinclination to engage in agriculture or other primary-producer activities .
Jewish communities expressed horror at the risk of losing their sons to the Czarist military draft , but this was simply the flip-side of the full Russian citizenship they had been granted , and no different from what was faced by their non-Jewish neighbors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greatly from widespread riots and mob attacks in the generation prior to World War I , and these did sometimes have substantial government encouragement , especially in the aftermath of the very heavy Jewish role in the 1905 Revolution .
But we should keep in mind that a Jewish plotter had been implicated in the killing of Czar Alexander II , and Jewish assassins had also struck down several top Russian ministers and numerous other government officials .
If the last decade or two had seen American Muslims assassinate a sitting U.S. President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a host of our other elected and appointed officials , surely the position of Muslims in this country would have become a very uncomfortable one .
As Lindemann candidly describes the tension between Russia ’ s very rapidly growing Jewish population and its governing authorities , he can not avoid mentioning the notorious Jewish reputation for bribery , corruption , and general dishonesty , with numerous figures of all political backgrounds noting that the remarkable Jewish propensity to commit perjury in the courtroom led to severe problems in the effective administration of justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ross , writing in 1913 , characterized the regular behavior of Eastern European Jews in very similar terms .
Lindemann also allocates a short chapter to discussing the 1911 Beilis Affair , in which a Ukrainian Jew was accused of the ritual murder of a young Gentile boy , an incident that generated a great deal of international attention and controversy .
Based on the evidence presented , the defendant seems likely to have been innocent , although the obvious lies he repeatedly told police interrogators hardly helped foster that impression , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was ultimately found innocent by the jurors at his trial .
However , a few pages are also given to a much less well-known ritual murder case in late 19th century Hungary , in which the evidence of Jewish guilt seemed far stronger , though the author hardly accepted the possible reality of such an outlandish crime .
Such reticence was quite understandable since the publication of Ariel Toaff ’ s remarkable volume on the subject was still a dozen years in the future .
Lindemann subsequently expanded his examination of historical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Esau ’ s Tears , which appeared in 1997 .
In this volume , he added comparative studies of the social landscape in Germany , Britain , Italy , and several other European countries , and demonstrated that the relationship between Jews and non-Jews varied greatly across different locations and time periods .
But although I found his analysis quite useful and interesting , the extraordinarily harsh attacks his text provoked from some outraged Jewish academics seemed even more intriguing .
For example , Judith Laikin Elkin opened her discussion in The American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ 545-page polemic ” a strange characterization of a book so remarkably even-handed and factually-based in its scholarship .
Writing in Commentary , Robert Wistrich was even harsher , stating that merely reading the book had been a painful experience for him , and his review seemed filled with spittle-flecked rage .
Unless these individuals had somehow gotten copies of a different book , I found their attitudes simply astonishing .
I was not alone in such a reaction .
Richard S. Levy of the University of Illinois , a noted scholar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s seemingly irrational outburst , while Paul Gottfried , writing in Chronicles , mildly suggested that Lindemann had “ touched raw nerves.
” Indeed , Gottfried ’ s own evaluation quite reasonably criticized Lindemann for perhaps being a little too even-handed , sometimes presenting numerous conflicting analyzes without choosing between them .
For those interested , a good discussion of the book by Alan Steinweis , a younger scholar specializing in the same topic , is conveniently available online .
The remarkable ferocity with which some Jewish writers attacked Lindemann ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of anti-Semitism may carry more significance than merely an exchange of angry words in low-circulation academic publications .
If our mainstream media shapes our reality , scholarly books and articles based upon them tend to set the contours of that media coverage .
And the ability of a relatively small number of agitated and energetic Jews to police the acceptable boundaries of historical narratives may have enormous consequences for our larger society , deterring scholars from objectively reporting historical facts and preventing students from discovering them .
Furthermore , some of the material @ @ @ @ @ @ @ text might also lead to potentially threatening ideas .
Consider , for example , the notorious Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion , almost certainly fictional , but hugely popular and influential during the years following World War I and the Bolshevik Revolution .
The fall of so many longstanding Gentile dynasties and their replacement by new regimes such as Soviet Russia and Weimar Germany , which were heavily dominated by their tiny Jewish minorities , quite naturally fed suspicions of a worldwide Jewish plot , as did the widely discussed role @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political outcomes .
Over the decades , there has been much speculation about the possible inspiration for the Protocols , but although Lindemann makes absolutely no reference to that document , he does provide a very intriguing possible candidate .
Jewish-born British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli certainly ranked as one of the most influential figures of the late 19th century , and in his novel Coningsby , he has the character representing Lord Lionel Rothschild boast about the existence of a vast and secret network of powerful international Jews , who stand near @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , quietly controlling their governments from behind the scenes .
If one of the world ’ s most politically well-connected Jews eagerly promoted such notions , was Henry Ford really so unreasonable in doing the same ?
Lindemann also notes Disraeli ’ s focus on the extreme importance of race and racial origins , a central aspect of traditional Jewish religious doctrine .
He reasonably suggests that this must surely have had a huge influence upon the rise of those political ideas , given that Disraeli ’ s public profile and stature were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or activists whom our history books usually place at center stage .
In fact , Houston Stewart Chamberlain , a leading racial theorist , actually cited Disraeli as a key source for his ideas .
Jewish intellectuals such as Max Nordau and Cesare Lombroso are already widely recognized as leading figures in the rise of the racial science of that era , but Disraeli ’ s under-appreciated role may have actually been far greater .
The deep Jewish roots of European racialist movements are hardly something that many present-day Jews would want widely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a massive two-volume account of the tragic 200 years of shared history between Russians and Jews , and despite its 2002 release in Russian and numerous other world languages , there has yet to be an authorized English translation , though various partial editions have circulated on the Internet in samizdat form .
Also , his candid discussion of the economic and political behavior of Russian Jewry in pre-revolutionary times directly conflicted with the hagiography widely promoted by Hollywood and the popular media .
Historian Yuri Slezkine ’ s award-winning 2004 book The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but his treatment was far more cursory and his public stature not remotely the same .
Near the end of his life , Solzhenitsyn gave his political blessing to Russian President Vladimir Putin , and Russia ’ s leaders honored him upon his death , while his Gulagvolumes are now enshrined as mandatory reading in the standard high school curriculum of today ’ s overwhelmingly Christian Russia .
But even as his star rose again in his own homeland , it seems to have sharply fallen in our own country , and his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ un-person status .
A couple of years after the release of Solzhenitsyn ’ s controversial final book , an American writer named Anne Applebaum published a thick history bearing the same title Gulag , and her work received enormously favorable media coverage and won her a Pulitzer Prize ; I have even heard claims that her book has been steadily replacing that earlier Gulag on many college reading lists .
But although Jews constituted a huge fraction of the top leadership of the Soviet Gulag system during its early decades , as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supplied the inmates , nearly her entire focus on her own ethnic group during Soviet times is that of victims rather than victimizers .
And by a remarkable irony of fate , she shares a last name with one of the top Bolshevik leaders , Hirsch Apfelbaum , who concealed his own ethnic identity by calling himself Grigory Zinoviev .
When he published his magisterial Hitler ’ s War , this conflict between myth and reality came into the open , and an enormous wave of attacks and vilification was unleashed , gradually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eventually even his imprisonment .
In other cases , pressure from the ADL and similar Jewish activist groups have led Amazon to completely eliminate entire categories of historical analysis and ban those publishers who produce such works , which drastically reduces their availability to the reading public .
All of these cases were the sort of high-profile examples which are well-known to anyone who pays attention to such matters .
But surely there must have been many other incidents , involving far less prominent authors , which never received any significant media coverage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of cases in which writers have self-censored their texts in order to avoid such controversies .
Over the decades , I have gradually discovered through sad experience that I must exercise extreme caution whenever I read anything relating to the subjects of Jews , Judaism , or Israel .
These important examples may help to explain the puzzling contrast between the behavior of Jews in the aggregate and Jews as individuals .
Observers have noticed that even fairly small Jewish minorities may often have a major impact upon the far larger societies that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hand , in my experience at least , a large majority of individual Jews do not seem all that different in their personalities or behavior than their non-Jewish counterparts .
So how does a community whose individual mean is not so unusual generate what seems to be such a striking difference in collective behavior ?
I think the answer may involve the existence of information choke-points , and the ability of relatively small numbers of particularly zealous and agitated Jews in influencing and controlling these .
We live our lives constantly immersed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to decide the rights and wrongs of a situation .
The vast majority of people , Jew and Gentile alike , are far more likely to take strong action if they are convinced that their cause is a just one .
This is obviously the basis for war-time propaganda .
Now suppose that a relatively small number of zealous Jewish partisans are known to always attack and denounce journalists or authors who accurately describe Jewish misbehavior .
Over time , this ongoing campaign of intimidation may cause many important facts to be left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gradually expel from mainstream respectability those writers who refuse to conform to such pressures .
Meanwhile , similar small numbers of Jewish partisans frequently exaggerate the misdeeds committed against Jews , sometimes piling their exaggerations upon past exaggerations already produced by a previous round of such zealots .
Eventually , these two combined trends may take a complex and possibly very mixed historical record and transform it into a simple morality-play , with innocent Jews tremendously injured by vicious Jew-haters .
And as this morality-play becomes established it deepens the subsequent intensity of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the media “ stop vilifying Jews ” and covering up the supposed evils inflicted upon them .
An unfortunate circle of distortion following exaggeration following distortion can eventually produce a widely accepted historical account that bears little resemblance to the reality of what actually happened .
So as a result , the vast majority of quite ordinary Jews , who would normally behave in quite ordinary ways , are misled by this largely fictional history , and rather understandably become greatly outraged at all the horrible things that had been done to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are true and some of which are not , while remaining completely ignorant of the other side of the ledger .
Furthermore , this situation is exacerbated by the common tendency of Jews to “ cluster ” together , perhaps respresenting just one or two percent of the total population , but often constituting 20 % or 40 % or 60 % of their immediate peer-group , especially in certain professions .
Under such conditions , the ideas or emotional agitation of some Jews probably permeates others around them , often provoking additional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ analogy , a small quantity of uranium is relatively inert and harmless , and entirely so if distributed within low-density ore .
But if a significant quantity of weapons-grade uranium is sufficiently compressed , then the neutrons released by fissioning atoms will quickly cause additional atoms to undergo fission , with the ultimate result of that critical chain-reaction being a nuclear explosion .
In similar fashion , even a highly agitated Jew may have no negative impact , but if the collection of such agitated Jews becomes too numerous and clusters together too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into a terrible frenzy , perhaps with disastrous consequences both for themselves and for their larger society .
This is especially true if those agitated Jews begin to dominate certain key nodes of top-level control , such as the central political or media organs of a society .
Whereas most living organizations exist solely in physical reality , human beings also occupy an ideational space , with the interaction of human consciousness and perceived reality playing a major role in shaping behavior .
Just as the pheromones released by mammals or insects can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members or nest-mates , the ideas secreted by individuals or the media-emitters of a society can have an enormous impact upon their fellows .
A cohesive , organized group generally possesses huge advantages over a teeming mass of atomized individuals , just as a Macedonian Phalanx could easily defeat a vastly larger body of disorganized infantry .
Many years ago , on some website somewhere I came across a very insightful comment regarding the obvious connection between “ anti-Semitism ” and “ racism , ” which our mainstream media organs identify as two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Under this analysis , “ anti-Semitism ” represents the tendency to criticize or resist Jewish social cohesion , while “ racism ” represents the attempt of white Gentiles to maintain a similar social cohesion of their own .
To the extent that the ideological emanations from our centralized media organs serve to strengthen and protect Jewish cohesion while attacking and dissolving any similar cohesion on the part of their Gentile counterparts , the former will obviously gain enormous advantages in resource-competition against the latter .
Religion obviously constitutes an important unifying factor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not ignore the role of Judaism in this regard .
Traditional Jewish religious doctrine seems to consider Jews as being in a state of permanent hostility with all non-Jews , and the use of dishonest propaganda is an almost inevitable aspect of such conflict .
Furthermore , since Jews have invariably been a small political minority , maintaining such controversial tenets required the employment of a massive framework of subterfuge and dissimulation in order to conceal their nature from the larger society surrounding them .
It has often been said that truth is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surely the cultural influences of over a thousand years of such intense religious hostility may continue to quietly influence the thinking of many modern Jews , even those who have largely abandoned their religious beliefs .
The notorious Jewish tendency to shamelessly lie or wildly exaggerate has sometimes had horrifying human consequences .
I very recently discovered a fascinating passage in Peter Moreira ’ s 2014 book The Jew Who Defeated Hitler : Henry Morgenthau Jr. , FDR , and How We Won the War , focused on the important political role of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is easy to imagine that Morgenthau ’ s gullible acceptance of such obviously ridiculous war-time atrocity stories played a major role when he later lent his name and support to remarkably brutal American occupation policies that probably led to the postwar deaths of many millions of innocent German civilians .

The author is the founder and editor of The Unz Review, a leading conservative American political website. He is also a silicon valley entrepreneur, and a one-time candidate for the governor of California. He was once described as 'the smartest guy in his class' at Harvard (Class of 2004). His biography on Wikipedia is interesting.
He is Jewish, raised in a Yiddish speaking household, and writes frequently on the Jewish Question.
I recently published a couple of long essays, and although they primarily focused on other matters, the subject of anti-Semitism was a strong secondary theme. In that regard, I mentioned my shock at discovering a dozen or more years ago that several of the most self-evidently absurd elements of anti-Semitic lunacy, which I had always dismissed without consideration, were probably correct. It does seem likely that a significant number of traditionally-religious Jews did indeed occasionally commit the ritual murder of Christian children in order to use their blood in certain religious ceremonies, and also that powerful Jewish international bankers did play a large role in financing the establishment of Bolshevik Russia.
When one discovers that matters of such enormous moment not only apparently occurred but that they had been successfully excluded from nearly all of our histories and media coverage for most of the last one hundred years, the implications take some time to properly digest. If the most extreme “anti-Semitic canards” were probably true, then surely the whole notion of anti-Semitism warrants a careful reexamination.
All of us obtain our knowledge of the world by two different channels. Some things we discover from our own personal experiences and the direct evidence of our senses, but most information comes to us via external sources such as books and the media, and a crisis may develop when we discover that these two pathways are in sharp conflict.
The official media of the old USSR used to endlessly trumpet the tremendous achievements of its collectivized agricultural system, but when citizens noticed that there was never any meat in their shops, “Pravda” became a watchword for “Lies” rather than “Truth.”
Now consider the notion of “anti-Semitism.” Google searches for that word and its close variants reveal over 24 million hits, and over the years I’m sure I’ve seen that term tens of thousands of times in my books and newspapers, and heard it endlessly reported in my electronic media and entertainment.
But thinking it over, I’m not sure that I can ever recall a single real-life instance I’ve personally encountered, nor have I heard of almost any such cases from my friends or acquaintances. Indeed, the only persons I’ve ever come across making such claims were individuals who bore unmistakable signs of serious psychological imbalance. When the daily newspapers are brimming with lurid tales of hideous demons walking among us and attacking people on every street corner, but you yourself have never actually seen one, you may gradually grow suspicious.
Indeed, over the years some of my own research has uncovered a sharp contrast between image and reality. As recently as the late 1990s, leading mainstream media outlets such as The New York Times were still denouncing a top Ivy League school such as Princeton for the supposed anti-Semitism of its college admissions policy, but a few years ago when I carefully investigated that issue in quantitative terms for my lengthy Meritocracy analysis I was very surprised to reach a polar-opposite conclusion.
According to the best available evidence, white Gentiles were over 90% less likely to be enrolled at Harvard and the other Ivies than were Jews of similar academic performance, a truly remarkable finding. If the situation had been reversed and Jews were 90% less likely to be found at Harvard than seemed warranted by their test scores, surely that fact would be endlessly cited as the absolute smoking-gun proof of horrendous anti-Semitism in present-day America.
It has also become apparent that a considerable fraction of what passes for “anti-Semitism” these days seems to stretch that term beyond all recognition. A few weeks ago an unknown 28-year-old Democratic Socialist named Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez scored a stunning upset primary victory over a top House Democrat in New York City, and naturally received a blizzard of media coverage as a result.
However, when it came out that she had denounced the Israeli government for its recent massacre of over 140 unarmed Palestinian protesters in Gaza, cries of “anti-Semite” soon appeared, and according to Google there are now over 180,000 such hits combining her name and that harsh accusatory term. Similarly, just a few days ago the New York Times ran a major story reporting that all of Britain’s Jewish newspapers had issued an “unprecedented” denunciation of Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party, describing it as an “existential threat” to the Jewish community for the anti-Semitism it was fostering; but this apparently amounted to nothing more than its willingness to sharply criticize the Israeli government for its long mistreatment of the Palestinians.
51alitheoel.jpg One plausible explanation of the strange contrast between media coverage and reality might be that anti-Semitism once did loom very large in real life, but dissipated many decades ago, while the organizations and activists focused on detecting and combating that pernicious problem have remained in place, generating public attention based on smaller and smaller issues, with the zealous Jewish activists of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) representing a perfect example of this situation.
As an even more striking illustration, the Second World War ended over seventy years ago, but what historian Norman Finkelstein has so aptly labeled “the Holocaust Industry” has grown ever larger and more entrenched in our academic and media worlds so that scarcely a day passes without one or more articles relating to that topic appearing in my major morning newspapers. Given this situation, a serious exploration of the true nature of anti-Semitism should probably avoid the mere media phantoms of today and focus on the past, when the condition might still have been widespread in daily life.
Many observers have pointed to the aftermath of the Second World War as marking a huge watershed in the public acceptability of anti-Semitism both in America and Europe, so perhaps a proper appraisal of that cultural phenomenon should focus on the years before that global conflict.
However, the overwhelming role of Jews in the Bolshevik Revolution and other bloody Communist seizures of power quite naturally made them objects of considerable fear and hatred throughout the inter-war years, so the safest course might be to push that boundary back a little further and confine our attention to the period prior to the outbreak of the First World War. The pogroms in Czarist Russia, the Dreyfus Affair in France, and the lynching of Leo Frank in the American South come to mind as some of the most famous examples from that period.
51fazhuxfgl.jpg In 1991 Cambridge University Press published The Jew Accused by Albert Lindemann, a noted scholar of European ideological movements, and his book focused on exactly that era and those sorts of incidents. Although the text is quite short, running less than 300 pages, Lindemann built his discussion upon a huge foundation of secondary literature, with his footnotes drawn from the 200 works included in his extensive bibliography. As far as I could tell, he seems a very scrupulous scholar, generally providing the multiple, often conflicting accounts of a given incident, and coming to his own conclusions with considerable hesitation.
This approach is certainly demonstrated in the first of his major cases, the notorious Dreyfus affair of late 19th century France, probably one of history’s most famous anti-Semitic incidents. Although he concludes that Captain Alfred Dreyfus was very likely innocent of the charge of espionage, he notes the seemingly strong evidence that initially led to his arrest and conviction and finds—contrary to myth-making by numerous later writers—absolutely no indications that his Jewish origins played any role whatsoever in his predicament.
However, he does note some of the underlying social context to this fierce political battle. Although only one Frenchman in a thousand was Jewish, just a few years earlier a group of Jews had been the leading culprits behind several huge financial scandals that impoverished large numbers of small investors, and the swindlers afterward escaped any punishment by means of political influence and bribery.
Given this history, much of the outrage of the anti-Dreyfusards probably arose from their fears that a Jewish military spy from a very wealthy family might be able to walk free using similar tactics, and the public claims that Dreyfus’s brother was offering enormous bribes to win his brother’s release certainly strengthened this concern.
Lindemann’s discussion of the 1913 Leo Frank Affair, in which a wealthy Northern Jew working in Atlanta was accused of sexually-assaulting and murdering a young girl, is even more interesting. Once again, he notes that contrary to the traditional narrative, there seems absolutely no hint that Frank’s Jewish background played any role in his arrest or conviction. Indeed, at his trial it was instead his very highly-paid defense attorneys who unsuccessfully sought to “play the race card” with the jurors by crudely attempting to deflect suspicion upon a local black worker by means of racially-charged invective.
Although Lindemann regards Frank as probably innocent, my own reading of the evidence he presents suggests the overwhelming likelihood of his guilt. Meanwhile, it seems undeniable that the outpouring of popular anger against Frank was produced by the vast ocean of outside Jewish money—at least $15 million or more in present-day dollars—that was committed to the legal efforts to save the life of someone widely regarded as a brutal murderer.
There are strong suggestions that far more improper means were also employed, including bribery and influence-peddling, so that after Frank was convicted by a jury of his peers and thirteen separate legal appeals were denied, a governor with strong personal ties to the defense lawyers and Jewish interests chose to spare Frank’s life a few months before leaving office. Under these circumstances, the lynch-mob that hung Frank was viewed by the community as merely enforcing his official death sentence by extra-judicial means.
I also discovered that the leading figures in the anti-Frank movement had views far nuanced than I had expected. For example, populist writer Tom Watson had previously been a strong defender of Jewish anarchist Emma Goldman, while ferociously denouncing the Rockefellers, Morgans, and Goulds as the “true destroyers” of Jeffersonian democracy, so his outrage that Frank might escape punishment for murder seemed motivated by the extreme wealth of Frank’s family and his supporters rather than any pre-existing anti-Semitic sentiments.
The unmistakable conclusion of Lindemann’s analysis is that if the defendants in both the Dreyfus and Frank cases had not been Jewish, they would have suffered identical arrests and convictions, but lacking any wealthy and politically mobilized Jewish community to rally around them, they would have received their punishments, just or unjust, and immediately been forgotten. Instead, Theodor Herzl, the founding father of Zionism, later claimed that the massive anti-Semitism revealed by the Dreyfus Affair was the basis of his personal ideological awakening, while the Frank Affair led to the establishment of America’s Anti-Defamation League.
And both these cases have entered our history books as among the most notorious examples of pre-World War I anti-Semitism.
41fezfmzjkl.jpg Lindemann’s discussion of the often difficult relations between Russia’s restive Jewish minority and its huge Slavic majority is also quite interesting, and he provides numerous instances in which major incidents, supposedly demonstrating the enormously strong appeal of vicious anti-Semitism, were quite different than has been suggested by the legend. The famous Kishinev Pogrom of 1903 was obviously the result of severe ethnic tension in that city, but contrary to the regular accusations of later writers, there seems absolutely no evidence of high-level government involvement, and the widespread claims of 700 dead that so horrified the entire world were grossly exaggerated, with only 45 killed in the urban rioting.
Chaim Weizmann, the future president of Israel, later promoted the story that he himself and some other brave Jewish souls had personally defended their people with revolvers in hand even as they saw the mutilated bodies of 80 Jewish victims. This account was totally fictional since Weizmann happened to have been be hundreds of miles away when the riots occurred.
Although a tendency to lie and exaggerate was hardly unique to the political partisans of Russian Jewry, the existence of a powerful international network of Jewish journalists and Jewish-influenced media outlets ensured that such concocted propaganda stories might receive enormous worldwide distribution, while the truth followed far behind, if at all.
For related reasons, international outrage was often focused on the legal confinement of most of Russia’s Jews to the “Pale of Settlement,” suggesting some sort of tight imprisonment; but that area was the traditional home of the Jewish population and encompassed a landmass almost as large as France and Spain combined.
The growing impoverishment of Eastern European Jews during that era was often assumed to be a consequence of hostile government policy, but the obvious explanation was extraordinary Jewish fecundity, which far outstripped that of their Slavic fellow countrymen, and quickly led them to outgrow the available spots in any of their traditional “middleman” occupations, a situation worsened by their total disinclination to engage in agriculture or other primary-producer activities. Jewish communities expressed horror at the risk of losing their sons to the Czarist military draft, but this was simply the flip-side of the full Russian citizenship they had been granted, and no different from what was faced by their non-Jewish neighbors.
Certainly the Jews of Russia suffered greatly from widespread riots and mob attacks in the generation prior to World War I, and these did sometimes have substantial government encouragement, especially in the aftermath of the very heavy Jewish role in the 1905 Revolution.
But we should keep in mind that a Jewish plotter had been implicated in the killing of Czar Alexander II, and Jewish assassins had also struck down several top Russian ministers and numerous other government officials. If the last decade or two had seen American Muslims assassinate a sitting U.S. President, various leading Cabinet members, and a host of our other elected and appointed officials, surely the position of Muslims in this country would have become a very uncomfortable one.
As Lindemann candidly describes the tension between Russia’s very rapidly growing Jewish population and its governing authorities, he cannot avoid mentioning the notorious Jewish reputation for bribery, corruption, and general dishonesty, with numerous figures of all political backgrounds noting that the remarkable Jewish propensity to commit perjury in the courtroom led to severe problems in the effective administration of justice. The eminent American sociologist E.A. Ross, writing in 1913, characterized the regular behavior of Eastern European Jews in very similar terms.
Lindemann also allocates a short chapter to discussing the 1911 Beilis Affair, in which a Ukrainian Jew was accused of the ritual murder of a young Gentile boy, an incident that generated a great deal of international attention and controversy. Based on the evidence presented, the defendant seems likely to have been innocent, although the obvious lies he repeatedly told police interrogators hardly helped foster that impression, and “the system worked” in that he was ultimately found innocent by the jurors at his trial.
However, a few pages are also given to a much less well-known ritual murder case in late 19th century Hungary, in which the evidence of Jewish guilt seemed far stronger, though the author hardly accepted the possible reality of such an outlandish crime. Such reticence was quite understandable since the publication of Ariel Toaff’s remarkable volume on the subject was still a dozen years in the future.
Lindemann subsequently expanded his examination of historical anti-Semitism into a much broader treatment, Esau’s Tears, which appeared in 1997. In this volume, he added comparative studies of the social landscape in Germany, Britain, Italy, and several other European countries, and demonstrated that the relationship between Jews and non-Jews varied greatly across different locations and time periods. But although I found his analysis quite useful and interesting, the extraordinarily harsh attacks his text provoked from some outraged Jewish academics seemed even more intriguing.
For example, Judith Laikin Elkin opened her discussion in The American Historical Review by describing the book as a “545-page polemic” a strange characterization of a book so remarkably even-handed and factually-based in its scholarship. Writing in Commentary, Robert Wistrich was even harsher, stating that merely reading the book had been a painful experience for him, and his review seemed filled with spittle-flecked rage. Unless these individuals had somehow gotten copies of a different book, I found their attitudes simply astonishing.
I was not alone in such a reaction. Richard S. Levy of the University of Illinois, a noted scholar of anti-Semitism, expressed amazement at Wistrich’s seemingly irrational outburst, while Paul Gottfried, writing in Chronicles, mildly suggested that Lindemann had “touched raw nerves.” Indeed, Gottfried’s own evaluation quite reasonably criticized Lindemann for perhaps being a little too even-handed, sometimes presenting numerous conflicting analyzes without choosing between them. For those interested, a good discussion of the book by Alan Steinweis, a younger scholar specializing in the same topic, is conveniently available online.
The remarkable ferocity with which some Jewish writers attacked Lindemann’s meticulous attempt to provide an accurate history of anti-Semitism may carry more significance than merely an exchange of angry words in low-circulation academic publications. If our mainstream media shapes our reality, scholarly books and articles based upon them tend to set the contours of that media coverage. And the ability of a relatively small number of agitated and energetic Jews to police the acceptable boundaries of historical narratives may have enormous consequences for our larger society, deterring scholars from objectively reporting historical facts and preventing students from discovering them.
51chl1zjg2l.jpg The undeniable truth is that for many centuries Jews usually constituted a wealthy and privileged segment of the population in nearly all the European countries in which they resided, and quite frequently they based their livelihood upon the heavy exploitation of a downtrodden peasantry. Even without any differences in ethnicity, language, or religion, such conditions almost invariably provoke hostility. The victory of Mao’s Communist forces in China was quickly followed by the brutal massacre of a million or more Han Chinese landlords by the Han Chinese poor peasants who regarded them as cruel oppressors, with William Hinton’s classic Fanshen describing the unfortunate history that unfolded in one particular village. When similar circumstances led to violent clashes in Eastern Europe between Slavs and Jews, does it really make logical sense to employ a specialized term such as “anti-Semitism” to describe that situation?
Furthermore, some of the material presented in Lindemann’s rather innocuous text might also lead to potentially threatening ideas. Consider, for example, the notorious Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, almost certainly fictional, but hugely popular and influential during the years following World War I and the Bolshevik Revolution.
The fall of so many longstanding Gentile dynasties and their replacement by new regimes such as Soviet Russia and Weimar Germany, which were heavily dominated by their tiny Jewish minorities, quite naturally fed suspicions of a worldwide Jewish plot, as did the widely discussed role of Jewish international bankers in producing those political outcomes.
Over the decades, there has been much speculation about the possible inspiration for the Protocols, but although Lindemann makes absolutely no reference to that document, he does provide a very intriguing possible candidate. Jewish-born British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli certainly ranked as one of the most influential figures of the late 19th century, and in his novel Coningsby, he has the character representing Lord Lionel Rothschild boast about the existence of a vast and secret network of powerful international Jews, who stand near the head of almost every major nation, quietly controlling their governments from behind the scenes.
If one of the world’s most politically well-connected Jews eagerly promoted such notions, was Henry Ford really so unreasonable in doing the same?
Lindemann also notes Disraeli’s focus on the extreme importance of race and racial origins, a central aspect of traditional Jewish religious doctrine. He reasonably suggests that this must surely have had a huge influence upon the rise of those political ideas, given that Disraeli’s public profile and stature were so much greater than the mere writers or activists whom our history books usually place at center stage.
In fact, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, a leading racial theorist, actually cited Disraeli as a key source for his ideas. Jewish intellectuals such as Max Nordau and Cesare Lombroso are already widely recognized as leading figures in the rise of the racial science of that era, but Disraeli’s under-appreciated role may have actually been far greater. The deep Jewish roots of European racialist movements are hardly something that many present-day Jews would want widely known.
200years.jpg One of the harsh Jewish critics of Esau’s Tearsdenounced Cambridge University Press for even allowing the book to appear in print, and although that major work is easily available in English, there are numerous other cases where an important but discordant version of historical reality has been successfully blocked from publication. For decades most Americans would have ranked Nobel Laureate Alexander Solzhenitsyn as among the world’s greatest literary figures, and his Gulag Archipelago alone sold over 10 million copies.
But his last work was a massive two-volume account of the tragic 200 years of shared history between Russians and Jews, and despite its 2002 release in Russian and numerous other world languages, there has yet to be an authorized English translation, though various partial editions have circulated on the Internet in samizdat form.
51dvvg62ksl_1.jpg At one point, a full English version was briefly available for sale at Amazon.com and I purchased it. Glancing through a few sections, the work seemed quite even-handed and innocuous to me, but it seemed to provide a far more detailed and uncensored account than anything else previously available, which obviously was the problem. The Bolshevik Revolution resulted in the deaths of many tens of millions of people worldwide, and the overwhelming Jewish role in its leadership would become more difficult to erase from historical memory if Solzhenitsyn’s work were easily available.
Also, his candid discussion of the economic and political behavior of Russian Jewry in pre-revolutionary times directly conflicted with the hagiography widely promoted by Hollywood and the popular media. Historian Yuri Slezkine’s award-winning 2004 book The Jewish Century provided many similar facts, but his treatment was far more cursory and his public stature not remotely the same.
Near the end of his life, Solzhenitsyn gave his political blessing to Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Russia’s leaders honored him upon his death, while his Gulagvolumes are now enshrined as mandatory reading in the standard high school curriculum of today’s overwhelmingly Christian Russia. But even as his star rose again in his own homeland, it seems to have sharply fallen in our own country, and his trajectory may eventually relegate him to nearly un-person status.
A couple of years after the release of Solzhenitsyn’s controversial final book, an American writer named Anne Applebaum published a thick history bearing the same title Gulag, and her work received enormously favorable media coverage and won her a Pulitzer Prize; I have even heard claims that her book has been steadily replacing that earlier Gulag on many college reading lists.
But although Jews constituted a huge fraction of the top leadership of the Soviet Gulag system during its early decades, as well as that of the dreaded NKVD which supplied the inmates, nearly her entire focus on her own ethnic group during Soviet times is that of victims rather than victimizers. And by a remarkable irony of fate, she shares a last name with one of the top Bolshevik leaders, Hirsch Apfelbaum, who concealed his own ethnic identity by calling himself Grigory Zinoviev.
417e1wjxyxl.jpg The striking decline in Solzhenitsyn’s literary status in the West came just a decade or two after an even more precipitous collapse in the reputation of David Irving , and for much the same reason. Irving probably ranked as the most internationally successful British historian of the last one hundred years and a renowned scholar of World War II, but his extensive reliance on primary source documentary evidence posed an obvious threat to the official narrative promoted by Hollywood and wartime propaganda.
When he published his magisterial Hitler’s War, this conflict between myth and reality came into the open, and an enormous wave of attacks and vilification was unleashed, gradually leading to his purge from respectability and eventually even his imprisonment.
514rcrbyzwl.jpg Similarly, Israeli academic Ariel Toaff, son of the chief rabbi of Rome, was regarded as one of the world’s leading scholarly authorities on Medieval Jewry. But when he published his remarkable 2004 analysis suggesting the likely reality of the Jewish ritual murders of Christian children throughout history, the resulting media firestorm forced the cancellation of the book’s publication , and the work only survives in samizdat form, while there were even calls for his arrest and incarceration.
In other cases, pressure from the ADL and similar Jewish activist groups have led Amazon to completely eliminate entire categories of historical analysis and ban those publishers who produce such works, which drastically reduces their availability to the reading public.
All of these cases were the sort of high-profile examples which are well-known to anyone who pays attention to such matters. But surely there must have been many other incidents, involving far less prominent authors, which never received any significant media coverage, and also a vastly larger universe of cases in which writers have self-censored their texts in order to avoid such controversies.
Over the decades, I have gradually discovered through sad experience that I must exercise extreme caution whenever I read anything relating to the subjects of Jews, Judaism, or Israel.
These important examples may help to explain the puzzling contrast between the behavior of Jews in the aggregate and Jews as individuals.
Observers have noticed that even fairly small Jewish minorities may often have a major impact upon the far larger societies that host them. But on the other hand, in my experience at least, a large majority of individual Jews do not seem all that different in their personalities or behavior than their non-Jewish counterparts. So how does a community whose individual mean is not so unusual generate what seems to be such a striking difference in collective behavior? I think the answer may involve the existence of information choke-points, and the ability of relatively small numbers of particularly zealous and agitated Jews in influencing and controlling these.
We live our lives constantly immersed in media narratives, and these allow us to decide the rights and wrongs of a situation. The vast majority of people, Jew and Gentile alike, are far more likely to take strong action if they are convinced that their cause is a just one. This is obviously the basis for war-time propaganda.
Now suppose that a relatively small number of zealous Jewish partisans are known to always attack and denounce journalists or authors who accurately describe Jewish misbehavior. Over time, this ongoing campaign of intimidation may cause many important facts to be left on the cutting-room floor, or even gradually expel from mainstream respectability those writers who refuse to conform to such pressures.
Meanwhile, similar small numbers of Jewish partisans frequently exaggerate the misdeeds committed against Jews, sometimes piling their exaggerations upon past exaggerations already produced by a previous round of such zealots.
Eventually, these two combined trends may take a complex and possibly very mixed historical record and transform it into a simple morality-play, with innocent Jews tremendously injured by vicious Jew-haters. And as this morality-play becomes established it deepens the subsequent intensity of other Jewish-activists, who redouble their demands that the media “stop vilifying Jews” and covering up the supposed evils inflicted upon them. An unfortunate circle of distortion following exaggeration following distortion can eventually produce a widely accepted historical account that bears little resemblance to the reality of what actually happened.
So as a result, the vast majority of quite ordinary Jews, who would normally behave in quite ordinary ways, are misled by this largely fictional history, and rather understandably become greatly outraged at all the horrible things that had been done to their suffering people, some of which are true and some of which are not, while remaining completely ignorant of the other side of the ledger.
Furthermore, this situation is exacerbated by the common tendency of Jews to “cluster” together, perhaps respresenting just one or two percent of the total population, but often constituting 20% or 40% or 60% of their immediate peer-group, especially in certain professions. Under such conditions, the ideas or emotional agitation of some Jews probably permeates others around them, often provoking additional waves of indignation.
As a rough analogy, a small quantity of uranium is relatively inert and harmless, and entirely so if distributed within low-density ore. But if a significant quantity of weapons-grade uranium is sufficiently compressed, then the neutrons released by fissioning atoms will quickly cause additional atoms to undergo fission, with the ultimate result of that critical chain-reaction being a nuclear explosion.
In similar fashion, even a highly agitated Jew may have no negative impact, but if the collection of such agitated Jews becomes too numerous and clusters together too closely, they may work each other into a terrible frenzy, perhaps with disastrous consequences both for themselves and for their larger society. This is especially true if those agitated Jews begin to dominate certain key nodes of top-level control, such as the central political or media organs of a society.
Whereas most living organizations exist solely in physical reality, human beings also occupy an ideational space, with the interaction of human consciousness and perceived reality playing a major role in shaping behavior. Just as the pheromones released by mammals or insects can drastically affect the reactions of their family members or nest-mates, the ideas secreted by individuals or the media-emitters of a society can have an enormous impact upon their fellows.
A cohesive, organized group generally possesses huge advantages over a teeming mass of atomized individuals, just as a Macedonian Phalanx could easily defeat a vastly larger body of disorganized infantry. Many years ago, on some website somewhere I came across a very insightful comment regarding the obvious connection between “anti-Semitism” and “racism,” which our mainstream media organs identify as two of the world’s greatest evils.
Under this analysis, “anti-Semitism” represents the tendency to criticize or resist Jewish social cohesion, while “racism” represents the attempt of white Gentiles to maintain a similar social cohesion of their own. To the extent that the ideological emanations from our centralized media organs serve to strengthen and protect Jewish cohesion while attacking and dissolving any similar cohesion on the part of their Gentile counterparts, the former will obviously gain enormous advantages in resource-competition against the latter.
Religion obviously constitutes an important unifying factor in human social groups and we cannot ignore the role of Judaism in this regard. Traditional Jewish religious doctrine seems to consider Jews as being in a state of permanent hostility with all non-Jews, and the use of dishonest propaganda is an almost inevitable aspect of such conflict.
Furthermore, since Jews have invariably been a small political minority, maintaining such controversial tenets required the employment of a massive framework of subterfuge and dissimulation in order to conceal their nature from the larger society surrounding them. It has often been said that truth is the first casualty in war, and surely the cultural influences of over a thousand years of such intense religious hostility may continue to quietly influence the thinking of many modern Jews, even those who have largely abandoned their religious beliefs.
The notorious Jewish tendency to shamelessly lie or wildly exaggerate has sometimes had horrifying human consequences. I very recently discovered a fascinating passage in Peter Moreira’s 2014 book The Jew Who Defeated Hitler: Henry Morgenthau Jr., FDR, and How We Won the War, focused on the important political role of that powerful Secretary of the Treasury.
A turning point in Henry Morgenthau Jr.’s relationship with the Jewish community came in November 1942, when Rabbi Stephen Wise came to the corner office to tell the secretary what was happening in Europe. Morgenthau knew of the millions of deaths and the lampshades made from victims’ skin, and he asked Wise not to go into excessive details. But Wise went on to tell of the barbarity of the Nazis, how they were making soap out of Jewish flesh. Morgenthau, turning paler, implored him, “Please, Stephen, don’t give me the gory details.” Wise went on with his list of horrors and Morgenthau repeated his plea over and over again. Henrietta Klotz was afraid her boss would keel over. Morgenthau later said the meeting changed his life.
It is easy to imagine that Morgenthau’s gullible acceptance of such obviously ridiculous war-time atrocity stories played a major role when he later lent his name and support to remarkably brutal American occupation policies that probably led to the postwar deaths of many millions of innocent German civilians.


russia-insider--2020-10-20--Israeli Intel Officer: Great Insight Into Goering's Admirable Nuremberg Testimony (Russian Talk Show

Israeli Intel Officer: Great Insight Into Goering's Admirable Nuremberg Testimony (Russian Talk Show)

Great talk show TV from Russia .
The officer explains that Stalin insisted that Nazi war criminals receive a trial rather than be immediately executed , to the consternation of Churchill and De Gaulle .
The Nuremberg trials allowed a remarkable speech by Nazi leader Göring , who was a brilliant orator , in which he pointed out Western hypocrisy over racial war crimes : the Allies , after all , maintained their own form of racism in their colonies , and the Americans practiced segregation .
Who were they to lecture Germans on racial oppression ?
The wily Stalin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looked forward to scoring propaganda points against his hypocritical and cynical allies .
Göring ’ s speech so impressed the American sergeant guarding him , that he procured the poison with which Goring took his own life , avoiding the humiliation of a public hanging .
The officer ( high-ranking , retired ) , Yakov Kedmi , then goes on to talk about how the US had no reservations of committing heinous war crimes in Vietnam , and that Colin Powell , a young major at the time , argued that war crimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Vietnam .
He then goes on at some length about how and why so many high-level Nazis were protected by the US so that they would help the Americans in the impending cold war with the Soviet Union .
This is a long ( 11 minutes ) and fascinating peak into great Russian TV .
Good stuff .
- Actually , I get angry when people talk about history and pretend to be truth-seekers , ostensibly objective , yet avoid or cover up certain facts .
Talking about the Nuremberg trials .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a single person 's will .
His name was Joseph Stalin .
If it were n't for him , these trials would n't have taken place .
You can think whatever you want of Stalin , but hushing up this fact is nothing but falsifying history .
That 's not how history should be studied .
Whatever people say .
It was his idea .
For several years .
He imposed his will on the entire Soviet administration and those who did n't want the trials to take place .
Because he said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But they have to be tried in court . ''
He was the first one in the world to demand a trial for them .
Not representatives of the democratic US .
Not the democratic UK , let France alone .
When people talk about it and do n't mention this , it 's dishonest from an intellectual point of view .
You can not do that .
Whoever the person is .
Second .
The trials did n't condemn Nazism .
They condemned German Nazism .
Why ?
And here 's something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In his speech , Göring - being charged with a racial approach -- said , `` You 're condemning a racial approach ? ''
He talked about the American army .
He talked about antisemitism in Europe .
He talked about the way other nations are treated .
They did n't want the trials .
Because they were colonial countries .
They owned Africa .
It was not in their interest .
How could they have condemned racial discrimination ?
Consider the way Belgians treated Africans !
That 's why they did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happened for the same reason .
Why did n't they condemn the Wehrmacht ?
For a simple reason .
By the way , Göring , with his masterfully written speech , won himself that poison .
An American sergeant who was guarding him was impressed by that speech and developed big respect for him .
And he brought him the poison .
Why was n't the Wehrmacht condemned ?
Because at that time , some German generals were sitting down with American and British generals and planning a war against the Soviet Union @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They needed them !
Who became the head of the BND , the intelligence service founded later ?
Gehlen ?
An officer of the Abwehr 's Soviet department .
- Not an officer , the head of the department .
- The head of the department .
He was in charge of it .
They needed the Wehrmacht .
That 's why they could n't try it .
That 's why they did n't condemn it .
That 's why Canada accepted the biggest number of Nazi criminals .
And then America .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not to mention the Pope and the Catholics ... Mostly through Croatia , everyone was going to Latin America .
And no one was paying any attention to it .
All Nazi criminals .
The Nuremberg trials were supposed to lay the foundation of the International Court of Justice .
Who was the first one to say , `` We are above the International Court ? ''
The United States of America .
They did n't need the International Court .
That 's why they can not be tried .
That 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these trials .
They only solved the problem of German Nazism .
Not of the other kinds .
Other Nazisms are okay .
And that 's why they are okay today .
And another point .
Every soldier decides for himself what is a crime against humanity .
It 's his decision .
Shooting at a child is a crime .
So is shooting at a woman .
So is shooting at an unarmed man .
So is killing a prisoner of war .
Those are crimes .
Everyone decides for himself .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is another matter .
It 's between him and his conscience .
And then it 's up to court .
That 's another problem that was n't solved in the Nuremberg trials .
I know only one army where it 's like that .
It 's our army .
- Following a criminal order makes you a war criminal .
You can not say , `` I was ordered to . ''
That 's a war crime .
- You 're absolutely right .
But the Israeli army took that from the Nuremberg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But that was just for two years .
- One of the officers , who back then was a major - it happened in his area of operation - said , `` Whatever .
There 's no need for a trial . ''
What was his name ?
- I do .
It was Colin Powell .
He said there was no need for a trial .
Back then , he and others said , `` There 's no need .
Why ?
That 's a common thing . ''
But the decorations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who they did n't regard as humans , but because they said , `` We died and became disabled ... '' And you lost the war .
Because that 's what you decided .
No one in the US protested for the Vietnamese , for murdered women and kids , for burnt villages .
They were afraid for their life .
- Yakov , how many Vietnamese did the Americans kill when they had to retreat ?
But we are digressing from the topic .
- Right .
And how much did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heinous destruction and the use of chemical weapons ?
- I do n't think they paid anything .
- Exactly .
They did n't .
That 's your answer .
- But the American society figured out the Vietnamese war .
There 's Apocalypse Now and many other movies .
- You 'll like this one better .
Kelly served how much ?
Three and a half years ?
But on house arrest .
That 's right .
The goal of those trials was to declare the German ideology criminal , to declare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ define certain activities as international crimes .
Like , for example , killing civilians , killing people on racial grounds , destroying cities , bombings and so on .
And it 's all ended ... Germany was set straight in those trials .
The leaders were hung .
But what was n't talked about ...
In the West , private property is sacred .
So it was n't confiscated from Krupp and others .
The property that kept Germany going .
Factories where prisoners were working .
- Volkswagen now remembered under pressure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ small money .
That did n't happen .
No decision was made about what to do with former Nazis .
With former SS members .
What should be done with collaborationists ?
Nothing .
What 's the point in trying them ?
Let every country decide for itself .
France dealt with Petain on its own .
Some were dealt with in Norway .
So it was a partial solution .
The key idea of those trials was to prevent similar phenomena in the future .
But a short time later , France @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trials , started a war in Vietnam .
Against Vietnam .
Then the Korean war , it 's another deal .
Then the US started a war in Vietnam .
So the main goal was to prevent aggression of one country against another one .
Prevent bombing civilians , destroying civilians , using unconventional methods .
All of that was forgotten in just 10 years .
And it continues to this day .
So they just put a comma at the defeat of Nazi Germany .
Nothing more .
How many Nazis were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the West and in my country too , much to my shame , there is Demenyk 's festival .
And the man in charge of that camp , how many years did he serve ?
Less than 10 years , I believe .
There was amnesty .
He got out .
He 's getting a pension from the government .
Everything 's okay .
They found some guard in the US and pinned everything on him .
Like it was said recently , they caught the biggest criminal .
When he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assistant in a concentration camp .
He 's barely moving now .
But we 're gon na try him to prove to the whole world that we are fighting Nazism .
They turned it into a tacky comedy which is completely irrelevant .
And next to that , Nazis are walking freely .
SS is a criminal organization , right ?
But do SS member receive pensions ?
They do .
And not only in Germany .
In the Baltic states .
In all the countries they 've been to .
What country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They were everywhere .
So from a historical point of view , at that point in time , some things were done .
But as Arkady Raikin said , `` There 's something .
But it 's not good enough . ''

Great talk show TV from Russia. The officer explains that Stalin insisted that Nazi war criminals receive a trial rather than be immediately executed, to the consternation of Churchill and De Gaulle.
The Nuremberg trials allowed a remarkable speech by Nazi leader Göring, who was a brilliant orator, in which he pointed out Western hypocrisy over racial war crimes: the Allies, after all, maintained their own form of racism in their colonies, and the Americans practiced segregation. Who were they to lecture Germans on racial oppression?
The wily Stalin new this would come up, and looked forward to scoring propaganda points against his hypocritical and cynical allies.
Göring’s speech so impressed the American sergeant guarding him, that he procured the poison with which Goring took his own life, avoiding the humiliation of a public hanging.
The officer (high-ranking, retired), Yakov Kedmi, then goes on to talk about how the US had no reservations of committing heinous war crimes in Vietnam, and that Colin Powell, a young major at the time, argued that war crimes trials were not needed for what happened in Vietnam.
He then goes on at some length about how and why so many high-level Nazis were protected by the US so that they would help the Americans in the impending cold war with the Soviet Union.
This is a long (11 minutes) and fascinating peak into great Russian TV. Good stuff.
Transcript below:
Transcript:
Yakov Kedmi, Social Activist (Israel):
- Actually, I get angry when people talk about history and pretend to be truth-seekers, ostensibly objective, yet avoid or cover up certain facts. Talking about the Nuremberg trials. The Nuremberg trials were a result of a single person's will. His name was Joseph Stalin.
If it weren't for him, these trials wouldn't have taken place. You can think whatever you want of Stalin, but hushing up this fact is nothing but falsifying history. That's not how history should be studied. Whatever people say. It was his idea.
For several years. He imposed his will on the entire Soviet administration and those who didn't want the trials to take place. Because he said, "They can be killed. But they have to be tried in court." He was the first one in the world to demand a trial for them. Not representatives of the democratic US. Not the democratic UK, let France alone.
When people talk about it and don't mention this, it's dishonest from an intellectual point of view. You cannot do that. Whoever the person is.
Second. The trials didn't condemn Nazism. They condemned German Nazism. Why? And here's something to be said about the American army. In his speech, Göring - being charged with a racial approach -- said, "You're condemning a racial approach?"
He talked about the American army. He talked about antisemitism in Europe. He talked about the way other nations are treated. They didn't want the trials. Because they were colonial countries. They owned Africa. It was not in their interest. How could they have condemned racial discrimination?
Consider the way Belgians treated Africans! That's why they didn't condemn it.
And another thing happened for the same reason. Why didn't they condemn the Wehrmacht? For a simple reason. By the way, Göring, with his masterfully written speech, won himself that poison. An American sergeant who was guarding him was impressed by that speech and developed big respect for him. And he brought him the poison.
Why wasn't the Wehrmacht condemned? Because at that time, some German generals were sitting down with American and British generals and planning a war against the Soviet Union. They couldn't do it. They needed them!
Who became the head of the BND, the intelligence service founded later? Gehlen? An officer of the Abwehr's Soviet department.
- The head.
- Of the foreign eastern army.
- Not an officer, the head of the department.
- The head of the department. He was in charge of it. They needed the Wehrmacht. That's why they couldn't try it. That's why they didn't condemn it. That's why Canada accepted the biggest number of Nazi criminals. And then America.
- Not the biggest number.
- And that's why the US, not to mention the Pope and the Catholics... Mostly through Croatia, everyone was going to Latin America. And no one was paying any attention to it. All Nazi criminals.
And…
The Nuremberg trials were supposed to lay the foundation of the International Court of Justice. Who was the first one to say, "We are above the International Court?" The United States of America. They didn't need the International Court. That's why they cannot be tried.
That's another goal that wasn't achieved by these trials. They only solved the problem of German Nazism. Not of the other kinds. Other Nazisms are okay. And that's why they are okay today.
And another point. Every soldier decides for himself what is a crime against humanity. It's his decision. Shooting at a child is a crime. So is shooting at a woman. So is shooting at an unarmed man. So is killing a prisoner of war. Those are crimes. Everyone decides for himself.
But whether he'll be found guilty is another matter. It's between him and his conscience. And then it's up to court. That's another problem that wasn't solved in the Nuremberg trials. I know only one army where it's like that. It's our army.
- Israel.
- Following a criminal order makes you a war criminal. You cannot say, "I was ordered to." That's a war crime.
- Time.
- You're absolutely right. But the Israeli army took that from the Nuremberg trials.
- That's true. But that was just for two years.
- One of the officers, who back then was a major - it happened in his area of operation - said, "Whatever. There's no need for a trial." What was his name?
- I don't remember.
- I do. It was Colin Powell. He said there was no need for a trial. Back then, he and others said, "There's no need. Why? That's a common thing." But the decorations weren't stripped because of the Vietnamese, who they didn't regard as humans, but because they said, "We died and became disabled..."
And you lost the war. Because that's what you decided. No one in the US protested for the Vietnamese, for murdered women and kids, for burnt villages. They were afraid for their life.
- Yakov, how many Vietnamese did the Americans kill when they had to retreat? But we are digressing from the topic.
- What Vietnamese?
- Southern Vietnamese.
- Right. And how much did they pay to Northern Vietnam for the heinous destruction and the use of chemical weapons?
- I don't think they paid anything.
- Exactly. They didn't. That's your answer.
- But the American society figured out the Vietnamese war. There's Apocalypse Now and many other movies.
- You'll like this one better. Kelly served how much? Three and a half years? But on house arrest. That's right.
The goal of those trials was to declare the German ideology criminal, to declare aggression against other countries criminal and to define certain activities as international crimes. Like, for example, killing civilians, killing people on racial grounds, destroying cities, bombings and so on. And it's all ended... Germany was set straight in those trials. The leaders were hung.
But what wasn't talked about... In the West, private property is sacred. So it wasn't confiscated from Krupp and others. The property that kept Germany going. Factories where prisoners were working.
- Confiscated partially.
- Volkswagen now remembered under pressure. It's going to pay some small money. That didn't happen. No decision was made about what to do with former Nazis. With former SS members. What should be done with collaborationists? Nothing. What's the point in trying them?
Let every country decide for itself. France dealt with Petain on its own. Some were dealt with in Norway. So it was a partial solution. The key idea of those trials was to prevent similar phenomena in the future.
But a short time later, France, who was a part of those trials, started a war in Vietnam. Against Vietnam. Then the Korean war, it's another deal. Then the US started a war in Vietnam.
So the main goal was to prevent aggression of one country against another one. Prevent bombing civilians, destroying civilians, using unconventional methods.
All of that was forgotten in just 10 years. And it continues to this day. So they just put a comma at the defeat of Nazi Germany. Nothing more. How many Nazis were convicted? 32 thousand.
Today, in the West and in my country too, much to my shame, there is Demenyk's festival. And the man in charge of that camp, how many years did he serve? Less than 10 years, I believe. There was amnesty. He got out. He's getting a pension from the government. Everything's okay.
They found some guard in the US and pinned everything on him. Like it was said recently, they caught the biggest criminal. When he was 18, he was an accountant's assistant in a concentration camp. He's barely moving now. But we're gonna try him to prove to the whole world that we are fighting Nazism.
They turned it into a tacky comedy which is completely irrelevant. And next to that, Nazis are walking freely. SS is a criminal organization, right? But do SS member receive pensions? They do. And not only in Germany. In the Baltic states. In all the countries they've been to. What country didn't have an SS branch? They were everywhere.
So from a historical point of view, at that point in time, some things were done. But as Arkady Raikin said, "There's something. But it's not good enough."