休：两年前由查克·鲍德温博士写的一篇火力十足的文章（https://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Articles/tabid/109/ID/3793/What-You-Dont-Know-About-Brett-Kavanaugh-Can-And-Will-Hurt-You.aspx），澄清了有关卡瓦诺法官的真相。文章指出他是一个倾向政治正确的建制派保守主义者，同川普本人一样，除了拉大旗扯虎皮外，指望不上他。他是一位法官， 如我所指出的，卡瓦诺自己所言罗诉韦德案（Roe v. Wade）是法律，所以他说他起过誓要捍卫法律，这就是这个维护生命权（Pro-Life）法官亲口说出的典型的自由派和支持堕胎的言论。这就是为什么受人尊敬的著名法官纳波利塔诺（Andrew Napolitano）正确地指出，卡瓦诺法官是从“沼泽池里选出来的”。讲到川普 “清除沼泽池”的这个空头支票，他根本就没有去做。尽管他一直都在炒他内阁成员们的鱿鱼，他整个政府都汇集了来自沼泽池各类妖魔鬼怪。与他前任们相比，不仅没有变好，在有一些方面还更加恶劣了。纳波利塔诺法官称，卡瓦诺同所谓维护生命权（Pro-Life）的布什总统和川普一样，拒绝支持唯一一项可以马上全面终止堕胎的维护生命权法案，也就是荣·保罗的“生命保护法案”。此法案定义生命起始在受孕的时刻，这将使堕胎从高院管辖权中被废除。而我们都清楚，高院数十年来继续年复一年地拖延罗诉韦德案（Roe v. Wade）的裁决，导致婴孩们的尸骨一直正在堆积如山。保罗博士的修正案,被众议院多次以不同的名称重提，但直到如今依然被悬置起来。而修正案可以立刻无条件地，将在美国境内持续不断屠杀无辜之人的流产工厂送上法庭。对我来讲，仅这种懦夫般的忽视本身，这种拒绝支持推动生命保护法案的做法，这些所谓的维护生命权（Pro-Life）保守派共和党布什、川普、卡瓦诺，不可能也不会诚实地成为未出生胎儿的真正守护者，如上所述，他们本有最好的一次性终止杀戮母腹中无助婴孩的机会，但他们却允许堕胎之血床年复一年地永无止息地运行下去。川普是一个维护生命权总统的这个概念，恐怕不过是一个巨大骗局而已。
休：不是的，虽然在总统竞选时他一再抨击华尔街的谋杀式做法，这是他自己的原话。他也许诺要结束巨型银行的“使我们国家流干最后一滴血”的行为，他说的都是对的，但当他一升到了白宫，他就迫不及待地抛弃他所讲的那些受人欢迎的原则，以及那些使他当选的爱国主义者们。他尽最快的速度张开双臂奔向那些最糟糕的政客们，因为川普与华尔街悠久的历史关系，其中有些政客们早就知道他会这么做了。说川普反华尔街，的确是一个笑料！但成千上万的人都这么信了。甚至在竞选过程中他与华尔街打嘴仗时，他都不得不支持华尔街一个匪帮首领，高盛集团首席执行官CEO劳埃德· 布兰克费恩（Lloyd Craig Blankfein）, 一个一生都是一位民主党人，而且当然也是一个顽固的犹太复国主义者。他也被人称为华尔街的“邪恶博士”（“Dr. Evil” of Wall Street）和“经济杀手” (The Economic Hitman of Wall Street) ，这些头衔都不是空穴来风。布兰克费恩早就知道美国选民们所不知道的，那就是候选人川普反大银行的长篇大论，不过就是根本没有实质内容的作秀，他保证川普不会兑现承诺。如今这些已成为了现实。川普当选后很短时间内，其中的三位高级幕僚全部来自华尔街投资银行高盛集团，其中包括替极左派索罗斯进行管理工作的财政部长梅努钦(Steven Mnuchin)，首席经济顾问加里·科恩（Gary Cohn），首席战略专家和高级顾问史蒂夫·班农（Steve Bannon），他们不仅都是华尔街重量级人物，而且还都是犹太复国主义者的领军人物。总统还来了一个大掉头，在竞选期间他猛烈攻击的美联储主席珍妮特·耶伦（Janet Yellen），在他成为总统后，却成为了他赞美的对象。虽然他对现任的美联储主义鲍威尔(Jerome Powell)颇有微词，但鲍威尔是他自己选的，且与华尔街凯雷集团（Carlyle Group https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/凯雷集团）, 以及布什王朝犯罪合伙人本·拉登家族都有瓜葛。提到美联储，美国中央银行被设计成为，用切斯特顿（Gilbert Chesterton）的话就是，通过货币权力专制将我们踩在脚下。这方面的专家爱德华·格里芬（Edward Griffin）写的一本令人震撼的书《美联储传一部现代金融史》（The Creature from Jekyll Island – A Second Look at the Federal Reserve）,讲述了一帮犯罪超级富豪金融大亨们是如何在杰基尔岛上秘密筹建美联储。他说最近美联储将利息降低到几乎为零，目的就是引诱人们更深地沦为负债奴隶。在以为了缓和冠状病毒恐惧影响的伪装下，投入了7千亿美元作为量化宽松政策（Quantitative Easing QE）。而仅过去几个月，美联储已经单独向华尔街投入了近9万亿美元，而现在又向大银行提供了1.5万亿美元，这还没将国会最
休：尽管川普或许做了一些好的事情，但与他整体表现来比，几乎是微不足道的。再说个例子，他几乎完全继续沿用了他前任总统奥巴马的政策，而所有头脑清醒的人都知道奥巴马是一个极为糟糕的总统。奥巴马也一样沿用了布什的政策，就同布什沿用了克林顿的政策一样，他们都是非常糟糕的国家领袖。在国内，那些侵蚀自由的极权主义警察国家的行动，在川普执政下进行着，就同以前在布什和奥巴马政府下一样，同样的美国国土安全部（DHS，the Department of Homeland Security），同样的运输安全管理局（TSA，the Transportation of Security Administration）和国防授权法案（National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)）， 同样的缉毒局（DEA，Drug Enforcement Administration）、烟酒枪炮及爆炸物管理局（ATF, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives）、爱国者法案（Patriot Act）等待。在某些方面，保守派川普加在我们身上的国家恐怖主义制度甚至超越了自由派的奥巴马，例如他重新授权极权主义式爱国者法案215条，授权政府扩大对所有公民实行无线监控。在此之前，他加快了各州、各县及各地方警察机构的军事化步伐，在国防授权法的联邦1043项目下，向各地方非联邦独立警察机构提供了近50亿美元军用重型武器、装甲车设备，这是在他授权下实行的。实际上，他超越了奥巴马邪恶的警察国家的初步行动，他甚至取消了奥巴马至少禁止将部分军用设备交给地方警察机构的行政命令。相信你的听众知道，为警察装备如此军用武器和装甲车设备，很容易使地方警察沦为侵略部队，虽然我们有许多忠于职守的好警察，但许多警察都已那么做了。迈向警察国家的趋势尤其令人不安，华盛顿对如何判定一个潜在本土恐怖分子是如此狂热，我们都清楚，这意味着任何一个守法的公民，当他们知道真相后，如果拒绝屈从于国家恐怖主义，或对新世界秩序产生威胁的时候，都会被定义成为一个恐怖主义者。美国的这种极权主义最近迈出了新的一大步，川普通过启动了长期都未曾用过的国防生产法案（Defense Production Act https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/國防生產法）来应对极度夸张的冠状病毒，这是一项战争权利法案，这实际是在宣布自己为战时总统，使他自己可以行使特别的权利，不会受到任何道德和宪法授权的制约。在这个花招下，总统赋予自己前所未有恶魔般的权利，就同布什在邪恶的9/11事件中一样。在全国范围内进行封锁，这会导致我们失去更多的自由，以及使我们日常生活产生巨大混乱。最近对国民卫队的启用只是刚刚开始，他们开始摸底，以便了解该怎样收紧套在我们脖子上的枷锁，以避免让那些绵羊起来高喊：“我们受够了！”如今，美国绵羊们正在熟睡，恶狼们已为下一场捕杀盛筵准备就绪。当然，在国外，川普也大大超越了他民主党前任总统，通过升级以色列种族灭绝战争，来支持非法的以色列恐怖主义国家，甚至开启了新的战争，加上提供更多新的资金、军事设备，对以色列的经济支助超过了地球上所有其它国家，每年将近有36亿美元。考虑到以色列远远超过纳粹德国的残暴历史，仅仅此项，就足以使川普成为世界上最邪恶的恐怖分子。一个非常好的问题就是，川普对伊拉克和叙利亚的多重战争和战争罪行，导致了无数人死亡，并差点给人类带来灾难性的第三次世界核大战，以及他对美国人民无数的叛国行为，为何川普不会因此而遭到弹劾？
休:这么说或许还为时尚早，但有些证据已浮现出来。这个病毒由美国生化实验室制造的生化武器，并由中央情报局委命和资助。换句话说，冠状病毒是在美国境内制造的，而不是在中国，中国仅只是协助了此项目。中国可能是此次瘟疫的替罪羊而已，也许是川普同中国贸易战的一部分，有一些指向那方面的证据。根据我们政客们的历史纪录，这不是不可能的。许多过去在军队服役的人都知道，长期以来，我们政府一直在秘密测试、实验、生产和使用高毒性生化武器，炭疽杆菌、布氏杆菌、Q型流感、芥子毒气和其它致命细菌武器，基督徒绝不会允许他们政府生产任何一种这样的生化武器。这些生化武器主要源自马里兰州迪特里克堡（United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases美国陆军传染病医学研究院），一度曾是军队生物研究及生物传染病武器项目的官方研究中心，这就是吉拉迪指出来的。这个中心与以色列加利利研究所（MIGAL Galilee Research Institut，https://www.migal.org.il/en）合作，现在声称有这种病毒的疫苗，所以冠状病毒源自我国或者以色列诸多的秘密实验室，都是可以想象得到的（https://www.jpost.com/health-science/israeli-scientists-in-three-weeks-we-will-have-coronavirus-vaccine-619101）。我说过，伊朗也一样被美国和以色列攻击，那是他们要消灭以色列最憎恶的敌人所做努力的一个部分。伊朗因病毒死亡的人数非常多，已快接近中国和意大利。如果你愿意的话，你可以相信这背后没有什么邪恶之事。但更现实的是，所有犯罪现场的指纹和DNA，都表明这不是阴谋论。
休：是的，我认为不可否认的是，保守派往往比公开具有颠覆性的自由派更危险，因为右派们比左派更精于隐藏他们真实面目。他们真正有多左，他们就用他们伪保守派计划，把我们国家往左真正地推向多远。几十年来每一届的美国政府都越来越偏左，在无所不能的政府的重压下日益严重，正在迅速成为苏联共产主义下的极权国家。就像我和其他人以前常说的，共产主义和犹太复国主义是完全同样的双胞胎，两个主义最主要的领域都来自犹太苏维埃俄罗斯。法蒂玛圣母（Our Lady of Fatima）曾给我们有关俄国错误可怕的警告，这里是伴随自由派天主教而来的两个最致命的主义：犹太共产主义和犹太复国主义，与犹太资本主义联结起来组成了邪恶的三位一体。而所有这些都错综复杂地加入到他们的特洛伊木马-国际共济会里面。在共和党和民主党的最顶层，加上自由主义者（Libertarian），在某种程度上可以说是完全一样的三胞胎。你总可以区分假自由主义者与受民众欢迎的真诚的自由主义者，前者很容易与犹太复国主义共和党人士上床。假保守主义爱国者如拉什·林博（Rush Hudson Limbaugh）、大卫·霍洛维茨（David Horowitz）、亚历克斯·琼斯（Alex Jones）、格林·贝克（Glenn Edward Lee Beck）、福克斯新闻（Fox News）、布赖特巴特新闻网（Breitbart News Network）、新闻极限（Newsmax），所谓的中间派受欢迎的自由主义者，已经成为自由派共和党的另一个阵线，正如我们所看到的维护生命权运动，和更不可原谅的传统天主教的主流媒体很大程度上已变成自由派那样。要讲的太多了，还是那句话，美国保守派共和党人士往往将美国带向更左的路上，因为他们非常巧妙地隐藏在保守派雷达的下面操作，而民主党人士却完全暴露在雷达屏幕之上，以便让所有人都看到。还是用小布什来举个例子，自罗斯福总统以来，没有哪一个总统能如保守派共和党小布什这样，将美国推向如此深的国家暴政。民主党人绝不会如此大胆地以国土安全为借口，将一个超级国家警察部队强加到我们头上。民主党之所以不敢这么做，因为他们知道会招来保守派们难以招架和不屈不饶的反抗。但共和党人士这么做时，那些由犹太人控制的媒体描绘的保守派、民族主义者、民粹主义者、中间派领袖们，却毫不犹豫地向极权主义迈出了一大步。虽然是乔治·布什而不是唐纳德·川普给了我们这个可怕的警察国家机器，但川普从来没有想要主动拆除它，他甚至从来都没有反对过。桑德斯和纽约女议员科尔特斯（Alexandria Ocasio-Corte）的极端社会主义最主要目的就是大政府，像布什和川普这样的共和党人士，他们毫无疑问也是大政府左派社会主义者，他们只是显得更加温和、合理、平衡和保守而已，虽不一样，但与前者比较起来依然都相同。如你所言，就同好警察坏警察的审讯策略, 好警察才真正是坏警察，最终会把肇事者或嫌疑人诱骗到合作或招供中。在同样的意义上，好的共和党人士比坏的民主党人士更能有效地欺骗美国人民。 保守派看门狗的暗度陈仓：最糟糕的法律，或者暴政，或者战争行为。刚才提到左右两党最大的差别，就是将我们领进沼泽池深处的速度不一样。
休：如果第三次世界不可避免的话，就有很大的可能性。如果在我们接近11月的时候，川普的支持率可能会下降，他希望重新当选的机会会变小，这是很有可能的。考虑到此人过度膨胀的自我、他冲动和爆炸性的气质，考虑到过去三年来围绕他周围的鹰派们以及他残暴的历史，考虑到所有这些，从现在到选举的时候，他故意提前引发第三次世界大战是有可能的。一位研究员的调查报告指出，战时总统总是被投票连任。因为没有思考能力的公众，通常习惯于相信这符合国家的最佳利益，应该再给总统四年的时间来结束战争，但没意识到可能是他首先发动了战争。就如你前面所言，就在冠状病毒疫情大流行期间，川普仍表现出他对伊朗的好战态度，强逼他们引发战争，这正是他和他的犹太操纵者所希望的。大政府的政客们大部分都是大银行家和企业大亨，特别是国防工业大亨，以及军队总指挥们和媒体精英们。这些人热爱战争，战争赋予他们权利，战争使使他们肮脏富有，战争带给他们更大的名声、荣誉和历史认可。他们多次在他们的文件中公开承认，战争特别提升了那些灭绝了尽可能多的基督徒的犹太复国主义者们的名字，同时促成了另一个既定目标：一个更大的以色列。但这不仅限于中东，就同许多人认为的那样。大以色列的目标，是旨在将整个世界置于犹太复国主义者征服之下，以及犹太人统治之下的目标。大以色列的另一个词就是新世界秩序（New World Order, NWO）。
主持人：我和你都明白，选举根本不是选举，而是一场选择谁的游戏，那些认为选举是真选举的人，完全错了。回想去年川普出来半带微笑着说: 我就是那位救世主（I am the Messiah）。我相信某种程度上讲，那是一种精神变态、自恋和自我中心，的确如此。关于2020年大选，我有一个想问自己同时也想问你的一个问题，你会怎么做？“你说啥呢，埃里克（主持人自己的名字），难道就没人可选了吗？你会给谁投票？”。说实话，2020年是否没有希望了？
主持人：是的，我已经说过很久了，我们生活就像在一个巨大无休止的杰瑞斯·布林格脱口秀中（The Jerry Springer Show，美国最让人恶心的脱口秀，节目主要内容就是互相揭露嘉宾的隐私。https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/杰瑞·斯布林格秀），很多人都被社交媒体吸引，并在上面发表评论。我曾被人在评论中攻击：“哦，你反对川普？”，想当然地就认为我是自由主义者和支持克林顿的，不，我支持君主体制，据天主教预言，民主和共和政体会崩溃，君主制在“黑暗三日”后（Three Days of Darkness, 这是仅限于天主教会中流传的末世预言https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Days_of_Darkness）会重新建立。总之，你确定今年选举你不会投票，顺便提一下，我已经好久没有投票了。
Beginning in the ancient world, Jewish populations have repeatedly attained a position of power and influence within Western societies. I will discuss Jewish background traits conducive to influence: ethnocentrism, intelligence and wealth, psychological intensity, aggressiveness, with most of the focus on ethnocentrism. I discuss Jewish ethnocentrism in its historical, anthropological, and evolutionary context and in its relation to three critical psychological processes: moral particularism, self-deception, and the powerful Jewish tendency to coalesce into exclusionary, authoritarian groups under conditions of perceived threat.
Jewish populations have always had enormous effects on the societies in which they reside because of several qualities that are central to Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy: First and foremost, Jews are ethnocentric and able to cooperate in highly organized, cohesive, and effective groups. Also important is high intelligence, including the usefulness of intelligence in attaining wealth, prominence in the media, and eminence in the academic world and the legal profession. I will also discuss two other qualities that have received less attention: psychological intensity and aggressiveness.
The four background traits of ethnocentrism, intelligence, psychological intensity, and aggressiveness result in Jews being able to produce formidable, effective groups—groups able to have powerful, transformative effects on the peoples they live among. In the modern world, these traits influence the academic world and the world of mainstream and elite media, thus amplifying Jewish effectiveness compared with traditional societies. However, Jews have repeatedly become an elite and powerful group in societies in which they reside in sufficient numbers. It is remarkable that Jews, usually as a tiny minority, have been central to a long list of historical events. Jews were much on the mind of the Church Fathers in the fourth century during the formative years of Christian dominance in the West. Indeed, I have proposed that the powerful anti-Jewish attitudes and legislation of the fourth-century Church must be understood as a defensive reaction against Jewish economic power and enslavement of non-Jews.1 Jews who had nominally converted to Christianity but maintained their ethnic ties in marriage and commerce were the focus of the 250-year Inquisition in Spain, Portugal, and the Spanish colonies in the New World. Fundamentally, the Inquisition should be seen as a defensive reaction to the economic and political domination of these “New Christians.”2
Jews have also been central to all the important events of the twentieth century. Jews were a necessary component of the Bolshevik revolution that created the Soviet Union, and they remained an elite group in the Soviet Union until at least the post-World War II era. They were an important focus of National Socialism in Germany, and they have been prime movers of the post-1965 cultural and ethnic revolution in the United States, including the encouragement of massive non-white immigration to countries of European origins.3 In the contemporary world, organized American Jewish lobbying groups and deeply committed Jews in the Bush administration and the media are behind the pro-Israel U.S. foreign policy that is leading to war against virtually the entire Arab world.
How can such a tiny minority have such huge effects on the history of the West? This article is the first of a three-part series on Jewish influence which seeks to answer that question. This first paper in the series provides an introduction to Jewish ethnocentrism and other background traits that influence Jewish success. The second article discusses Zionism as the quintessential example of twentieth-century Jewish ethnocentrism and as an example of a highly influential Jewish intellectual/political movement. A broader aim will be to discuss a generalization about Jewish history: that in the long run the more extreme elements of the Jewish community win out and determine the direction of the entire group. As Jonathan Sacks points out, it is the committed core—made up now especially of highly influential and vigorous Jewish activist organizations in the United States and hypernationalist elements in Israel—that determines the future direction of the community.4 The third and final article will discuss neoconservatism as a Jewish intellectual and political movement. Although I touched on neoconservatism in my trilogy on Jews,5 the present influence of this movement on U.S. foreign policy necessitates a much fuller treatment.
Figure 1: Understanding Jewish Activism
Figure 1 (Not available) provides an overview of the sources of Jewish influence. The four background traits—discussed in more detail below—are ethnocentrism, intelligence, psychological intensity, and aggressiveness. These traits are seen as underlying Jewish success in producing focused, effective groups able to influence the political process and the wider culture. In the modern world, Jewish influence on politics and culture is channeled through the media and through elite academic institutions into an almost bewildering array of areas—far too many to consider here.
I. Jews are Hyperethnocentric
Elsewhere I have argued that Jewish hyperethnocentrism can be traced back to their Middle Eastern origins.6 Traditional Jewish culture has a number of features identifying Jews with the ancestral cultures of the area. The most important of these is that Jews and other Middle Eastern cultures evolved under circumstances that favored large groups dominated by males.7 These groups were basically extended families with high levels of endogamy (i.e., marriage within the kinship group) and consanguineous marriage (i.e., marriage to blood relatives), including the uncle-niece marriage sanctioned in the Old Testament. These features are exactly the opposite of Western European tendencies (See Table 1).8
Table 1: Contrasts between European and Jewish Cultural Forms.
European Cultural Origins
Jewish Cultural Origins
Middle Old World Pastoralists (Herders)
Bilateral; Weakly Patricentric
Unilineal; Strongly Patricentric
Extended Family; Joint Household
Endogamous; Consanguineous; Polygynous
Companionate; Based on Mutual Consent and Affection
Utilitarian; Based on Family Strategizing and Control of Kinship Group
Stresses Ingroup Identification, Obligations to Kinship Group
Dogmatism; Submission to Ingroup Authority and Charismatic Leaders
Moral Universalism: Morality Is Independent of Group Affiliation
Moral Particularism; Ingroup/Outgroup Morality; “Good is what is good for the Jews”
Whereas Western societies tend toward individualism, the basic Jewish cultural form is collectivism, in which there is a strong sense of group identity and group boundaries. Middle Eastern societies are characterized by anthropologists as “segmentary societies” organized into relatively impermeable, kinship-based groups.9 Group boundaries are often reinforced through external markers such as hair style or clothing, as Jews have often done throughout their history. Different groups settle in different areas where they retain their homogeneity alongside other homogeneous groups, as illustrated by the following account from Carleton Coon:
There the ideal was to emphasize not the uniformity of the citizens of a country as a whole but a uniformity within each special segment, and the greatest possible contrast between segments. The members of each ethnic unit feel the need to identify themselves by some configuration of symbols. If by virtue of their history they possess some racial peculiarity, this they will enhance by special haircuts and the like; in any case they will wear distinctive garments and behave in a distinctive fashion.10
These societies are by no means blissful paradises of multiculturalism. Between-group conflict often lurks just beneath the surface. For example, in nineteenth-century Turkey, Jews, Christians, and Muslims lived in a sort of superficial harmony, and even inhabited the same areas, “but the slightest spark sufficed to ignite the fuse.”11
Jews are at the extreme of this Middle Eastern tendency toward hypercollectivism and hyperethnocentrism. I give many examples of Jewish hyperethnocentrism in my trilogy on Judaism and have suggested in several places that Jewish hyperethnocentrism is biologically based.12 Middle Eastern ethnocentrism and fanaticism has struck a good many people as extreme, including William Hamilton, perhaps the most important evolutionary biologist of the twentieth century. Hamilton writes:
I am sure I am not the first to have wondered what it is about that part of the world that feeds such diverse and intense senses of rectitude as has created three of the worlds’ most persuasive and yet most divisive and mutually incompatible religions. It is hard to discern the root in the place where I usually look for roots of our strong emotions, the part deepest in us, our biology and evolution.13
Referring to my first two books on Judaism, Hamilton then notes that “even a recent treatise on this subject, much as I agree with its general theme, seems to me hardly to reach to this point of the discussion.” If I failed to go far enough in describing or analyzing Jewish ethnocentrism, it is perhaps because the subject seems almost mind-bogglingly deep, with psychological ramifications everywhere. As a pan-humanist, Hamilton was acutely aware of the ramifications of human ethnocentrism and especially of the Jewish variety. Likening Judaism to the creation of a new human species, Hamilton noted that
from a humanist point of view, were those “species” the Martian thought to see in the towns and villages a millennium or so ago a good thing? Should we have let their crystals grow; do we retrospectively approve them? As by growth in numbers by land annexation, by the heroizing of a recent mass murderer of Arabs [i.e., Baruch Goldstein, who murdered 29 Arabs, including children, at the Patriarch’s Cave in Hebron in 1994], and by the honorific burial accorded to a publishing magnate [Robert Maxwell], who had enriched Israel partly by his swindling of his employees, most of them certainly not Jews, some Israelis seem to favour a “racewise” and unrestrained competition, just as did the ancient Israelites and Nazi Germans. In proportion to the size of the country and the degree to which the eyes of the world are watching, the acts themselves that betray this trend of reversion from panhumanism may seem small as yet, but the spirit behind them, to this observer, seems virtually identical to trends that have long predated them both in humans and animals.14
A good start for thinking about Jewish ethnocentrism is the work of Israel Shahak, most notably his co-authored Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel.15 Present-day fundamentalists attempt to re-create the life of Jewish communities before the Enlightenment (i.e., prior to about 1750). During this period the great majority of Jews believed in Cabbala—Jewish mysticism. Influential Jewish scholars like Gershom Scholem ignored the obvious racialist, exclusivist material in the Cabbala by using words like “men,” “human beings,” and “cosmic” to suggest the Cabbala has a universalist message. The actual text says salvation is only for Jews, while non-Jews have “Satanic souls.”16
The ethnocentrism apparent in such statements was not only the norm in traditional Jewish society, but remains a powerful current of contemporary Jewish fundamentalism, with important implications for Israeli politics. For example, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, describing the difference between Jews and non-Jews:
We do not have a case of profound change in which a person is merely on a superior level. Rather we have a case of…a totally different species…. The body of a Jewish person is of a totally different quality from the body of [members] of all nations of the world…. The difference of the inner quality [of the body]…is so great that the bodies would be considered as completely different species. This is the reason why the Talmud states that there is an halachic difference in attitude about the bodies of non-Jews [as opposed to the bodies of Jews]: “their bodies are in vain”…. An even greater difference exists in regard to the soul. Two contrary types of soul exist, a non-Jewish soul comes from three satanic spheres, while the Jewish soul stems from holiness.17
This claim of Jewish uniqueness echoes Holocaust activist Elie Wiesel’s claim that “everything about us is different.” Jews are “ontologically” exceptional.18
The Gush Emunim and other Jewish fundamentalist sects described by Shahak and Mezvinsky are thus part of a long mainstream Jewish tradition which considers Jews and non-Jews completely different species, with Jews absolutely superior to non-Jews and subject to a radically different moral code. Moral universalism is thus antithetical to the Jewish tradition in which the survival and interests of the Jewish people are the most important ethical goal:
Many Jews, especially religious Jews today in Israel and their supporters abroad, continue to adhere to traditional Jewish ethics that other Jews would like to ignore or explain away. For example, Rabbi Yitzhak Ginzburg of Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus/Shechem, after several of his students were remanded on suspicion of murdering a teenage Arab girl: “Jewish blood is not the same as the blood of a goy.” Rabbi Ido Elba: “According to the Torah, we are in a situation of pikuah nefesh (saving a life) in time of war, and in such a situation one may kill any Gentile.” Rabbi Yisrael Ariel writes in 1982 that “Beirut is part of the Land of Israel. [This is a reference to the boundaries of Israel as stated in the Covenant between God and Abraham in Genesis 15: 18–20 and Joshua 1 3–4]…our leaders should have entered Lebanon and Beirut without hesitation, and killed every single one of them. Not a memory should have remained.” It is usually yeshiva students who chant “Death to the Arabs” on CNN. The stealing and corruption by religious leaders that has recently been documented in trials in Israel and abroad continues to raise the question of the relationship between Judaism and ethics.19
Moral particularism in its most aggressive form can be seen among the ultranationalists, such as the Gush Emunim, who hold that
Jews are not, and cannot be a normal people. The eternal uniqueness of the Jews is the result of the Covenant made between God and the Jewish people at Mount Sinai…. The implication is that the transcendent imperatives for Jews effectively nullify moral laws that bind the behavior of normal nations. Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, one of Gush Emunim’s most prolific ideologues, argues that the divine commandments to the Jewish people “transcend the human notions of national rights.” He explains that while God requires other nations to abide by abstract codes of justice and righteousness, such laws do not apply to Jews.20
As argued in the second paper in this series, it is the most extreme elements within the Jewish community that ultimately give direction to the community as a whole. These fundamentalist and ultranationalist groups are not tiny fringe groups, mere relics of traditional Jewish culture. They are widely respected by the Israeli public and by many Jews in the Diaspora. They have a great deal of influence on the Israeli government, especially the Likud governments and the recent government of national unity headed by Ariel Sharon. The members of Gush Emunim constitute a significant percentage of the elite units of the Israeli army, and, as expected on the hypothesis that they are extremely ethnocentric, they are much more willing to treat the Palestinians in a savage and brutal manner than are other Israeli soldiers. All together, the religious parties represent about 25% of the Israeli electorate21—a percentage that is sure to increase because of the high fertility of religious Jews and because intensified troubles with the Palestinians tend to make other Israelis more sympathetic to their cause. Given the fractionated state of Israeli politics and the increasing numbers of the religious groups, it is unlikely that future governments can be formed without their participation. Peace in the Middle East therefore appears unlikely absent the complete capitulation or expulsion of the Palestinians.
A good discussion of Jewish moral particularism can be found in a recent article in Tikkun—probably the only remaining liberal Jewish publication. Kim Chernin wonders why so many Jews “have trouble being critical of Israel.”22 She finds several obstacles to criticism of Israel:
1. A conviction that Jews are always in danger, always have been, and therefore are in danger now. Which leads to: 2. The insistence that a criticism is an attack and will lead to our destruction. Which is rooted in: 3. The supposition that any negativity towards Jews (or Israel) is a sign of anti-Semitism and will (again, inevitably) lead to our destruction…. 6. An even more hidden belief that a sufficient amount of suffering confers the right to violence…. 7. The conviction that our beliefs, our ideology (or theology), matter more than the lives of other human beings.
Chernin presents the Jewish psychology of moral particularism:
We keep a watchful eye out, we read the signs, we detect innuendo, we summon evidence, we become, as we imagine it, the ever-vigilant guardians of our people’s survival. Endangered as we imagine ourselves to be; endangered as we insist we are, any negativity, criticism, or reproach, even from one of our own, takes on exaggerated dimensions; we come to perceive such criticism as a life-threatening attack. The path to fear is clear. But our proclivity for this perception is itself one of our unrecognized dangers. Bit by bit, as we gather evidence to establish our perilous position in the world, we are brought to a selective perception of that world. With our attention focused on ourselves as the endangered species, it seems to follow that we ourselves can do no harm…. When I lived in Israel I practiced selective perception. I was elated by our little kibbutz on the Lebanese border until I recognized that we were living on land that had belonged to our Arab neighbors. When I didn’t ask how we had come to acquire that land, I practiced blindness…
The profound depths of Jewish ethnocentrism are intimately tied up with a sense of historical persecution. Jewish memory is a memory of persecution and impending doom, a memory that justifies any response because ultimately it is Jewish survival that is at stake:
Wherever we look, we see nothing but impending Jewish destruction…. I was walking across the beautiful square in Nuremberg a couple of years ago and stopped to read a public sign. It told this story: During the Middle Ages, the town governing body, wishing to clear space for a square, burned out, burned down, and burned up the Jews who had formerly filled up the space. End of story. After that, I felt very uneasy walking through the square and I eventually stopped doing it. I felt endangered, of course, a woman going about through Germany wearing a star of David. But more than that, I experienced a conspicuous and dreadful self-reproach at being so alive, so happily on vacation, now that I had come to think about the murder of my people hundreds of years before. After reading that plaque I stopped enjoying myself and began to look for other signs and traces of the mistreatment of the former Jewish community. If I had stayed longer in Nuremberg, if I had gone further in this direction, I might soon have come to believe that I, personally, and my people, currently, were threatened by the contemporary Germans eating ice cream in an outdoor cafe in the square. How much more potent this tendency for alarm must be in the Middle East, in the middle of a war zone!…
Notice the powerful sense of history here. Jews have a very long historical memory. Events that happened centuries ago color their current perceptions.
This powerful sense of group endangerment and historical grievance is associated with a hyperbolic style of Jewish thought that runs repeatedly through Jewish rhetoric. Chernin’s comment that “any negativity, criticism, or reproach, even from one of our own, takes on exaggerated dimensions” is particularly important. In the Jewish mind, all criticism must be suppressed because not to do so would be to risk another Holocaust: “There is no such thing as overreaction to an anti-Semitic incident, no such thing as exaggerating the omnipresent danger. Anyone who scoffed at the idea that there were dangerous portents in American society hadn’t learned ‘the lesson of the Holocaust.’ ”23 Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary, a premier neoconservative journal published by the American Jewish Committee, provides an example:
My own view is that what had befallen the Jews of Europe inculcated a subliminal lesson…. The lesson was that anti-Semitism, even the relatively harmless genteel variety that enforced quotas against Jewish students or kept their parents from joining fashionable clubs or getting jobs in prestigious Wall Street law firms, could end in mass murder.24
This is a “slippery slope” argument with a vengeance. The schema is as follows: Criticism of Jews indicates dislike of Jews; this leads to hostility toward Jews, which leads to Hitler and eventually to mass murder. Therefore all criticism of Jews must be suppressed. With this sort of logic, it is easy to dismiss arguments about Palestinian rights on the West Bank and Gaza because “the survival of Israel” is at stake. Consider, for example, the following advertisement distributed by neoconservative publicist David Horowitz:
The Middle East struggle is not about right versus right. It is about a fifty-year effort by the Arabs to destroy the Jewish state, and the refusal of the Arab states in general and the Palestinian Arabs in particular to accept Israel’s existence…. The Middle East conflict is not about Israel’s occupation of the territories; it is about the refusal of the Arabs to make peace with Israel, which is an expression of their desire to destroy the Jewish state.25
“Survival of Israel” arguments thus trump concerns about allocation of scarce resources like water, the seizure of Palestinian land, collective punishment, torture, and the complete degradation of Palestinian communities into isolated, military-occupied, Bantustan-type enclaves. The logic implies that critics of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza also favor the destruction of Israel and hence the mass murder of millions of Jews.
Similarly, during the debate over selling military hardware to Saudi Arabia in the Carter administration, “the Israeli lobby pulled out all the stops,” including circulating books to Congress based on the TV series The Holocaust. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the main Jewish lobbying group in Congress, included a note stating, “This chilling account of the extermination of six million Jews underscores Israel’s concerns during the current negotiations for security without reliance on outside guarantees.”26 In other words, selling AWACS reconnaissance planes to Saudi Arabia, a backward kingdom with little military capability, is tantamount to collusion in the extermination of millions of Jews.
Jewish thinking about immigration into the U.S. shows the same logic. Lawrence Auster, a Jewish conservative, describes the logic as follows:
The liberal notion that “all bigotry is indivisible” [advocated by Norman Podhoretz] implies that all manifestations of ingroup/outgroup feeling are essentially the same—and equally wrong. It denies the obvious fact that some outgroups are more different from the ingroup, and hence less assimilable, and hence more legitimately excluded, than other outgroups. It means, for example, that wanting to exclude Muslim immigrants from America is as blameworthy as wanting to exclude Catholics or Jews.
Now when Jews put together the idea that “all social prejudice and exclusion leads potentially to Auschwitz” with the idea that “all bigotry is indivisible,” they must reach the conclusion that any exclusion of any group, no matter how alien it may be to the host society, is a potential Auschwitz.
So there it is. We have identified the core Jewish conviction that makes Jews keep pushing relentlessly for mass immigration, even the mass immigration of their deadliest enemies. In the thought-process of Jews, to keep Jew-hating Muslims out of America would be tantamount to preparing the way to another Jewish Holocaust.27
The idea that any sort of exclusionary thinking on the part of Americans—and especially European Americans as a majority group—leads inexorably to a Holocaust for Jews is not the only reason why Jewish organizations still favor mass immigration. I have identified two others as well: the belief that greater diversity makes Jews safer and an intense sense of historical grievance against the traditional peoples and culture of the United States and Europe.28 These two sentiments also illustrate Jewish moral particularism because they fail to consider the ethnic interests of other peoples in thinking about immigration policy. Recently the “diversity-as-safety” argument was made by Leonard S. Glickman, president and CEO of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, a Jewish group that has advocated open immigration to the United States for over a century. Glickman stated, “The more diverse American society is the safer [Jews] are.”29 At the present time, the HIAS is deeply involved in recruiting refugees from Africa to emigrate to the U.S.
The diversity as safety argument and its linkage to historical grievances against European civilization is implicit in a recent statement of the Simon Wiesenthal Center (SWC) in response to former French president Valéry Giscard d’Estaing’s argument that Muslim Turkey has no place in the European Union:
Ironically, in the fifteenth century, when European monarchs expelled the Jews, it was Moslem Turkey that provided them a welcome…. During the Holocaust, when Europe was slaughtering its Jews, it was Turkish consuls who extended protection to fugitives from Vichy France and other Nazi allies…. Today’s European neo-Nazis and skinheads focus upon Turkish victims while, Mr. President, you are reported to be considering the Pope’s plea that your Convention emphasize Europe’s Christian heritage. [The Center suggested that Giscard’s new Constitution] underline the pluralism of a multi-faith and multi-ethnic Europe, in which the participation of Moslem Turkey might bolster the continent’s Moslem communities—and, indeed, Turkey itself—against the menaces of extremism, hate and fundamentalism. A European Turkey can only be beneficial for stability in Europe and the Middle East.30
Here we see Jewish moral particularism combined with a profound sense of historical grievance—hatred by any other name—against European civilization and a desire for the end of Europe as a Christian civilization with its traditional ethnic base. According to the SWC, the menaces of “extremism, hate and fundamentalism”—prototypically against Jews—can only be repaired by jettisoning the traditional cultural and ethnic basis of European civilization. Events that happened five hundred years ago are still fresh in the minds of Jewish activists—a phenomenon that should give pause to everyone in an age when Israel has control of nuclear weapons and long-range delivery systems.31
Indeed, a recent article on Assyrians in the U.S. shows that many Jews have not forgiven or forgotten events of 2,700 years ago, when the Northern Israelite kingdom was forcibly relocated to the Assyrian capital of Nineveh: “Some Assyrians say Jews are one group of people who seem to be more familiar with them. But because the Hebrew Bible describes Assyrians as cruel and ruthless conquerors, people such as the Rev. William Nissan say he is invariably challenged by Jewish rabbis and scholars about the misdeeds of his ancestors.”32
The SWC inveighs against hate but fails to confront the issue of hatred as a normative aspect of Judaism. Jewish hatred toward non-Jews emerges as a consistent theme throughout the ages, beginning in the ancient world.33 The Roman historian Tacitus noted that “Among themselves they are inflexibly honest and ever ready to show compassion, though they regard the rest of mankind with all the hatred of enemies.34 The eighteenth-century English historian Edward Gibbon was struck by the fanatical hatred of Jews in the ancient world:
From the reign of Nero to that of Antoninus Pius, the Jews discovered a fierce impatience of the dominion of Rome, which repeatedly broke out in the most furious massacres and insurrections. Humanity is shocked at the recital of the horrid cruelties which they committed in the cities of Egypt, of Cyprus, and of Cyrene, where they dwelt in treacherous friendship with the unsuspecting natives; and we are tempted to applaud the severe retaliation which was exercised by the arms of the legions against a race of fanatics, whose dire and credulous superstition seemed to render them the implacable enemies not only of the Roman government, but of human kind.35
The nineteenth-century Spanish historian José Amador de los Rios wrote of the Spanish Jews who assisted the Muslim conquest of Spain that “without any love for the soil where they lived, without any of those affections that ennoble a people, and finally without sentiments of generosity, they aspired only to feed their avarice and to accomplish the ruin of the Goths; taking the opportunity to manifest their rancor, and boasting of the hatreds that they had hoarded up so many centuries.”36 In 1913, economist Werner Sombart, in his classic Jews and Modern Capitalism, summarized Judaism as “a group by themselves and therefore separate and apart—this from the earliest antiquity. All nations were struck by their hatred of others.”37
A recent article by Meir Y. Soloveichik, aptly titled “The virtue of hate,” amplifies this theme of normative Jewish fanatical hatred.38 “Judaism believes that while forgiveness is often a virtue, hate can be virtuous when one is dealing with the frightfully wicked. Rather than forgive, we can wish ill; rather than hope for repentance, we can instead hope that our enemies experience the wrath of God.” Soloveichik notes that the Old Testament is replete with descriptions of horribly violent deaths inflicted on the enemies of the Israelites—the desire not only for revenge but for revenge in the bloodiest, most degrading manner imaginable: “The Hebrew prophets not only hated their enemies, but rather reveled in their suffering, finding in it a fitting justice.” In the Book of Esther, after the Jews kill the ten sons of Haman, their persecutor, Esther asks that they be hanged on a gallows.
This normative fanatical hatred in Judaism can be seen by the common use among Orthodox Jews of the phrase yemach shemo, meaning, may his name be erased. This phrase is used “whenever a great enemy of the Jewish nation, of the past or present, is mentioned. For instance, one might very well say casually, in the course of conversation, ‘Thank God, my grandparents left Germany before Hitler, yemach shemo, came to power.’ Or: ‘My parents were murdered by the Nazis, yemach shemam.’ ”39 Again we see that the powerful consciousness of past suffering leads to present-day intense hatred:
Another danger inherent in hate is that we may misdirect our odium at institutions in the present because of their past misdeeds. For instance, some of my coreligionists reserve special abhorrence for anything German, even though Germany is currently one of the most pro-Israel countries in Europe. Similarly, after centuries of suffering, many Jews have, in my own experience, continued to despise religious Christians, even though it is secularists and Islamists who threaten them today, and Christians should really be seen as their natural allies. Many Jewish intellectuals and others of influence still take every assertion of the truth of Christianity as an anti-Semitic attack. After the Catholic Church beatified Edith Stein, a Jewish convert to Christianity, some prominent Jews asserted that the Church was attempting to cover up its role in causing the Holocaust. And then there is the historian Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, who essentially has asserted that any attempt by the Catholic Church to maintain that Christianity is the one true faith marks a continuation of the crimes of the Church in the past. Burning hatred, once kindled, is difficult to extinguish.
Soloveichik could also have included Jewish hatred toward the traditional peoples and culture of the United States. This hatred stems from Jewish memory of the immigration law of 1924, which is seen as having resulted in a greater number of Jews dying in the Holocaust because it restricted Jewish immigration from Eastern Europe during the 1920s and 1930s. Jews are also acutely aware of widespread anti-Jewish attitudes in the U.S. prior to World War II. The hatred continues despite the virtual disappearance of anti-Jewish attitudes in the U.S. after World War II and despite the powerful ties between the United States and Israel.40
Given the transparently faulty logic and obvious self-interest involved in arguments made by Jewish activists, it is not unreasonable to suppose that Jews are often engaged in self-deception. In fact, self-deception is a very important component of Jewish moral particularism. I wrote an entire chapter on Jewish self-deception in Separation and Its Discontents41 but it was nowhere near enough. Again, Kim Chernin:
Our sense of victimization as a people works in a dangerous and seditious way against our capacity to know, to recognize, to name and to remember. Since we have adopted ourselves as victims we cannot correctly read our own history let alone our present circumstances. Even where the story of our violence is set down in a sacred text that we pore over again and again, we cannot see it. Our self-election as the people most likely to be victimized obscures rather than clarifies our own tradition. I can’t count the number of times I read the story of Joshua as a tale of our people coming into their rightful possession of their promised land without stopping to say to myself, “but this is a history of rape, plunder, slaughter, invasion and destruction of other peoples.” As such, it bears an uncomfortably close resemblance to the behavior of Israeli settlers and the Israeli army of today, a behavior we also cannot see for what it is. We are tracing the serpentine path of our own psychology. We find it organized around a persuasion of victimization, which leads to a sense of entitlement to enact violence, which brings about an inevitable distortion in the way we perceive both our Jewish identity and the world, and involves us finally in a tricky relationship to language.
Political columnist Joe Sobran—who has suffered professionally for expressing his opinions about Israel—exposes the moral particularism of Norman Podhoretz, one of the chorus of influential Jewish voices who advocate restructuring the entire Middle East in the interests of Israel:
Podhoretz has unconsciously exposed the Manichaean fantasy world of so many of those who are now calling for war with Iraq. The United States and Israel are “good”; the Arab-Muslim states are “evil”; and those opposed to this war represent “moral relativism,” ostensibly neutral but virtually on the side of “evil.” This is simply deranged. The ability to see evil only in one’s enemies isn’t “moral clarity.” It’s the essence of fanaticism. We are now being counseled to fight one kind of fanaticism with another. [My emphasis]
As Sobran notes, the moral particularism is unconscious—an example of self-deception. The world is cut up into two parts, the good and the evil—ingroup-outgroup—as it has been, for Jews, for well over two thousand years. Recently Jared Taylor and David Horowitz got into a discussion which touched on Jewish issues. Taylor writes:
Mr. Horowitz deplores the idea that “we are all prisoners of identity politics,” implying that race and ethnicity are trivial matters we must work to overcome. But if that is so, why does the home page of FrontPageMag carry a perpetual appeal for contributions to “David’s Defense of Israel Campaign”? Why Israel rather than, say, Kurdistan or Tibet or Euskadi or Chechnya? Because Mr. Horowitz is Jewish. His commitment to Israel is an expression of precisely the kind of particularist identity he would deny to me and to other racially-conscious whites. He passionately supports a self-consciously Jewish state but calls it “surrendering to the multicultural miasma” when I work to return to a self-consciously white America. He supports an explicitly ethnic identity for Israel but says American must not be allowed to have one… If he supports a Jewish Israel, he should support a white America.42
Taylor is suggesting that Horowitz is self-deceived or inconsistent. It is interesting that Horowitz was acutely aware of his own parents’ self-deception. Horowitz’s description of his parents shows the strong ethnocentrism that lurked beneath the noisy universalism of Jewish communists in mid-twentieth century America. In his book, Radical Son, Horowitz describes the world of his parents who had joined a “shul” (i.e., a synagogue) run by the Communist Party in which Jewish holidays were given a political interpretation. Psychologically these people might as well have been in eighteenth-century Poland, but they were completely unaware of any Jewish identity. Horowitz writes:
What my parents had done in joining the Communist Party and moving to Sunnyside was to return to the ghetto. There was the same shared private language, the same hermetically sealed universe, the same dual posturing revealing one face to the outer world and another to the tribe. More importantly, there was the same conviction of being marked for persecution and specially ordained, the sense of moral superiority toward the stronger and more numerous goyim outside. And there was the same fear of expulsion for heretical thoughts, which was the fear that riveted the chosen to the faith.43
Jews recreate Jewish social structure wherever they are, even when they are completely unaware they are doing so. When asked about their Jewish commitments, these communists denied having any.44 Nor were they consciously aware of having chosen ethnically Jewish spouses, although they all married other Jews. This denial has been useful for Jewish organizations and Jewish intellectual apologists attempting to de-emphasize the role of Jews on the radical left in the twentieth century. For example, a common tactic of the ADL beginning in the Red Scare era of the 1920s right up through the Cold War era was to claim that Jewish radicals were no longer Jews because they had no Jewish religious commitments.45
Non-Jews run the risk of failing to truly understand how powerful these Jewish traits of moral particularism and self-deception really are. When confronted with his own rabid support for Israel, Horowitz simply denies that ethnicity has much to do with it; he supports Israel as a matter of principle—his commitment to universalist moral principles—and he highlights the relationship between Israel and the West: “Israel is under attack by the same enemy that has attacked the United States. Israel is the point of origin for the culture of the West.”46 This ignores the reality that Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians is a major part of the reason why the United States was attacked and is hated throughout the Arab world. It also ignores the fact that Western culture and its strong strain of individualism are the antithesis of Judaism, and that Israel’s Western veneer overlays the deep structure of Israel as an apartheid, ethnically based state.
It’s difficult to argue with people who cannot see or at least won’t acknowledge the depths of their own ethnic commitments and continue to act in ways that compromise the ethnic interests of others. People like Horowitz (and his parents) can’t see their ethnic commitments even when they are obvious to everyone else. One could perhaps say the same of Charles Krauthammer, William Safire, William Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, and the legion of prominent Jews who collectively dominate the perception of Israel presented by the U.S. media. Not surprisingly, Horowitz pictures the U.S. as a set of universal principles, with no ethnic content. This idea originated with Jewish intellectuals, particularly Horace Kallen, almost a century ago at a time when there was a strong conception that the United States was a European civilization whose characteristics were racially/ethnically based.47 As we all know, this world and its intellectual infrastructure have vanished, and I have tried to show that the prime force opposing a European racial/ethnic conception of the U.S. was a set of Jewish intellectual and political movements that collectively pathologized any sense of European ethnicity or European ethnic interests.48
Given that extreme ethnocentrism continues to pervade all segments of the organized Jewish community, the advocacy of the de-ethnicization of Europeans—a common sentiment in the movements I discuss in The Culture of Critique—is best seen as a strategic move against peoples regarded as historical enemies. In Chapter 8 of CofC, I call attention to a long list of similar double standards, especially with regard to the policies pursued by Israel versus the policies Jewish organizations have pursued in the U.S. These policies include church-state separation, attitudes toward multiculturalism, and immigration policies favoring the dominant ethnic group. This double standard is fairly pervasive. As noted throughout CofC, Jewish advocates addressing Western audiences have promoted policies that satisfy Jewish (particularist) interests in terms of the morally universalist language that is a central feature of Western moral and intellectual discourse; obviously David Horowitz’s rationalization of his commitment to Israel is a prime example of this.
A principal theme of CofC is that Jewish organizations played a decisive role in opposing the idea that the United States ought to be a European nation. Nevertheless, these organizations have been strong supporters of Israel as a nation of the Jewish people. Consider, for example, a press release of May 28, 1999, by the ADL:
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today lauded the passage of sweeping changes in Germany’s immigration law, saying the easing of the nation’s once rigorous naturalization requirements “will provide a climate for diversity and acceptance. It is encouraging to see pluralism taking root in a society that, despite its strong democracy, had for decades maintained an unyielding policy of citizenship by blood or descent only,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. “The easing of immigration requirements is especially significant in light of Germany’s history of the Holocaust and persecution of Jews and other minority groups. The new law will provide a climate for diversity and acceptance in a nation with an onerous legacy of xenophobia, where the concept of ‘us versus them’ will be replaced by a principle of citizenship for all.”49
There is no mention of analogous laws in place in Israel restricting immigration to Jews, or of the long-standing policy of rejecting the possibility of repatriation for Palestinian refugees wishing to return to Israel or the occupied territories. The prospective change in the “us versus them” attitude alleged to be characteristic of Germany is applauded, while the “us versus them” attitude characteristic of Israel and Jewish culture throughout history is unmentioned. Recently, the Israeli Ministry of Interior ruled that new immigrants who have converted to Judaism will no longer be able to bring non-Jewish family members into the country. The decision is expected to cut by half the number of eligible immigrants to Israel. Nevertheless, Jewish organizations continue to be strong proponents of multiethnic immigration to the United States while maintaining unquestioning support for Israel. This pervasive double standard was noticed by writer Vincent Sheean in his observations of Zionists in Palestine in 1930: “how idealism goes hand in hand with the most terrific cynicism; . . . how they are Fascists in their own affairs, with regard to Palestine, and internationalists in everything else.”50 The right hand does not know what the left is doing—self-deception writ large.
Jewish ethnocentrism is well founded in the sense that scientific studies supporting the genetic cohesiveness of Jewish groups continue to appear. Most notable of the recent studies is that of Michael Hammer and colleagues.51 Based on Y-chromosome data, Hammer et al. conclude that 1 in 200 matings within Jewish communities were with non-Jews over a 2000-year period.
Because of their intense ethnocentrism, Jews tend to have great rapport with each other—an important ingredient in producing effective groups. One way to understand this powerful attraction for fellow ethnic group members is J. Philippe Rushton’s Genetic Similarity Theory.52 According to GST, people are attracted to others who are genetically similar to themselves. One of the basic ideas of evolutionary biology is that people are expected to help relatives because they share similar genes. When a father helps a child or an uncle helps a nephew, he is really also helping himself because of their close genetic relationship. (Parents share half their genes with their children; uncles share one-fourth of their genes with nieces and nephews.53) GST extends this concept to non-relatives by arguing that people benefit when they favor others who are genetically similar to them even if they are not relatives.
GST has some important implications for understanding cooperation and cohesiveness among Jews. It predicts that people will be friendlier to other people who are genetically more similar to themselves. In the case of Jews and non-Jews, it predicts that Jews would be more likely to make friends and alliances with other Jews, and that there would be high levels of rapport and psychological satisfaction within these relationships.
GST explains the extraordinary rapport and cohesiveness among Jews. Since the vast majority of Jews are closely related genetically, GST predicts that they will be very attracted to other Jews and may even be able to recognize them in the absence of distinctive clothing and hair styles. There is anecdotal evidence for this statement. Theologian Eugene Borowitz writes that Jews seek each other out in social situations and feel “far more at home” after they have discovered who is Jewish.54 “Most Jews claim to be equipped with an interpersonal friend-or-foe sensing device that enables them to detect the presence of another Jew, despite heavy camouflage.” Another Jewish writer comments on the incredible sense of oneness he has with other Jews and his ability to recognize other Jews in public places, a talent some Jews call “J-dar.”55 While dining with his non-Jewish fiancée, he is immediately recognized as Jewish by some other Jews, and there is an immediate “bond of brotherhood” between them that excludes his non-Jewish companion.
Robert Reich, Clinton administration Secretary of Labor, wrote that in his first face-to-face meeting with Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, “We have never met before, but I instantly know him. One look, one phrase, and I know where he grew up, how he grew up, where he got his drive and his sense of humor. He is New York. He is Jewish. He looks like my uncle Louis, his voice is my uncle Sam. I feel we’ve been together at countless weddings, bar mitzvahs, and funerals. I know his genetic structure. I’m certain that within the last five hundred years—perhaps even more recently—we shared the same ancestor.”56 Reich is almost certainly correct: He and Greenspan do indeed have a recent common ancestor, and this genetic affinity causes them to have an almost supernatural attraction to each other. Or consider Sigmund Freud, who wrote that he found “the attraction of Judaism and of Jews so irresistible, many dark emotional powers, all the mightier the less they let themselves be grasped in words, as well as the clear consciousness of inner identity, the secrecy of the same mental construction.”57
Any discussion of Judaism has to start and probably end with this incredibly strong bond that Jews have among each other—a bond that is created by their close genetic relationship and by the intensification of the psychological mechanisms underlying group cohesion. This powerful rapport among Jews translates into a heightened ability to cooperate in highly focused groups.
To conclude this section: In general, the contemporary organized Jewish community is characterized by high levels of Jewish identification and ethnocentrism. Jewish activist organizations like the ADL, the American Jewish Committee, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, and the neoconservative think tanks are not creations of the fundamentalist and Orthodox, but represent the broad Jewish community, including non-religious Jews and Reform Jews. In general, the more actively people are involved in the Jewish community, the more committed they are to preventing intermarriage and retaining Jewish ethnic cohesion. And despite a considerable level of intermarriage among less committed Jews, the leadership of the Jewish community in the U.S. is at present not made up of the offspring of intermarried people to any significant extent.
Jewish ethnocentrism is ultimately simple traditional human ethnocentrism, although it is certainly among the more extreme varieties. But what is so fascinating is the cloak of intellectual support for Jewish ethnocentrism, the complexity and intellectual sophistication of the rationalizations for it—some of which are reviewed in Separation and Its Discontents58 and the rather awesome hypocrisy (or cold-blooded deception) of it, given Jewish opposition to ethnocentrism among Europeans.
II. Jews Are Intelligent (and Wealthy)
The vast majority of U.S. Jews are Ashkenazi Jews. This is a very intelligent group, with an average IQ of approximately 115 and verbal IQ considerably higher.59 Since verbal IQ is the best predictor of occupational success and upward mobility in contemporary societies,60 it is not surprising that Jews are an elite group in the United States. Frank Salter has showed that on issues of concern to the Jewish community (Israel, immigration, ethnic policy in general), Jewish groups have four times the influence of European Americans despite representing approximately 2.5% of the population.61 Recent data indicate that Jewish per capita income in the U.S. is almost double that of non-Jews, a bigger difference than the black-white income gap.62 Although Jews make up less than 3% of the population, they constitute more than a quarter of the people on the Forbes list of the richest four hundred Americans. Jews constitute 45% of the top forty of the Forbes 400 richest Americans. Fully one-third of all American multimillionaires are Jewish. The percentage of Jewish households with income greater than $50,000 is double that of non-Jews; on the other hand, the percentage of Jewish households with income less than $20,000 is half that of non-Jews. Twenty percent of professors at leading universities are Jewish, and 40% of partners in leading New York and Washington D.C. law firms are Jewish.63
In 1996, there were approximately three hundres national Jewish organizations in the United States, with a combined budget estimated in the range of $6 billion—a sum greater than the gross national product of half the members of the United Nations.64 For example, in 2001 the ADL claimed an annual budget of over $50,000,000.65 There is also a critical mass of very wealthy Jews who are actively involved in funding Jewish causes. Irving Moskowitz funds the settler movement in Israel and pro-Israeli, neoconservative think tanks in Washington DC, while Charles Bronfman, Ronald Lauder, and the notorious Marc Rich fund Birthright Israel, a program that aims to increase ethnic consciousness among Jews by bringing 20,000 young Jews to Israel every year. George Soros finances liberal immigration policy throughout the Western world and also funds Noel Ignatiev and his “Race Traitor” website dedicated to the abolition of the white race. So far as I know, there are no major sources of funding aimed at increasing ethnic consciousness among Europeans or at promoting European ethnic interests.66 Certainly the major sources of conservative funding in the U.S., such as the Bradley and Olin Foundations, are not aimed at this sort of thing. Indeed, the Bradley Foundation has been a major source of funding for the largely Jewish neoconservative movement and for pro-Israel think tanks such as the Center for Security Policy.67
Paul Findley68 provides numerous examples of Jews using their financial clout to support political candidates with positions that are to the liking of AIPAC and other pro-Israel activist groups in the U.S. This very large financial support for pro-Israel candidates continues into the present—the most recent examples being the campaigns to unseat Cynthia McKinney and Earl Hilliard from Congress in 2002. Because of their predominantly Jewish funding base,69 Democratic candidates are particularly vulnerable, but all candidates experience this pressure because Jewish support will be funneled to their opponents if there is any hint of disagreement with the pro-Israel lobby.
Intelligence is also important in providing access to the entire range of influential positions, from the academic world, to the media, to business, politics, and the legal profession. In CofC I describe several influential Jewish intellectual movements developed by networks of Jews who were motivated to advance Jewish causes and interests. These movements were the backbone of the intellectual left in the twentieth century, and their influence continues into the present. Collectively, they call into question the fundamental moral, political, and economic foundations of Western society. These movements have been advocated with great intellectual passion and moral fervor and with a very high level of theoretical sophistication. As with the neoconservative movement, discussed in the third article in this series, all of these movements had ready access to prestigious mainstream media sources, at least partly because of the high representation of Jews as owners and producers of mainstream media.70 All of these movements were strongly represented at prestigious universities, and their work was published by prestigious mainstream academic and commercial publishers.
Intelligence is also evident in Jewish activism. Jewish activism is like a full court press in basketball: intense pressure from every possible angle. But in addition to the intensity, Jewish efforts are very well organized, well funded, and backed up by sophisticated, scholarly intellectual defenses. A good example is the long and ultimately successful attempt to alter U.S. immigration policy.71 The main Jewish activist organization influencing immigration policy, the American Jewish Committee, was characterized by “strong leadership, internal cohesion, well-funded programs, sophisticated lobbying techniques, well-chosen non-Jewish allies, and good timing.”72 The most visible Jewish activists, such as Louis Marshall, were intellectually brilliant and enormously energetic and resourceful in their crusades on behalf of immigration and other Jewish causes. When restrictionist arguments appeared in the media, the American Jewish Committee made sophisticated replies based on at least the appearance of scholarly data, and typically couched in universalist terms as benefiting the whole society. Articles favorable to immigration were published in national magazines, and letters to the editor were published in newspapers. Talented lawyers initiated legal proceedings aimed at preventing the deportation of aliens.
The pro-immigration lobby was also very well organized. Immigration opponents, such as Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, and organizations like the Immigration Restriction League were kept under close scrutiny and pressured by lobbyists. Lobbyists in Washington also kept a daily scorecard of voting tendencies as immigration bills wended their way through Congress, and they engaged in intense and successful efforts to convince Presidents Taft and Wilson to veto restrictive immigration legislation. Catholic prelates were recruited to protest the effects of restrictionist legislation on immigration from Italy and Hungary. There were well-organized efforts to minimize the negative perceptions of immigration by distributing Jewish immigrants around the country and by getting Jewish aliens off public support. Highly visible and noisy mass protest meetings were organized.73
Intelligence and organization are also apparent in contemporary Jewish lobbying on behalf of Israel. Les Janka, a U.S. Defense Department official, noted that, “On all kinds of foreign policy issues the American people just don’t make their voices heard. Jewish groups are the exceptions. They are prepared, superbly briefed. They have their act together. It is hard for bureaucrats not to respond.”74
Morton A. Klein, national president of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), is typical of the highly intelligent, competent, and dedicated Jewish activist. The ZOA website states that Klein had a distinguished career as a biostatistician in academe and in government service in the Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations. He has received accolades as one of the leading Jewish activists in the U.S., especially by media that are closely associated with Likud policies in Israel. For example, the Wall Street Journal called the ZOA “heroic and the most credible advocate for Israel on the American Jewish scene today” and added that we should “snap a salute to those who were right about Oslo and Arafat all along,… including Morton Klein who was wise, brave and unflinchingly honest…. [W]hen the history of the American Jewish struggle in these years is written, Mr. Klein will emerge as an outsized figure.” The website boasts of Klein’s success “against anti-Israel bias” in textbooks, travel guides, universities, churches, and the media, as well as his work on Capitol Hill.” Klein has led successful efforts to block the appointment of Joe Zogby, an Arab American, to the State Department and the appointment of Strobe Talbott, Clinton nominee for Deputy Secretary of State. Klein’s pro-Israel articles have appeared in a wide range of mainstream and Jewish media: New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, New Republic, New Yorker, Commentary, Near East Report, Reform Judaism, Moment, Forward, Jerusalem Post, Philadelphia Inquirer, Miami Herald, Chicago Tribune, Ha’aretz (Jerusalem), Maariv (Jerusalem), and the Israeli-Russian paper Vesti.
Klein’s activism highlights the importance of access to the major media enjoyed by Jewish activists and organizations—a phenomenon that is traceable ultimately to Jewish intelligence. Jews have a very large presence in the media as owners, writers, producers, and editors—far larger than any other identifiable group.75 In the contemporary world, this presence is especially important with respect to perceptions of Israel. Media coverage of Israel in the U.S. is dominated by a pro-Israel bias, whereas in most of the world the predominant view is that the Palestinians are a dispossessed people under siege.76 A critical source of support for Israel is the army of professional pundits “who can be counted upon to support Israel reflexively and without qualification.”77 Perhaps the most egregious example of pro-Israel bias resulting from Jewish media control is the Asper family, owners of CanWest, a company that controls over 33% of the English-language newspapers in Canada. CanWest inaugurated an editorial policy in which all editorials had to be approved by the main office. As the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression notes, “the Asper family staunchly supports Israel in its conflicts with Palestinians, and coverage of the Middle East appears to be a particularly sensitive area.”78 CanWest has exercised control over the content of articles related to Israel by editing and spiking articles with pro-Palestinian or anti-Israeli views. Journalists who have failed to adopt CanWest positions have been reprimanded or dismissed.
III. Jews Are Psychologically Intense
I have compared Jewish activism to a full court press—relentlessly intense and covering every possible angle. There is considerable evidence that Jews are higher than average on emotional intensity.79 Emotionally intense people are prone to intense emotional experience of both positive and negative emotions.80 Emotionality may be thought of as a behavioral intensifier—an energizer. Individuals high on affect intensity have more complex social networks and more complex lives, including multiple and even conflicting goals. Their goals are intensely sought after.
In the case of Jews, this affects the tone and intensity of their efforts at activism. Among Jews there is a critical mass that is intensely committed to Jewish causes—a sort of 24/7, “pull out all the stops” commitment that produces instant, massive responses on Jewish issues. Jewish activism has a relentless, never-say-die quality. This intensity goes hand in hand with the “slippery slope” style of arguing described above: Jewish activism is an intense response because even the most trivial manifestation of anti-Jewish attitudes or behavior is seen as inevitably leading to mass murder of Jews if allowed to continue.
Besides its ability to direct Jewish money to its preferred candidates, a large part of AIPAC’s effectiveness lies in its ability to rapidly mobilize its 60,000 members. “In virtually every congressional district…AIPAC has a group of prominent citizens it can mobilize if an individual senator or representative needs stroking.”81 When Senator Charles Percy suggested that Israel negotiate with the PLO and be willing to trade land for peace, he was inundated with 2200 telegrams and 4000 letters, 95% against, and mainly from the Jewish community in Chicago.82 The other side is seldom able to muster a response that competes with the intensity of the Jewish response. When President Eisenhower—the last president to stand up to the pro-Israel lobby—pressured Israel into withdrawing from the Sinai in 1957, almost all the mail opposed his decision. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles complained, “It is impossible to hold the line because we get no support from the Protestant elements in the country. All we get is a battering from the Jews.”83 This pales in comparison to the avalanche of 150,000 letters to President Johnson urging support for Israel when Egypt closed the Strait of Tiran in May 1967. This was just prior to the “Six-Day War,” during which the U.S. provided a great deal of military assistance and actively cooperated in the cover-up of the assault on the USS Liberty. Jews had learned from their defeat at the hands of Eisenhower and had redoubled their lobbying efforts, creating by all accounts the most effective lobby in Washington.
Pressure on officials in the State and Defense departments is relentless and intense. In the words of one official, “One has to keep in mind the constant character of this pressure. The public affairs staff of the Near East Bureau in the State Department figures it will spend about 75 percent of its time dealing with Jewish groups. Hundreds of such groups get appointments in the executive branch each year.”84
Psychological intensity is also typical of Israelis. For example, the Israelis are remarkably persistent in their attempts to obtain U.S. military hardware. The following comment illustrates not only the relentless, intense pressure, but also the aggressiveness of Jewish pursuit of their interests: “They would never take no for an answer. They never gave up. These emissaries of a foreign government always had a shopping list of wanted military items, some of them high technology that no other nation possessed, some of it secret devices that gave the United States an edge over any adversary.”85 Even though small in number, the effects are enormous. “They never seem to sleep, guarding Israel’s interests around the clock.”86 Henry Kissinger made the following comment on Israeli negotiating tactics. “In the combination of single-minded persistence and convoluted tactics the Israelis preserve in the interlocutor only those last vestiges of sanity and coherence needed to sign the final document.”87
IV. Jews Are Aggressive
Being aggressive and “pushy” is part of the stereotype of Jews in Western societies. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of scientific studies on this aspect of Jewish personality. Hans Eysenck, renowned for his research on personality, claims that Jews are indeed rated more aggressive by people who know them well.88
Jews have always behaved aggressively toward those they have lived among, and they have been perceived as aggressive by their critics. What strikes the reader of Henry Ford’s The International Jew (TIJ), written in the early 1920s, is its portrayal of Jewish intensity and aggressiveness in asserting their interests.89 As TIJ notes, from Biblical times Jews have endeavored to enslave and dominate other peoples, even in disobedience of divine command, quoting the Old Testament, “And it came to pass, when Israel was strong, that they put the Canaanites to tribute, and did not utterly drive them out.” In the Old Testament the relationship between Israel and foreigners is one of domination: For example, “They shall go after thee, in chains they shall come over; And they shall fall down unto thee. They shall make supplication unto thee” (Isa. 45:14); “They shall bow down to thee with their face to the earth, And lick the dust of thy feet” (49:23). Similar sentiments appear in Trito-Isaiah (60:14, 61:5–6), Ezekiel (e.g., 39:10), and Ecclesiasticus (36:9). The apotheosis of Jewish attitudes of conquest can be seen in the Book of Jubilees, where world domination and great reproductive success are promised to the seed of Abraham:
I am the God who created heaven and earth. I shall increase you, and multiply you exceedingly; and kings shall come from you and shall rule wherever the foot of the sons of man has trodden. I shall give to your seed all the earth which is under heaven, and they shall rule over all the nations according to their desire; and afterwards they shall draw the whole earth to themselves and shall inherit it for ever (Jub. 32:18‑19).
Elsewhere I have noted that a major theme of anti-Jewish attitudes throughout the ages has been Jewish economic domination.90 The following petition from the citizens of the German town of Hirschau opposed allowing Jews to live there because Jews were seen as aggressive competitors who ultimately dominate the people they live among:
If only a few Jewish families settle here, all small shops, tanneries, hardware stores, and so on, which, as things stand, provide their proprietors with nothing but the scantiest of livelihoods, will in no time at all be superseded and completely crushed by these [Jews] such that at least twelve local families will be reduced to beggary, and our poor relief fund, already in utter extremity, will be fully exhausted within one year. The Jews come into possession in the shortest possible time of all cash money by getting involved in every business; they rapidly become the only possessors of money, and their Christian neighbors become their debtors.91
Late nineteenth-century Zionists such as Theodor Herzl were quite aware that a prime source of modern anti-Jewish attitudes was that emancipation had brought Jews into direct economic competition with the non-Jewish middle classes, a competition that Jews typically won. Herzl “insisted that one could not expect a majority to ‘let themselves be subjugated’ by formerly scorned outsiders whom they had just released from the ghetto.”92 The theme of economic domination has often been combined with the view that Jews are personally aggressive. In the Middle Ages Jews were seen as “pitiless creditors.”93 The philosopher Immanuel Kant stated that Jews were “a nation of usurers . . . outwitting the people amongst whom they find shelter…. They make the slogan ‘let the buyer beware’ their highest principle in dealing with us.”94
In early twentieth-century America, the sociologist Edward A. Ross commented on a greater tendency among Jewish immigrants to maximize their advantage in all transactions, ranging from Jewish students badgering teachers for higher grades to Jewish poor attempting to get more than the usual charitable allotment. “No other immigrants are so noisy, pushing and disdainful of the rights of others as the Hebrews.”95
The authorities complain that the East European Hebrews feel no reverence for law as such and are willing to break any ordinance they find in their way…. The insurance companies scan a Jewish fire risk more closely than any other. Credit men say the Jewish merchant is often “slippery” and will “fail” in order to get rid of his debts. For lying the immigrant has a very bad reputation. In the North End of Boston “the readiness of the Jews to commit perjury has passed into a proverb.”96
These characteristics have at times been noted by Jews themselves. In a survey commissioned by the American Jewish Committee’s study of the Jews of Baltimore in 1962, “two-thirds of the respondents admitted to believing that other Jews are pushy, hostile, vulgar, materialistic, and the cause of anti-Semitism. And those were only the ones who were willing to admit it.”97
Jews were unique as an American immigrant group in their hostility toward American Christian culture and in their energetic, aggressive efforts to change that culture.98 From the perspective of Ford’s TIJ, the United States had imported around 3,500,000 mainly Yiddish-speaking, intensely Jewish immigrants over the previous forty years. In that very short period, Jews had had enormous effect on American society, particularly in their attempts to remove expressions of Christianity from public life beginning with an attempt in 1899–1900 to remove the word “Christian” from the Virginia Bill of Rights: “The Jews’ determination to wipe out of public life every sign of the predominant Christian character of the U.S. is the only active form of religious intolerance in the country today.”99
A prototypical example of Jewish aggressiveness toward American culture has been Jewish advocacy of liberal immigration policies which have had a transformative effect on the U.S.:
In undertaking to sway immigration policy in a liberal direction, Jewish spokespersons and organizations demonstrated a degree of energy unsurpassed by any other interested pressure group. Immigration had constituted a prime object of concern for practically every major Jewish defense and community relations organization. Over the years, their spokespersons had assiduously attended congressional hearings, and the Jewish effort was of the utmost importance in establishing and financing such non-sectarian groups as the National Liberal Immigration League and the Citizens Committee for Displaced Persons.100
Jewish aggressiveness and their role in the media, in the creation of culture and information in the social sciences and humanities, and in the political process in the United States contrasts with the role of Overseas Chinese.101 The Chinese have not formed a hostile cultural elite in Southeast Asian countries motivated by historical grievances against the people and culture of their hosts. For example, despite their economic dominance, the Chinese have not been concerned with restrictions on their citizenship rights, which have been common in Southeast Asia.102 Whereas the Chinese have reacted rather passively to such restrictions, Jews have reacted to any manifestation of anti-Jewish attitudes or behavior with an all-out effort at eradication. Indeed, we have seen that the mainstream Jewish attitude is that even trivial manifestations of anti-Jewish attitudes and behavior must not be ignored because they can and will lead to mass murder. Not only have the Chinese not attempted to remove public displays of symbols of Indonesian nationalism and religion, they have not seriously attempted to change laws in place since the 1960s mandating that there be no public displays of Chinese culture.103
Besides the normal sorts of lobbying typical of the political process in the U.S., perhaps the clearest examples of Jewish aggressiveness are the many examples of intimidation of their opponents—loss of job, death threats, constant harassment, economic losses such as loss of advertising revenue for media businesses, and charges of anti-Semitism—the last being perhaps the greatest sin against the post-World War II political order that can be imagined. When Adlai Stevenson III was running for governor of Illinois, his record in opposition to Israeli settlement policy and his statement that the PLO was a legitimate voice of the Palestinian people resulted in a whisper campaign that he was an anti-Semite. Stevenson commented:
There is an intimidating, activist minority of American Jews that supports the decisions of the Israeli government, right or wrong. They do so very vocally and very aggressively in ways that intimidate others so that it’s their voice—even though it is a minority—that is heard in American politics. But it still is much louder in the United States than in Israel. In other words, you have a much stronger, more vocal dissent in Israel than within the Jewish community in the United States. The prime minister of Israel has far more influence over American foreign policy in the Middle East than over the policies of his own government generally.104
A common tactic has been to charge that critics of Israel are anti-Semites. Indeed, George Ball, a perceptive critic of Israel and its U.S. constituency, maintains that the charge of anti-Semitism and guilt over the Holocaust is the Israeli lobby’s most effective weapon—outstripping its financial clout.105 The utility of these psychological weapons in turn derives from the very large Jewish influence on the U.S. media. Historian Peter Novick notes regarding the importance of the Holocaust in contemporary American life:
We [i.e., Jews] are not just “the people of the book,” but the people of the Hollywood film and the television miniseries, of the magazine article and the newspaper column, of the comic book and the academic symposium. When a high level of concern with the Holocaust became widespread in American Jewry, it was, given the important role that Jews play in American media and opinion-making elites, not only natural, but virtually inevitable that it would spread throughout the culture at large.106
And, of course, the appeal to the Holocaust is especially compelling for American Jews. When the Mossad wants to recruit U.S. Jews for help in its espionage work, in the words of a CIA agent “the appeal is a simple one: ‘When the call went out and no one heeded it, the Holocaust resulted.’ “107
Charges of anti-Semitism and guilt over the Holocaust are not the only instruments of Jewish aggressiveness on Israeli issues. Jewish groups intimidate their enemies by a variety of means. People who oppose policies on Israel advocated by Jewish activist organizations have been fired from their jobs, harassed with letters, subjected to intrusive surveillance, and threatened with death. Although there is a great deal of self-censorship in the media on Israel as a result of the major role of Jews in the ownership and production of the media, gaps in this armor are aggressively closed. There are “threats to editors and advertising departments, orchestrated boycotts, slanders, campaigns of character assassination, and personal vendettas.”108 Other examples recounted by Findley include pressure on the Federal Communications Commission to stop broadcast licenses, demands for submission to an oversight committee prior to publication, and the stationing of a Jewish activist in the newsroom of the Washington Post in order to monitor the process.
The result of all this intense, well-organized aggression is that
Those who criticize Israeli policy in any sustained way invite painful and relentless retaliation, and even loss of their livelihood by pressure from one or more parts of Israel’s lobby. Presidents fear it. Congress does its bidding. Prestigious universities shun academic programs and buckle under its pressure. Instead of having their arguments and opinions judged on merit, critics of Israel suddenly find their motivations, their integrity, and basic moral values called into question. No matter how moderate their criticism, they may be characterized as pawns of the oil lobby, apologists for Arabs, or even anti-Semitic.109
The following quote from Henry Kissinger sums up the aggressive Israeli attitudes toward U.S. aid:
Yitzak [Rabin] had many extraordinary qualities, but the gift of human relations was not one of them. If he had been handed the entire “United States Strategic Air Command” as a free gift he would have (a) affected the attitude that at last Israel was getting its due, and (b) found some technical shortcoming in the airplanes that made his accepting them a reluctant concession to us.110
But of course by far the most important examples of Israeli aggressiveness have been toward their neighbors in the Middle East. This aggression has been there from the beginning, as Israel has consistently put pressure on border areas with incursions, including the Kibya massacre of 1953 led by Ariel Sharon.111 The personal aggressiveness of Israeli society has long been a topic of commentators. Israel is known for its arrogance, insolence (chutzpah), coldness, roughness, rudeness, and lack of civility. For example, B. Z. Sobel, an Israeli sociologist at the University of Haifa, found that among the motivations for emigrating from Israel was that “there is indeed an edginess [in Israeli society]; tempers flare, and verbal violence is rampant”112
The current situation in the United States is the result of an awesome deployment of Jewish power and influence. One must contemplate the fact that American Jews have managed to maintain unquestioned support for Israel over the last thirty-five years despite Israel’s seizing land and engaging in a brutal occupation of the Palestinians in the occupied territories—an occupation that will most likely end with expulsion or complete subjugation, degradation, and apartheid. During this same period Jewish organizations in America have been a principal force—in my view the main force—for erecting a state dedicated to suppressing ethnic identification among Europeans, for encouraging massive multi-ethnic immigration into the U.S., and for erecting a legal system and cultural ideology that is obsessively sensitive to the complaints and interests of ethnic minorities: the culture of the Holocaust.113
American Judaism is well organized and lavishly funded. It has achieved a great deal of power, and it has been successful in achieving its interests.114 One of the great myths often promulgated by Jewish apologists is that Jews have no consensus and therefore cannot wield any real power. Yet there is in fact a great deal of consensus on broad Jewish issues, particularly in the areas of Israel and the welfare of other foreign Jewries, immigration and refugee policy, church-state separation, abortion rights, and civil liberties.115 Massive changes in public policy on these issues, beginning with the counter-cultural revolution of the 1960s, coincide with the period of increasing Jewish power and influence in the United States. Indeed, one is hard-pressed to find any significant area where public policy conflicts with the attitudes of mainstream Jewish organizations.
Later papers in this series will discuss concrete examples of Jewish activism: The history of Zionism as a radical Jewish movement and the presently influential Jewish neoconservative movement.
Kevin MacDonald is Professor of Psychology, California State University -‑ Long Beach, and the author of author of a trilogy on Judaism as an evolutionary strategy: A People That Shall Dwell Alone (1994), Separation and its Discontents (1998), and The Culture of Critique (1998), all published by Praeger 1994-1998. A revised edition of The Culture of Critique (2002), with an expanded introduction, is available in a quality soft cover edition from http://www.1stBooks.com or http://www.amazon.com.
References to the Book of Jubilees are from Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament II, ed. R. H. Charles, 1–82. Reprint, Oxford: Clarendon Press,  1966.
References to the Book of Maccabees are to The New English Bible: The Apocrypha. London: Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press, 1970.
Alterman, E. 2002. Intractable foes, warring narratives: While much of the world sees Mideast conflict through Palestinian eyes, in America, Israel’s view prevails; http://www.msnbc.com/news/730905.asp; March 28.
Ball G. and Ball, D. 1992. The Passionate Attachment: American’s Involvement with Israel, 1947 to the Present. New York: W. W. Norton.
Borowitz, E. B. 1973. The Mask Jews Wear: Self-Deceptions of American Jewry. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Boyle, S. S. 2001. The Betrayal of Palestine: The Story of George Antonius. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Burton, M. L., Moore, C. C., Whiting, J. W. M., and Romney, A. K. 1996. Regions based on social structure. Current Anthropology 37: 87–123.
Coughlin, R. J. 1960. Double Identity: The Chinese in Modern Thailand. Hong Kong and London: Hong Kong University Press and Oxford University Press.
Chernin, K. 2002. Seven pillars of denial. Tikkun, Sept./Oct.
Coon, C. 1958. Caravan: The Story of the Middle East, 2nd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Curtiss, R. 1998. The cost of Israel to the American people. Talk presented at the Al-Hewar Center in Vienna, Virginia, May 20, 1998.
Dumont, P. 1982. Jewish communities in Turkey during the last decades of the nineteenth century in light of the archives of the Alliance Israélite Universelle. In Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of a Plural Society, ed. B. Braude and B. Lewis. New York: Holmes & Meier Publishers.
Eickleman, D. F. 1981. The Middle East: An Anthropological Approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Epstein, L. M. 1942. Marriage Laws in the Bible and the Talmud. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Eysenck, H. J. 1962. The Uses and Abuses of Psychology. Baltimore: Penguin Books.
Findley, P. 1989. They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel’s Lobby, 2nd ed. Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books.
Gay, P. 1988. Freud: A Life for Our Time. New York: W. W. Norton.
Getlin, J. 2002. Violence in Mideast galvanizes U.S. Jews. Los Angeles Times, April 28.
Gibbon, E. 1909. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 7 vols., ed. J. B. Bury. London: Methuen.
Goldberg, J.J. 1996. Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Goldstein, J. 1990. The Politics of Ethnic Pressure: The American Jewish Committee Fight against Immigration Restriction, 1906–1917. New York: Garland Publishing.
Gonen, J. Y. 1975. A Psychohistory of Zionism. New York: Mason/Charter.
Hamilton, W. D. 2001. At the world’s crossroads: Instability and cycling of two competing hosts with two parasites. In Narrow Roads of Gene Land: The Collected Papers of W. D. Hamilton. Vol. 2, The Evolution of Sex, pp. 253–285. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Hammer, M. F., Redd, A. J., Wood, E. T., Bonner, M. R., Jarjanazi, H., Karafet, T., Santachiara-Benerecetti, S., Oppenheim, A., Jobling, M. A., Jenkins, T., Ostrer, H., and Bonné-Tamir, B. 2000. Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, May 9.
Harris, J. F. 1994. The People Speak! Anti-Semitism and Emancipation in Nineteenth-Century Bavaria. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Horowitz, D. L. 1985. Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Horowitz, D. 1997. Radical Son: A Journey through Our Time. New York: Free Press.
Horowitz, D. 2002. American conservatism: An argument with the racial right. FrontPageMagazine.com, August 27.
Kornberg, R. 1993. Theodore Herzl: From Assimilation to Zionism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Larsen, R. J., and Diener, E. 1987. Affect intensity as an individual difference characteristic: A review. Journal of Research in Personality 21:1–39.
Lipset, S. M., and Raab, E. 1995. Jews and the New American Scene. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Luchaire, A. 1912. Social France at the Time of Philip Augustus. New York: Frederick Ungar.
Lynn, R. 1992. Intelligence: Ethnicity and culture. In Cultural Diversity and the Schools, ed. J. Lynch, C. Modgil, and S. Modgil. London and Washington, D.C.: Falmer Press.
MacDonald, K. B. 1994/2002. A People that Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism As a Group Evolutionary Strategy with Diaspora Peoples. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse. (Originally published in 1994 by Praeger, Westport, CT).
MacDonald, K. B. 1998a. Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism. Westport, CT: Praeger.
MacDonald, K. B. 1998b/2002. The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements. Bloomington, IN: 1stBooks Library. (Originally published in 1998 by Praeger, Westport, CT).
MacDonald, K. B. 2002. Review of Henry Ford and the Jews: The Mass Production of Hate by Neil Baldwin (New York: Public Affairs, 2001, 416 pp.) and The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem, by Henry Ford ( Dearborn, MI: Dearborn Independent, 1920–1921, 416 pp.). Part I: The education of a midwestern industrialist. The Occidental Quarterly 2, no. 3, 2002. Part II: The Dearborn Independent series in perspective. The Occidental Quarterly 2, no. 4.
Massing, M. 2002. Deal breakers, American Prospect, March 11.
Neuringer, S. M. 1971. American Jewry and United States Immigration Policy, 1881–1953. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1969. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms. (Reprinted by Arno Press, 1980.)
Novick, P. 1999.The Holocaust in American Life. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Podhoretz, N. 1986. The hate that dare not speak its name. Commentary 82(November):21–32.
Podhoretz, N. 2000. My Love Affair with America: A Cautionary Tale of a Cheerful Conservative. New York: Free Press.
Podhoretz, N. 2002. In praise of the Bush doctrine. Commentary, September.
Reich, R. 1997. Locked in the Cabinet. New York: Scribner.
Rokach, L. 1986. Israel’s Sacred Terrorism, 3rd ed. Belmont, MA: Association of Arab-American University Graduations, Inc. (Originally published 1980.)
Rose, P. L. 1992. Wagner: Race and Revolution. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Ross, E. A. 1914. The Old World and the New: The Significance of Past and Present Immigration to the American People. New York: Century.
Rushton, J. P. 1989. Genetic similarity, human altruism, and group selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12: 503–559.
Rushton, J. P. 1999. Genetic similarity theory and the nature of ethnocentrism. In K. Thienpont and R. Cliquet (eds.) In-group/Out-group Behavior in Modern Societies: An Evolutionary Perspective, pp. 75–107. The Netherlands: Vlaamse Gemeeschap/CBGS.
Sacks, J. 1993. One People? Tradition, Modernity, and Jewish Unity. London: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization.
Salter, F. K. 2002. Fuzzy but real: America’s ethnic hierarchy. Paper presented at the meetings of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences, Montreal, August 9.
Schatz, J. 1991. The Generation: The Rise and Fall of the Jewish Communists of Poland. Berkeley: University of California Press.
13. Hamilton 2001, p. 273. Hamilton likens Judaism to a speciation event in which there is a role for cultural practices such as food preparation: “the main (but moderate) differences from biological situations being that Judaism had come to use a cultural element of inheritance to replace what genes once had been doing more slowly” (p. 271). He also notes that, “In the world of animals, ants perhaps provide Homo‘s nearest equivalent for typical broadness of niche. If an unspecialized ant species had a Bible, I’d expect to find in it extremely similar injunctions about food, ant genocide, and so forth, as I find in the actual Bible, and I would have no difficulty to suppose these as serving each ant colony well in its struggle for existence” (p. 271).
31. Interview with Dutch-Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld, January 30, 2003: “We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. . . . Our armed forces . . . are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen, before Israel goes under.” http://www.de.indymedia.org/2003/01/39170.shtml
32. Assyrians hope for U.S. protection, Los Angeles Times (Orange County Edition), February 17, 2003, p. B8.
53. This refers to genes identical because they are inherited from a common ancestor. Uncles and nieces share one-fourth their genes only on average. Because the relationship is mediated though a sibling relationship, the actual percentage can vary. Siblings may be more or less like one another depending on random processes, but on average they share half their genes.
The history of Zionism illustrates a dynamic within the Jewish community in which the most radical elements end up pulling the entire community in their direction. Zionism began among the most ethnocentric Eastern European Jews and had explicitly racialist and nationalist overtones. However, Zionism was viewed as dangerous among the wider Jewish community, especially the partially assimilated Jews in Western countries, because it opened Jews up to charges of disloyalty and because the Zionists’ open racialism and ethnocentric nationalism conflicted with the assimilationist strategy then dominant among Western Jews. Zionist activists eventually succeeded in making Zionism a mainstream Jewish movement, due in large part to the sheer force of numbers of the Eastern European vanguard. Over time, the more militant, expansionist Zionists (the Jabotinskyists, the Likud Party, fundamentalists, and West Bank settlers) have won the day and have continued to push for territorial expansion within Israel. This has led to conflicts with Palestinians and a widespread belief among Jews that Israel itself is threatened. The result has been a heightened group consciousness among Jews and ultimately support for Zionist extremism among the entire organized American Jewish community.
In the first part of this series I discussed Jewish ethnocentrism as a central trait influencing the success of Jewish activism.1 In the contemporary world, the most important example of Jewish ethnocentrism and extremism is Zionism. In fact, Zionism is incredibly important. As of this writing, the United States has recently accomplished the destruction of the Iraqi regime, and it is common among influential Jews to advocate war between the United States and the entire Muslim world. In a recent issue of Commentary (an influential journal published by the American Jewish Committee), editor Norman Podhoretz states, “The regimes that richly deserve to be overthrown and replaced are not confined to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil [i.e., Iraq, Iran, and North Korea]. At a minimum, the axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as ’friends’ of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority, whether headed by Arafat or one of his henchmen.”2 More than anything else, this is a list of countries that Israel doesn’t like, and, as I discuss in the third part of this series, intensely committed Zionists with close links to Israel occupy prominent positions in the Bush administration, especially in the Department of Defense and on the staff of Vice President Dick Cheney. The long-term consequence of Zionism is that the U.S. is on the verge of attempting to completely transform the Arab/Muslim world to produce governments that accept Israel and whatever fate it decides for the Palestinians, and, quite possibly, to set the stage for further Israeli expansionism.
Zionism is an example of an important principle in Jewish history: At all the turning points, it is the more ethnocentric elements—one might term them the radicals—who have determined the direction of the Jewish community and eventually won the day.3 As recounted in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, the Jews who returned to Israel after the Babylonian captivity energetically rid the community of those who had intermarried with the racially impure remnant left behind. Later, during the period of Greek dominance, there was a struggle between the pro-Greek assimilationists and the more committed Jews, who came to be known as Maccabeans.
At that time there appeared in Israel a group of renegade Jews, who incited the people. “Let us enter into a covenant with the Gentiles round about,” they said, “because disaster upon disaster has overtaken us since we segregated ourselves from them.” The people thought this a good argument, and some of them in their enthusiasm went to the king and received authority to introduce non-Jewish laws and customs. They built a sports stadium in the gentile style in Jerusalem. They removed their marks of circumcision and repudiated the holy covenant. They intermarried with Gentiles, and abandoned themselves to evil ways.4
The victory of the Maccabeans reestablished Jewish law and put an end to assimilation. The Book of Jubilees, written during this period, represents the epitome of ancient Jewish nationalism, in which God represents the national interests of the Jewish people in dominating all other peoples of the world:
I am the God who created heaven and earth. I shall increase you, and multiply you exceedingly; and kings shall come from you and shall rule wherever the foot of the sons of man has trodden. I shall give to your seed all the earth which is under heaven, and they shall rule over all the nations according to their desire; and afterwards they shall draw the whole earth to themselves and shall inherit it forever.5
A corollary of this is that throughout history in times of trouble there has been an upsurge in religious fundamentalism, mysticism, and messianism.6 For example, during the 1930s in Germany liberal Reform Jews became more conscious of their Jewish identity, increased their attendance at synagogue, and returned to more traditional observance (including a reintroduction of Hebrew). Many of them became Zionists.7As I will discuss in the following, every crisis in Israel has resulted in an increase in Jewish identity and intense mobilization of support for Israel.
Today the people who are being rooted out of the Jewish community are Jews living in the Diaspora who do not support the aims of the Likud Party in Israel. The overall argument here is that Zionism is an example of the trajectory of Jewish radicalism. The radical movement begins among the more committed segments of the Jewish community, then spreads and eventually becomes mainstream within the Jewish community; then the most extreme continue to push the envelope (e.g., the settlement movement on the West Bank), and other Jews eventually follow because the more extreme positions come to define the essence of Jewish identity. An important part of the dynamic is that Jewish radicalism tends to result in conflicts with non-Jews, with the result that Jews feel threatened, become more group-oriented, and close ranks against the enemy—an enemy seen as irrationally and incomprehensibly anti-Jewish. Jews who fail to go along with what is now a mainstream position are pushed out of the community, labeled “self-hating Jews” or worse, and relegated to impotence.
Jewish Radicals Eventually Triumph within the
Jewish Community: The Case of Zionism
Zionism began among the more ethnocentric, committed segments of the Jewish community (1880s).
Then it spread and became mainstream within the Jewish community despite its riskiness. (1940s). Supporting Zionism comes to define what being Jewish is.
Then the most extreme among the Zionists continued to push the envelope (e.g., the settlement movement on the West Bank; constant pressure on border areas in Israel).
Jewish radicalism tends to result in conflicts with non-Jews (e.g., the settlement movement); violence (e.g., intifadas) and other expressions of anti-Jewish sentiment increase.
Jews in general feel threatened and close ranks against what they see as yet another violent, incomprehensible manifestation of the eternally violent hatred of Jews. This reaction is the result of psychological mechanisms of ethnocentrism: Moral particularism, self-deception, and social identity.
In the U.S., this effect is accentuated because committed, more intensely ethnocentric Jews dominate Jewish activist groups.
Jews who fail to go along with what is now a mainstream position are pushed out of the community, labeled “self-hating Jews” or worse, and relegated to impotence.
Origins of Zionism in Ethnic Conflict in Eastern Europe
The origins of Zionism and other manifestations of the intense Jewish dynamism of the twentieth century lie in the Yiddish-speaking world of Eastern Europe in the early nineteenth century. Originally invited in by nobles as estate managers, toll farmers, bankers, and moneylenders, Jews in Poland expanded into commerce and then into artisanry, so that there came to be competition between Jews and non-Jewish butchers, bakers, blacksmiths, shoemakers, and tailors. This produced the typical resource-based anti-Jewish attitudes and behavior so common throughout Jewish history.8 Despite periodic restrictions and outbursts of hostility, Jews came to dominate the entire economy apart from agricultural labor and the nobility. Jews had an advantage in the competition in trade and artisanry because they were able to control the trade in raw materials and sell at lower prices to coethnics.9
This increasing economic domination went along with a great increase in the population of Jews. Jews not only made up large percentages of urban populations, they increasingly migrated to small towns and rural areas. In short, Jews had overshot their economic niche: The economy was unable to support this burgeoning Jewish population in the sorts of positions that Jews had traditionally filled, with the result that a large percentage of the Jewish population became mired in poverty. The result was a cauldron of ethnic hostility, with the government placing various restrictions on Jewish economic activity; rampant anti-Jewish attitudes; and increasing Jewish desperation.
The main Jewish response to this situation was an upsurge of fundamentalist extremism that coalesced in the Hasidic movement and, later in the nineteenth century, into political radicalism and Zionism as solutions to Jewish problems. Jewish populations in Eastern Europe had the highest rate of natural increase of any European population in the nineteenth century, with a natural increase of 120,000 per year in the 1880s and an overall increase within the Russian Empire from one to six million in the course of the nineteenth century.10 Anti-Semitism and the exploding Jewish population, combined with economic adversity, were of critical importance for producing the sheer numbers of disaffected Jews who dreamed of deliverance in various messianic movements—the ethnocentric mysticism of the Kabbala, Zionism, or the dream of a Marxist political revolution.
Religious fanaticism and messianic expectations have been a typical Jewish response to hard times throughout history.11 For example, in the eighteenth-century Ottoman Empire there was “an unmistakable picture of grinding poverty, ignorance, and insecurity”12 among Jews that, in the context of high levels of anti-Semitism, effectively prevented Jewish upward mobility. These phenomena were accompanied by the prevalence of mysticism and a high fertility rate among Jews, which doubtlessly exacerbated the problems.
The Jewish population explosion in Eastern Europe in the context of poverty and politically imposed restrictions on Jews was responsible for the generally destabilizing effects of Jewish radicalism in Eastern Europe and Russia up to the revolution. These conditions also had spillover effects in Germany, where the negative attitudes toward the immigrant Ostjuden (Eastern Jews) and their foreign, clannish ways contributed to the anti-Semitism of the period.13 In the United States, radical political beliefs held by a great many Jewish immigrants and their descendants persisted even in the absence of difficult economic and political conditions and have had a decisive influence on U.S. political and cultural history into the present. The persistence of these beliefs influenced the general political sensibility of the Jewish community and has had a destabilizing effect on American society, ranging from the paranoia of the McCarthy era to the triumph of the 1960s countercultural revolution.14 In the contemporary world, the descendants of these religious fundamentalists constitute the core of the settler movement and other manifestations of Zionist extremism in Israel.
The hypothesis pursued here is that Jewish population dynamics beginning in the nineteenth century resulted in a feed-forward dynamic: Increasing success in economic competition led to increased population. This in turn led to anti-Jewish reactions and eventually to Jewish overpopulation, poverty, anti-Jewish hostility, and religious fanaticism as a response to external threat. In this regard, Jewish populations are quite the opposite of European populations, in which there is a long history of curtailing reproduction in the face of perceived scarcity of resources.15 This may be analyzed in terms of the individualism/collectivism dimension, which provides a general contrast between Jewish and European culture:16 Individualists curtail reproduction in response to adversity in order to better their own lives, whereas a group-oriented culture such as Judaism responds to adversity by strengthening group ties; forming groups with charismatic leaders and a strong sense of ingroup and outgroup; adopting mystical, messianic ideologies; and increasing their fertility—all of which lead to greater conflict.
There is an association between religious or ethnic fanaticism and fertility, and it is quite common for competing ethnic groups to increase their fertility in response to perceived external threats.17 Ethnic activists respond to the perceived need to increase the numbers of their group in several ways, including exhorting coethnics to reproduce early and often, banning birth control and abortions, curtailing female employment in order to free women for the task of reproducing, and providing financial incentives. In the contemporary world, Jewish activists both within Israel and in the Diaspora have been strong advocates of increasing Jewish fertility, motivated by the threat of intermarriage in the Diaspora, the threat of wars with Israel’s neighbors, and as a reaction to Jewish population losses stemming from the Holocaust. Pro-natalism has deep religious significance for Jews as a religious commandment.18 Within Israel, there is “a nationwide obsession with fertility,” as indicated by the highest rate of in-vitro fertilization clinics in the world—one for every 28,000 citizens. This is more than matched by the Palestinians. Originating in the same group-oriented, collectivist culture area as the Jews, the Palestinians have the highest birth rate in the world and have been strongly attracted to charismatic leaders, messianic religious ideology, and desperate, suicidal solutions for their political problems.19
For the Jews, the religious fundamentalism characteristic of Eastern Europe from around 1800–1940 has been a demographic wellspring for Judaism. Jewish populations in the West have tended to have low fertility. Beginning in the nineteenth century, Western Jewish populations would have stagnated or declined in the absence of “the unending stream of immigrants from Jewish communities in the East.”20 But the point here is that this demographic wellspring created the stresses and strains within this very talented and energetic population that continue to reverberate in the modern world.
These trends can be seen by describing the numerically dominant Hasidic population in early nineteenth-century Galicia, then a province of the Austro-Hungarian empire; similar phenomena occurred throughout the Yiddish-speaking, religiously fundamentalist culture area of Eastern Europe, most of which came to be governed by the Russian empire.21 Beginning in the late eighteenth century, there were increasing restrictions on Jewish economic activity, such as edicts preventing Jews from operating taverns, engaging in trade, and leasing mills. There were restrictions on where Jews could live, and ghettos were established in order to remove Jews from competition with non-Jews; taxes specific to Jews were imposed; there were government efforts to force Jewish assimilation, as by requiring the legal documents be in the German language. These laws, even though often little enforced, reflected the anti-Jewish animosity of wider society and undoubtedly increased Jewish insecurity. In any case, a large percentage of the Jewish population was impoverished and doubtless would have remained so even in the absence of anti-Jewish attitudes and legislation. Indeed, the emigration of well over three million Jews to Western Europe and the New World did little to ease the grinding poverty of a large majority of the Jewish population.
It was in this atmosphere that Hasidism rose to dominance in Eastern Europe. The Hasidim passionately rejected all the assimilatory pressures coming from the government. They so cherished the Yiddish language that well into the twentieth century the vast majority of Eastern European Jews could not speak the languages of the non-Jews living around them.22 They turned to the Kabbala (the writings of Jewish mystics), superstition, and anti-rationalism, believing in “magical remedies, amulets, exorcisms, demonic possession (dybbuks), ghosts, devils, and teasing, mischievous genies.”23 Corresponding to this intense ingroup feeling were attitudes that non-Jews were less than human. “As Mendel of Rymanów put it, ‘A Gentile does not have a heart, although he has an organ that resembles a heart.’ ”24 All nations exist only by virtue of the Jewish people: “Erez Yisreal [the land of Israel] is the essence of the world and all vitality stems from it.”25 Similar attitudes are common among contemporary Jewish fundamentalists and the settler movement in Israel.26
The Hasidim had an attitude of absolute faith in the person of the zaddic, their rebbe, who was a charismatic figure seen by his followers literally as the personification of God in the world. Attraction to charismatic leaders is a fundamental feature of Jewish social organization—apparent as much among religious fundamentalists as among Jewish political radicals or elite Jewish intellectuals.27 The following account of a scene at a synagogue in Galicia in 1903 describes the intense emotionality of the community and its total subordination to its leader:
There were no benches, and several thousand Jews were standing closely packed together, swaying in prayer like the corn in the wind. When the rabbi appeared the service began. Everybody tried to get as close to him as possible. The rabbi led the prayers in a thin, weeping voice. It seemed to arouse a sort of ecstasy in the listeners. They closed their eyes, violently swaying. The loud praying sounded like a gale. Anyone seeing these Jews in prayer would have concluded that they were the most religious people on earth.28
At the end of the service, those closest to the rabbi were intensely eager to eat any food touched by him, and the fish bones were preserved by his followers as relics. Another account notes that “devotees hoping to catch a spark from this holy fire run to receive him.”29 The power of the zaddic extends so far “that whatever God does, it is also within the capacity of the zaddic to do.”30
An important role for the zaddic is to produce wealth for the Jews, and by taking it from the non-Jews. According to Hasidic doctrine, the non-Jews have the preponderance of good things, but
It was the zaddic who was to reverse this situation. Indeed, R. Meir of Opatów never wearied of reiterating in his homilies that the zaddik must direct his prayer in a way that the abundance which he draws down from on high should not be squandered during its descent, and not “wander away,” that is, outside, to the Gentiles, but that it mainly reach the Jews, the holy people, with only a residue flowing to the Gentiles, who are “the other side” (Satan’s camp).31
The zaddics’ sermons were filled with pleas for vengeance and hatred toward the non-Jews, who were seen as the source of their problems.
These groups were highly authoritarian—another fundamental feature of Jewish social organization.32 Rabbis and other elite members of the community had extraordinary power over other Jews in traditional societies—literally the power of life and death. Jews who informed the authorities about the illegal activities of other Jews were liquidated on orders of secret rabbinical courts, with no opportunity to defend themselves. Jews accused of heretical religious views were beaten or murdered. Their books were burned or buried in cemeteries. When a heretic died, his body was beaten by a special burial committee, placed in a cart filled with dung, and deposited outside the Jewish cemetery. In places where the authorities were lax, there were often pitched battles between different Jewish sects, often over trivial religious points such as what kind of shoes a person should wear. In 1838 the governor of southwestern Russia issued a directive that the police keep tabs on synagogues because “Very often something happens that leaves dead Jews in its wake.”33 Synagogues had jails near the entrance, and prisoners were physically abused by the congregation as they filed in for services.
Not surprisingly, these groups had extraordinary solidarity; a government official observed, “The Hasidim are bound to each other with heart and soul.”34 This solidarity was based not only on the personality of the rebbe and the powerful social controls described above, but on the high levels of within-group generosity which alleviated to some extent their poverty. Needless to say, Hasidic solidarity was seen as threatening by outsiders: “How much longer will we tolerate the Hasidic sect, which is united by such a strong bond and whose members help one another.”35
Hasidism triumphed partly by its attraction to the Jewish masses and partly because of the power politics of the rebbes: Opposing rabbis were forced out, so by the early nineteenth century in Galicia, Poland, and the Ukraine, the vast majority of Jews were in Hasidic communities. Their triumph meant the failure of the Jewish Enlightenment (the Haskalah) in Eastern Europe. The Haskalah movement advocated greater assimilation with non-Jewish society, as by using vernacular languages, studying secular subjects, and not adopting distinguishing forms of dress, although in other ways their commitment to Judaism remained powerful. These relatively assimilated Jews were the relatively thin upper crust of wealthy merchants and others who were free of the economic and social pressures that fueled Hasidism. They often cooperated with the authorities in attempts to force the Hasidim to assimilate out of fear that Hasidic behavior led to anti-Jewish attitudes.
As noted above, one source of the inward unity and psychological fanaticism of Jewish communities was the hostility of the surrounding non-Jewish population. Jews in the Russian Empire were hated by all the non-Jewish classes, who saw them as an exploitative class of petty traders, middlemen, innkeepers, store owners, estate agents, and money lenders.36 Jews “were viewed by the authorities and by much of the rest of population as a foreign, separate, exploitative, and distressingly prolific nation.”37 In 1881 these tensions boiled over into several anti-Jewish pogroms in a great many towns of southern and southwestern Russia. It was in this context that the first large-scale stirrings of Zionism emerged.38 From 1881–1884, dozens of Zionist groups formed in the Russian Empire and Romania.
Political radicalism emerged from the same intensely Jewish communities during this period and for much the same reasons.39 Political radicalism often coexisted with messianic forms of Zionism as well as intense commitment to Jewish nationalism and religious and cultural separatism, and many individuals held various and often rapidly changing combinations of these ideas.40
The two streams of political radicalism and Zionism, each stemming from the teeming fanaticism of threatened Jewish populations in nineteenth-century Eastern Europe, continue to reverberate in the modern world. In both England and America the immigration of Eastern European Jews after 1880 had a transformative effect on the political attitudes of the Jewish community in the direction of radical politics and Zionism, often combined with religious orthodoxy.41 The immigrant Eastern European Jews demographically swamped the previously existing Jewish communities in both countries, and the older community reacted to this influx with considerable trepidation because of the possibility of increased anti-Semitism. Attempts were made by the established Jewish communities to misrepresent the prevalence of radical political ideas and Zionism among the immigrants.42
The Zionist and radical solutions for Jewish problems differed, of course, with the radicals blaming the Jewish situation on the economic structure of society and attempting to appeal to non-Jews in an effort to completely restructure social and economic relationships. (Despite attempting to appeal to non-Jews, the vast majority of Jewish radicals had a very strong Jewish communal identity and often worked in an entirely Jewish milieu.43) Among Zionists, on the other hand, it was common from very early on to see the Jewish situation as resulting from irresoluble conflict between Jews and non-Jews. The early Zionist Moshe Leib Lilienblum emphasized that Jews were strangers who competed with local peoples: “A stranger can be received into a family, but only as a guest. A guest who bothers, or competes with or displaces an authentic member of the household is promptly and angrily reminded of his status by the others, acting out of a sense of self-protection.”44 Later, Theodor Herzl argued that a prime source of modern anti-Semitism was that Jews had come into direct economic competition with the non-Jewish middle classes. Anti-Semitism based on resource competition was rational: Herzl “insisted that one could not expect a majority to ‘let themselves be subjugated’ by formerly scorned outsiders whom they had just released from the ghetto…. I find the anti-Semites are fully within their rights.”45 In Germany, Zionists analyzed anti-Semitism during the Weimar period as “the inevitable and justifiable response of one people to attempts by another to make it share in the formation of its destiny. It was an instinctive response independent of reason and will, and hence common to all peoples, the Jews included.”46
As was often the case during the period, Zionists had a much clearer understanding of their fellow Jews and the origins of anti-Jewish attitudes. Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, a prominent Zionist and leader of the American Jewish Congress whose membership derived from Eastern Europe immigrants and their descendants, accused Western European Jews of deception by pretending to be patriotic citizens while really being Jewish nationalists: “They wore the mask of the ruling nationality as of old in Spain—the mask of the ruling religion.”47 Wise had a well-developed sense of dual loyalty, stating on one occasion “I am not an American citizen of Jewish faith. I am a Jew. I am an American. I have been an American 63/64ths of my life, but I have been a Jew for 4000 years.”48
Zionists in Western countries were also at the ethnocentric end of the Jewish population. Zionism was seen as a way of combating the assimilatory pressures of Western societies: “Zionist ideologues and publicists argued that in the West assimilation was as much a threat to the survival of the Jewish people as persecution was in the East.”49 Zionism openly accepted a national/ethnic conceptualization of Judaism that was quite independent of religious faith. As Theodore Herzl stated, “We are a people—one people.”50 The Zionist Arthur Hertzberg stated that “the Jews in all ages were essentially a nation and…all other factors profoundly important to the life of this people, even religion, were mainly instrumental values.”51 There were a number of Zionist racial scientists in the period from 1890–1940, including Elias Auerbach, Aron Sandler, Felix Theilhaber, and Ignaz Zollschan. Zionist racial scientists were motivated by a perceived need to end Jewish intermarriage and preserve Jewish racial purity.52 Only by creating a Jewish homeland and leaving the assimilatory influences of the Diaspora could Jews preserve their unique racial heritage.
For example, Auerbach advocated Zionism because it would return Jews “back into the position they enjoyed before the nineteenth century—politically autonomous, culturally whole, and racially pure.”53 Zollschan, whose book on “the Jewish racial question” went through five editions and was well known to both Jewish and non-Jewish anthropologists,54 praised Houston Stewart Chamberlain and advocated Zionism as the only way to retain Jewish racial purity from the threat of mixed marriages and assimilation.55 Zollschan’s description of the phenotypic, and by implication genetic commonality of Jews around the world is striking. He notes that the same Jewish faces can be seen throughout the Jewish world among Ashkenazi, Sephardic, and Oriental Jews. He also remarked on the same mix of body types, head shapes, skin, and hair and eye pigmentation in these widely separated groups.56
For many Zionists, Jewish racialism went beyond merely asserting and shoring up the ethnic basis of Judaism, to embrace the idea of racial superiority. Consistent with the anti-assimilationist thrust of Zionism, very few Zionists intermarried, and those who did, such as Martin Buber, found that their marriages were problematic within the wider Zionist community.57 In 1929 the Zionist leaders of the Berlin Jewish community condemned intermarriage as a threat to the “racial purity of stock” and asserted its belief that “consanguinity of the flesh and solidarity of the soul” were essential for developing a Jewish nation, as was the “will to establish a closed brotherhood over against all other communities on earth.”58
Assertions of Zionist racialism continued into the National Socialist period, where they dovetailed with National Socialist attitudes. Joachim Prinz, a German Jew who later became the head of the American Jewish Congress, celebrated Hitler’s ascent to power because it signaled the end of the Enlightenment values, which had resulted in assimilation and mixed marriage among Jews:
We want assimilation to be replaced by a new law: the declaration of belonging to the Jewish nation and the Jewish race. A state built upon the principle of the purity of nation and race can only be honoured and respected by a Jew who declares his belonging to his own kind…. For only he who honours his own breed and his own blood can have an attitude of honour towards the national will of other nations.59
The common ground of the racial Zionists and their non-Jewish counterparts included the exclusion of Jews from the German Volksgemeinschaft.60 Indeed, shortly after Hitler came to power, the Zionist Federation of Germany submitted a memorandum to the German government outlining a solution to the Jewish question and containing the following remarkable statement. The Federation declared that the Enlightenment view that Jews should be absorbed into the nation state
discerned only the individual, the single human being freely suspended in space, without regarding the ties of blood and history or spiritual distinctiveness. Accordingly, the liberal state demanded of the Jews assimilation [via baptism and mixed marriage] into the non-Jewish environment…. Thus it happened that innumerable persons of Jewish origin had the chance to occupy important positions and to come forward as representatives of German culture and German life, without having their belonging to Jewry become visible. Thus arose a state of affairs which in political discussion today is termed “debasement of Germandom,” or “Jewification.” …Zionism has no illusions about the difficulty of the Jewish condition, which consists above all in an abnormal occupational pattern and in the fault of an intellectual and moral posture not rooted in one’s own tradition.61
Zionism As a “Risky Strategy”
Zionism was a risky strategy—to use Frank Salter’s term62—because it led to charges of dual loyalty. The issue of dual loyalty has been a major concern throughout the history of Zionism. From the beginnings of Zionism, the vast majority of the movement’s energy and numbers, and eventually its leadership, stemmed from the Eastern European wellspring of Judaism.63 In the early decades of the twentieth century, there was a deep conflict within the Jewish communities of Western Europe and the U.S., pitting the older Jewish communities originating in Western Europe (particularly Germany) against the new arrivals from Eastern Europe, who eventually overwhelmed them by force of numbers.64 Thus, an important theme of the history of Jews in America, England, and Germany was the conflict between the older Jewish communities that were committed to some degree of cultural assimilation and the ideals of the Enlightenment, versus the Yiddish-speaking immigrants from Eastern Europe and their commitment to political radicalism, Zionism, and/or religious fundamentalism. The older Jewish communities were concerned that Zionism would lead to anti-Semitism due to charges of dual loyalty and because Jews would be perceived as a nation and an ethnic group rather than simply as a religion. In England, during the final stages before the issuance of the Balfour Declaration, Edwin Montagu “made a long, emotional appeal to his colleagues [in the British cabinet]: how could he represent the British government during the forthcoming mission to India if the same government declared that his (Montagu’s) national home was on Turkish territory?”65 Similar concerns were expressed in the United States, but by 1937 most American Jews advocated a Jewish state, and the Columbus Platform of the Reform Judaism of 1937 officially accepted the idea of a Palestinian homeland and shortly thereafter accepted the idea of political sovereignty for Jews in Israel.66
In post–World War I Germany, a major goal of Reform Judaism was to suppress Zionism because of its perceived effect of fanning the flames of anti-Semitism due to charges of Jewish disloyalty.67 In Mein Kampf, Hitler argued that Jews were an ethnic group and not simply a religion, which was confirmed by his discovery that “among them was a great movement . . . which came out sharply in confirmation of the national character of the Jews: this was the Zionists.”68 Hitler went on to remark that although one might suppose that only a subset of Jews were Zionists and that Zionism was condemned by the great majority of Jews, “the so-called liberal Jews did not reject Zionists as non-Jews, but only as Jews with an impractical, perhaps even dangerous, way of publicly avowing their Jewishness. Intrinsically they remained unalterably of one piece.”69
Hitler’s comments reflect the weak position of the Zionists of his day as a small minority of Jews, but they also show the reality of the worst fears of the German Reform movement during this period: that the publicly expressed ethnocentric nationalism of the Zionists would increase anti-Semitism, because Jews would be perceived not as a religious group but as an ethnic/national entity with no ties to Germany. The existence of Zionism as well as of international Jewish organizations such as the Alliance Israélite Universelle (based in France) and continued Jewish cultural separatism were important sources of German anti-Semitism beginning in the late nineteenth century.
In the Soviet Union, Stalin regarded Jews as politically unreliable after they expressed “overwhelming enthusiasm” for Israel and attempted to emigrate to Israel, especially since Israel was leaning toward the West in the Cold War.70 During the fighting in 1948, Soviet Jews attempted to organize an army to fight in Israel, and there were a great many other manifestations of Soviet-Jewish solidarity with Israel, particularly in the wake of Jewish enthusiasm during Golda Meir’s visit to the Soviet Union. Stalin perceived a “psychological readiness on the part of the volunteers to be under the jurisdiction of two states—the homeland of all the workers and the homeland of all the Jews—something that was categorically impossible in his mind.”71 There is also some indication that Stalin, at the height of the Cold War, suspected that Soviet Jews would not be loyal to the Soviet Union in a war with America because many of them had relatives in America.72
In the U.S., the dual loyalty issue arose because there was a conflict between perceived American foreign policy interests that began with the Balfour Declaration of 1917. The U. S. State Department feared that a British protectorate in Palestine would damage commercial interests in the region and that in any case it was not in the interests of America to offend Turkey or other Middle Eastern states.73 While President Woodrow Wilson sympathized with the State Department position, he was eventually persuaded by American Zionists, notably Louis Brandeis, to endorse the declaration; it was then quickly approved by the British.
The dual loyalty issue was also raised in Britain, most especially after the Second World War, when the Labour government failed to support the creation of a Jewish state. Many British Jews gave generously to finance illegal activities in the British protectorate of Palestine, including the smuggling of arms and refugees and Jewish attacks on British forces.74 British losses to Jewish terrorism during this period were not trivial: the bombing of the King David Hotel by future Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and his associates led to the deaths of eighty-three of the British administrative staff plus five members of the public. These activities led to widespread hostility toward Jews, and the Labour government pointedly refused to outlaw anti-Semitism during this period. During the late 1960s and 1970s, charges of dual loyalty appeared in the House of Commons among Labour MPs, one of whom commented that “it is undeniable that many MPs have what I can only term a dual loyalty, which is to another nation and another nation’s interests.”75
Attitudes ranging from unenthusiastic ambivalence to outright hostility to the idea of a Zionist homeland on the part of presidents, the State Department, Congress, or the American public persisted right up until the establishment of Israel in 1948 and beyond. After World War II, there continued to be a perception in the State Department that American interests in the area would not be served by a Jewish homeland, but should be directed at securing oil and military bases to oppose the Soviets. There was also concern that such a homeland would be a destabilizing influence for years to come because of Arab hostility.76 Truman’s defense secretary, James Forrestal, “was all but obsessed by the threat to [American interests] he discerned in Zionist ambitions. His concern was shared by the State Department and specifically by the Near East Desk.”77 In 1960 Senator J. William Fulbright, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, declared in response to attempts to coerce Egypt into agreeing to Israel’s use of the Suez Canal, “in recent years we have seen the rise of organizations dedicated apparently not to America, but to foreign states and groups. The conduct of a foreign policy for America has been seriously compromised by this development.”78 Truman himself eventually caved in to Zionist pressure out of desire to ensure Jewish support in the 1948 election, and despite his own recently revealed personal misgivings about Jewish myopia in pursuit of their own interests.79
Zionist Extremism Becomes Mainstream
Since the Second World War, there has been a long evolution such that the American Jewish community now fully supports the settler movement and other right-wing causes within Israel. Zionists made a great deal of progress during the Second World War. They engaged in “loud diplomacy,” organizing thousands of rallies, dinners with celebrity speakers (including prominent roles for sympathetic non-Jews), letter-writing campaigns, meetings, lobbying, threats against newspapers for publishing unfavorable items, insertion of propaganda as news items in the press, and giving money to politicians and non-Jewish celebrities in return for their support.80 By 1944, thousands of non-Jewish associations would pass pro-Zionist resolutions, and both Republican and Democratic platforms included strong pro-Zionist planks, even though the creation of a Jewish state was strongly opposed by the Departments of State and War.81
A 1945 poll found that 80.5% of Jews favored a Jewish state, with only 10.5% opposed.82 This shows that by the end of the Second World War, Zionism had become thoroughly mainstream within the U.S. Jewish community. The triumph of Zionism occurred well before consciousness of the Holocaust came to be seen as legitimizing Israel. (Michael Novick dates the promotion of the Holocaust to its present status as a cultural icon from the 1967 Six-Day War.83) What had once been radical and viewed as dangerous had become not only accepted, but seen as central to Jewish identity.
Since the late 1980s, the American Jewish community has not been even-handed in its support of Israeli political factions, but has supported the more fanatical elements within Israel. While wealthy Israelis predominantly support the Labor Party, financial support for Likud and other right-wing parties comes from foreign sources, particularly wealthy U.S. Jews.84 The support of these benefactors is endangered by any softening of Likud positions, with support then going to the settler movement. “Organized U.S. Jews are chauvinistic and militaristic in their views.”85
Within Israel, there has been a transformation in the direction of the most radical, ethnocentric, and aggressive elements of the population. During the 1920s–1940s, the followers of Vladimir Jabotinsky (the “Revisionists”) were the vanguard of Zionist aggressiveness and strident racial nationalism, but they were a minority within the Zionist movement as a whole. Revisionism had several characteristics typical of influential nineteenth-century Jewish intellectual and political movements—features shared also with other forms of traditional Judaism. Like Judaism itself and the various hermeneutic theories typical of other Jewish twentieth-century intellectual movements, the philosophy of Revisionism was a closed system that offered a complete worldview “creating a self-evident Jewish world.”86 Like the Hasidic movement and other influential Jewish intellectual and political movements, Revisionism was united around a charismatic leader figure, in this case Jabotinsky, who was seen in god-like terms—“Everyone waited for him to speak, clung to him for support, and considered him the source of the one and only absolute truth.”87 There was a powerful sense of “us versus them.” Opponents were demonized: “The style of communication . . . was coarse and venomous, aimed at moral delegitimization of the opponent by denouncing him and even ‘inciting’ the Jewish public against him.”88
Jabotinsky developed a form of racial nationalism similar to other Zionist racial theorists of the period (see above). He believed that Jews were shaped by their long history as a desert people and that establishment of Israel as a Jewish state would allow the natural genius of the Jewish race to flourish. “These natural and fundamental distinctions embedded in the race are impossible to eradicate, and are continually being nurtured by the differences in soil and climate.”89
The Revisionists advocated military force as a means of obtaining a Jewish state; they wanted a “maximalist” state that would include the entire Palestine Mandate, including the Trans-Jordan (which became the nation of Jordan in 1946).90 In the 1940s, its paramilitary wing, the Irgun, under the leadership of Menachem Begin, was responsible for much of the terrorist activities directed against both Arabs and the British forces maintaining the Palestinian Mandate until 1948, including the bombing of the King David Hotel and the massacre at Deir Yasin that was a major factor in terrorizing much of the Palestinian population into fleeing.91
Over time, the Labor Party has dwindled in influence, and there has followed the rise and ascendancy of the Likud Party and ultra-nationalism represented by Begin, who came to power in 1977 and began the process of resurrecting Jabotinsky,92 by Yitzhak Shamir (commander of LEHI [the Stern Group], another pre-1948 terrorist group), and now by the government of Ariel Sharon, whose long record of aggressive brutality is described briefly below. Fundamentalists and other ultranationalists were a relatively weak phenomenon in the 1960s, but have increased to around 25 percent in the late 1990s and are an integral part of Sharon’s government. In other words, the more radical Zionists have won out within Israel. (As Noam Chomsky notes, there has been a consensus on retaining sovereignty over the West Bank, so that the entire Israeli political spectrum must be seen as aggressively expansionist.93 The differences are differences of degree.)
The connections between Jabotinsky and the current Israeli government are more than coincidental: Just before Israel’s election in February 2001, Sharon was interviewed seated “symbolically and ostentatiously beneath a large photo of Vladimir Jabotinsky, spiritual father of militant Zionism and Sharon’s Likud party. Jabotinsky called for a Jewish state extending from the Nile to the Euphrates. He advocated constant attacks to smash the weak Arab states into fragments, dominated by Israel. In fact, just what Sharon tried to do in Lebanon. Hardly a good omen for the Mideast’s future.”94
Sharon has been implicated in a long string of acts of “relentless brutality toward Arabs,” including massacring an Arab village in the 1950s; the “pacification” of the Gaza Strip in the 1970s (involving large-scale bulldozing of homes and deportation of Palestinians); the invasion of Lebanon, which involved thousands of civilian deaths and the massacre of hundreds of Palestinian refugees; and the brutal Israeli response to the recent Palestinian intifada.95 The Kahan Commission, an Israeli board formed to investigate the Lebanese incident, concluded that Sharon was indirectly responsible for the massacre, and it went on to say that Sharon bears personal responsibility.
The intention of the Sharon government is to make life so miserable for the Palestinians that they will voluntarily leave, or, failing that, to simply expel them. Ran HaCohen, an Israeli academic, sums up the situation as of June 2002:
Step by step, Palestinians have been dispossessed and surrounded by settlements, military camps, by-pass roads and checkpoints, squeezed into sealed-off enclaves. Palestinian towns are besieged by tanks and armed vehicles blocking all access roads. West Bank villages too are surrounded by road blocks, preventing the movement of vehicles in and out: three successive mounds of rubble and earth, approximately 6 feet high, with 100 metre gaps between them. All residents wishing to move in and out of the village—old or young, sick or well, pregnant or not—have to climb over the slippery mounds. At present, this policy seems to have been perfected to an extent that it can be further institutionalised by long-term bureaucracy: a permit system, considerably worse than the “pass laws” imposed on blacks in Apartheid South Africa.96
Little has changed since this assessment. Recently this state of affairs is being formalized by the construction of a series of security walls that not only fence in the Palestinians but also result in the effective seizure of land, especially around Jerusalem.97 The wall encircles and isolates Palestinian villages and divides properties and farmland in ways that make them inaccessible to their owners.98
The current state of affairs would have been absolutely predictable simply by paying attention to the pronouncements and behavior of a critical subset of Israeli leaders over the last fifty years. Again, they have been the most radical within the Israeli political spectrum. The clear message is that an important faction of the Israeli political spectrum has had a long-term policy of expanding the state at the expense of the Palestinians, dating from the beginnings of the state of Israel. Expansionism was well entrenched in the Labor Party, centered around David Ben-Gurion, and has been even more central to the Likud coalition under the leadership of Menachem Begin and, more recently, Benjamin Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon. The result is that the Palestinians have been left with little hope of obtaining a meaningful state, despite the current “road map to peace” efforts. The next step may well be expulsion, already advocated by many on the right in Israel, although the strategy of oppression is in fact causing some Palestinians to leave voluntarily.99 Voluntary emigration has long been viewed as a solution by some, including Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin (on the more “liberal” end of the Israeli political spectrum), who urged that Israel “create…conditions which would attract natural and voluntary migration of the refugees from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank to Jordan.”100
“Transfer,” whether voluntary or involuntary, has long been a fixture of Zionist thought going back to Herzl, Chaim Weizmann, and Ben-Gurion.101 Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary in 1937: “the compulsory transfer of the Arabs from the valleys of the projected Jewish state . . . we have to stick to this conclusion the same way we grabbed the Balfour Declaration, more than that, the same way we grabbed at Zionism itself.”102 A prominent recent proponent of expulsion is Rehavam Zeevi, a close associate of Sharon and Israel’s Minister of Tourism as well as a member of the powerful Security Cabinet until his assassination in October, 2001. Zeevi described Palestinians as “lice” and advocated the expulsion of Palestinians from Israeli-controlled areas. Zeevi said Palestinians were living illegally in Israel and “We should get rid of the ones who are not Israeli citizens the same way you get rid of lice. We have to stop this cancer from spreading within us.” There are many examples, beginning no later than the mid-1980s, of leading Israeli politicians referring to the occupied territories on the West Bank as “Judea and Samaria.”103
The point is that movements that start out on the extreme of the Jewish political spectrum eventually end up driving the entire process, so that in the end not only American Jews but pro-Israeli non-Jewish politicians end up mouthing the rhetoric that was formerly reserved for extremists within the Jewish community. In 2003, at a time when there are well over one hundred Israeli settlements on the West Bank and Gaza filled with fanatic fundamentalists and armed zealots intent on eradicating the Palestinians, it is revealing that Moshe Sharett, Israeli prime minister in the 1950s, worried that the border settlements were composed of well-armed ex-soldiers—extremists who were intent on expanding the borders of Israel. Immediately after the armistice agreement of 1948 Israeli zealots, sometimes within the army and sometimes in the nascent settler movement, began a long string of provocations of Israel’s neighbors.104 An operation of the Israeli army (under the leadership of Ariel Sharon) that demolished homes and killed civilians at Qibya in 1953 was part of a broader plan: “The stronger the tensions in the region, the more demoralized the Arab populations and destabilized the Arab regimes, the stronger the pressures for the transfer of the concentrations of Palestinian refugees from places near the border away into the interior of the Arab world—and the better it was for the preparation of the next war.”105 At times the army engaged in provocative actions without Prime Minister Sharett’s knowledge,106 as when David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, led a raid in 1955 which resulted in a massacre of Arabs in Gaza. When confronted with his actions by an American Jew, Ben-Gurion “stood up. He looked like an angry prophet out of the Bible and got red in the face. He shouted, ‘I am not going to let anybody, American Jews or anyone else, tell me what I have to do to provide for the security of my people.”107
The war to occupy the West Bank did not take place until 1967, but Sharett describes plans by the Israeli army to occupy the West Bank dating from 1953. Throughout the period from 1948–1967 “some of the major and persistent accusations” by the Israeli right were that the Labor-dominated governments had accepted the partition of Palestine and had not attempted to “eradicate Palestinian boundaries” during the 1948 war.108 The annexation of East Jerusalem and the settlement of the West Bank began immediately after the 1967 war—exactly what would be expected on the assumption that this was a war of conquest. Menachem Begin, who accelerated the settlement process when he assumed power in 1977, noted, “In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that [Egyptian President] Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”109
Given the tendency for Jewish radicals to carry the day, it is worth describing the most radical Zionist fringe as it exists now. It is common among radical Zionists to project a much larger Israel that reflects God’s covenant with Abraham. Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism, maintained that the area of the Jewish state stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.”110 This reflects God’s covenant with Abraham in Genesis 15: 18–20 and Joshua 1 3–4: “To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.” The flexibility of the ultimate aims of Zionism can also be seen by Ben-Gurion’s comment in 1936 that
The acceptance of partition [of the Palestinian Mandate] does not commit us to renounce Transjordan [i.e., the modern state of Jordan]; one does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today. But the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them.111
Ben-Gurion’s vision of “the boundaries of Zionist aspirations” included southern Lebanon, southern Syria, all of Jordan, and the Sinai.112 (After conquering the Sinai in 1956, Ben-Gurion announced to the Knesset that “Our army did not infringe on Egyptian territory…. Our operations were restricted to the Sinai Peninsula alone.”113 Or consider Golda Meir’s statement that the borders of Israel “are where Jews live, not where there is a line on the map.”114
These views are common among the more extreme Zionists today—especially the fundamentalists and the settler movement—notably Gush Emunim—who now set the tone in Israel. A prominent rabbi associated with these movements stated: “We must live in this land even at the price of war. Moreover, even if there is peace, we must instigate wars of liberation in order to conquer [the land].”115 Indeed, in the opinion of Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky, “It is not unreasonable to assume that Gush Emunim, if it possessed the power and control, would use nuclear weapons in warfare to attempt to achieve its purpose.”116 This image of a “Greater Israel” is also much on the minds of activists in the Muslim world. For example, in a 1998 interview Osama bin Laden stated,
[W]e know at least one reason behind the symbolic participation of the Western forces [in Saudi Arabia] and that is to support the Jewish and Zionist plans for expansion of what is called the Great Israel…. Their presence has no meaning save one and that is to offer support to the Jews in Palestine who are in need of their Christian brothers to achieve full control over the Arab Peninsula which they intend to make an important part of the so called Greater Israel.117
To recap: A century ago Zionism was a minority movement within Diaspora Judaism, with the dominant assimilationist Jews in the West opposing it at least partly because Zionism raised the old dual loyalty issue, which has been a potent source of anti-Semitism throughout the ages. The vast majority of Jews eventually became Zionists, to the point that now not only are Diaspora Jews Zionists, they are indispensable supporters of the most fanatic elements within Israel. Within Israel, the radicals have also won the day, and the state has evolved to the point where the influence of moderates in the tradition of Moshe Sharett is a distant memory. The fanatics keep pushing the envelope, forcing other Jews to either go along with their agenda or to simply cease being part of the Jewish community. Not long ago it was common to talk to American Jews who would say they support Israel but deplore the settlements. Now such talk among Jews is an anachronism, because support for Israel demands support for the settlements. The only refuge for such talk is the increasingly isolated Jewish critics of Israel, such as Israel Shamir118 and, to a much lesser extent, Michael Lerner’s Tikkun.119The trajectory of Zionism has soared from its being a minority within a minority to its dominating the U.S. Congress, the executive branch, and the entire U.S. foreign policy apparatus.
And because the Israeli occupation and large-scale settlement of the West Bank unleashed a wave of terrorist-style violence against Israel, Jews perceive Israel as under threat. As with any committed group, Jewish commitment increases in times of perceived threat to the community. The typical response of Diaspora Jews to the recent violence has not been to renounce Jewish identity but to strongly support the Sharon government and rationalize its actions. This has been typical of Jewish history in general. For example, during the 1967 and 1973 wars there were huge upsurges of support for Israel and strengthened Jewish identity among American Jews: Arthur Hertzberg, a prominent Zionist, wrote that “the immediate reaction of American Jewry to the crisis was far more intense and widespread than anyone could have foreseen. Many Jews would never have believed that grave danger to Israel could dominate their thoughts and emotions to the exclusion of everything else.”120 The same thing is happening now. The typical response to Israel’s current situation is for Jews to identify even more strongly with Israel and to exclude Jews who criticize Israel or support Palestinian claims in any way.
This “rallying around the flag” in times of crisis fits well with the psychology of ethnocentrism: When under attack, groups become more unified and more conscious of boundaries, and have a greater tendency to form negative stereotypes of the outgroup. This has happened throughout Jewish history.121
Several commentators have noted the void on the Jewish left as the conflict with the Palestinians has escalated under the Sharon government. As noted above, surveys in the 1980s routinely found that half of U.S. Jews opposed settlements on the West Bank and favored a Palestinian state.122 Such sentiments have declined precipitously in the current climate:
At a progressive synagogue on Manhattan’s Upper West Side, Rabbi Rolando Matalo was torn between his longtime support for Palestinian human rights and his support for an Israel under siege. “There is a definite void on the left,” said Matalo…. Many American Jewish leaders say Israel’s current state of emergency—and growing signs of anti-Semitism around the world—have unified the faithful here in a way not seen since the 1967 and 1973 wars…. These feelings shift back and forth, but right now they’re tilting toward tribalism.123
Note that the author of this article, Josh Getlin, portrays Israel as being “under siege,” even though Israel is the occupying power and has killed far more Palestinians than the Palestinians have killed Israelis.
“I don’t recall a time in modern history when Jews have felt so vulnerable,” said Rabbi Martin Hier, dean and founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles…. This week, the center will be mailing out 600,000 “call to action” brochures that say “Israel is fighting for her life” and urge American Jews to contact government leaders and media organizations worldwide…. Rabbi Mark Diamond, executive vice president of the Board of Rabbis of Southern California, said debate over the West Bank invasion and the attack on the Palestinian Jenin refugee camp is overshadowed by “a strong sense that Israel needs us, that the world Jewry needs us, that this is our wake-up call.” He said he has been overwhelmed in recent weeks by numerous calls from members of synagogues asking what they can do to help or where they can send a check…. “I have American friends who might have been moderate before on the issue of negotiating peace, but now they think: ‘Our whole survival is at stake, so let’s just destroy them all,’” said Victor Nye, a Brooklyn, N.Y., businessman who describes himself as a passionate supporter of Israel.
In this atmosphere, Jews who dissent are seen as traitors, and liberal Jews have a great deal of anxiety that they will be ostracized from the Jewish community for criticizing Israel.124 This phenomenon is not new. During the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, Richard Cohen of the Washington Post criticized the Begin government and was inundated with protests from Jews. “Here dissent becomes treason—and treason not to a state or even an ideal (Zionism), but to a people. There is tremendous pressure for conformity, to show a united front and to adopt the view that what is best for Israel is something only the government there can know.”125 During the same period, Nat Hentoff noted in the Village Voice, “I know staff workers for the American Jewish Committee and the American Jewish Congress who agonize about their failure to speak out, even on their own time, against Israeli injustice. They don’t, because they figure they’ll get fired if they do.”126
Reflecting the fact that Jews who advocate peace with the Palestinians are on the defensive, funding has dried up for causes associated with criticism of Israel. The following is a note posted on the website of Tikkun by its editor, Michael Lerner:
TIKKUN Magazine is in trouble—because we have continued to insist on the rights of the Palestinian people to full self-determination. For years we’ve called for an end to the Occupation and dismantling of the Israeli settlements. We’ve called on the Palestinian people to follow the example of Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela and Gandhi—and we’ve critiqued terrorism against Israel, and insisted on Israel’s right to security. But we’ve also critiqued Israel’s house demolitions, torture, and grabbing of land. For years, we had much support. But since Intifada II began this past September, many Jews have stopped supporting us—and we’ve lost subscribers and donors. Would you consider helping us out?”127
Another sign that Jews who are “soft” on Israel are being pushed out of the Jewish community is an article by Philip Weiss.128
The refusal of liberal American Jews to make an independent stand has left the American left helpless. American liberalism has always drawn strength from Jews. They are among the largest contributors to the Democratic Party; they have brought a special perspective to any number of social-justice questions, from the advancement of blacks and women to free speech. They fostered multiculturalism…. The Holocaust continues to be the baseline reference for Jews when thinking about their relationship to the world, and the Palestinians. A couple of months ago, I got an e-mail from a friend of a friend in Israel about the latest bus-bombing. “They’re going to kill us all,” was the headline. (No matter that Israel has one of largest armies in the world, and that many more Palestinians have died than Israelis). Once, when I suggested to a liberal journalist friend that Americans had a right to discuss issues involving Jewish success in the American power structure—just as we examined the WASP culture of the establishment a generation ago—he said, “Well, we know where that conversation ends up: in the ovens of Auschwitz.”
Because of Jewish ethnocentrism and group commitment, stories of Jews being killed are seen as the portending of another Holocaust and the extinction of the Jewish people rather than a response to a savage occupation—a clear instance of moral particularism writ large.
The same thing is happening in Canada where Jews are concerned about declining support by Canadians for Israel. “The past three years have been extraordinarily tough on Jews in Canada and around the world,” said Keith Landy, national president of the Canadian Jewish Congress. “Every Jew has felt under attack in some form.”129 The response has been increased activism by deeply committed wealthy Jews, including, most famously, Israel Asper, executive chairman of CanWest Global Communications Corp. Asper has used his media empire to promote pro-Likud policies and has punished journalists for any deviation from its strong pro-Israel editorial policies.130 The efforts of these activists are aimed at consolidating Jewish organizations behind “hawkish” attitudes on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Older Jewish organizations, such as the Canada-Israel Committee and the Canadian Jewish Congress, would be remodeled or driven out of existence to exclude Jews less committed to these attitudes.
An important mechanism underlying all this is that of rallying around the flag during times of crisis, a phenomenon that is well understood by social psychologists. Group identification processes are exaggerated in times of resource competition or other perceived sources of threat,131 a finding that is highly compatible with an evolutionary perspective.132 External threat tends to reduce internal divisions and maximize perceptions of common interest among ingroup members, as we have seen among American Jews in response to perceived crises in Israel, ranging from the Six-Day War of 1967 to the unending crises of the 1990s and into the new millennium.133 Jewish populations also respond to threat by developing messianic ideologies, rallying around charismatic leaders, and expelling dissenters from the community. Traditionally this has taken the form of religious fundamentalism, as among the Hasidim, but in the modern world these tendencies have been manifested in various forms of leftist radicalism, Zionism, and other Jewish intellectual and political movements.134 Throughout Jewish history, this siege mentality has tended to increase conflict between Jews and non-Jews. In the context of the intense ethnic conflict of nineteenth-century Eastern Europe, the conflict was exacerbated by an enormous increase in the Jewish population.
And in all cases, the leaders of this process are the more ethnocentric, committed Jews. They are the ones who donate to Jewish causes, attend rallies, write letters, join and support activist organizations. As J. J. Goldberg, the editor of the Forward, notes, Jews who identify themselves as doves feel much less strongly about Israel than those who identify themselves as hawks. “Jewish liberals give to the Sierra Fund. Jewish conservatives are Jewish all the time. That’s the whole ball game. It’s not what six million American Jews feel is best — it’s what 50 Jewish organizations feel is best.”135 In other words, it’s the most radical, committed elements of the Jewish community that determine the direction of the entire community.
As a European in a society that is rapidly becoming non-European, I can sympathize with Jabotinsky’s envy of the native Slavic peoples he observed in the early twentieth century:
I look at them with envy. I have never known, and probably never will know, this completely organic feeling: so united and singular [is this] sense of a homeland, in which everything flows together, the past and the present, the legend and the hopes, the individual and the historical.136
Every nation civilised or primitive, sees its land as its national home, where it wants to stay as the sole landlord forever. Such a nation will never willingly consent to new landlords or even to partnership.137
It is the memory of this rapidly disappearing sense of historical rootedness and sense of impending dispossession that are at the root of the malaise experienced by many Europeans, not only in the U.S. but elsewhere. The triumph of Zionism took a mere fifty years from Herzl’s inspiration to the founding of the state of Israel. There is a tendency to overlook or ignore the powerful ethnocentrism at the heart of Zionism that motivated people like Jabotinsky, especially on the part of the American Jewish community, which has been dedicated throughout the twentieth century to pathologizing and criminalizing the fragile vestiges of ethnocentrism among Europeans.138
But the bottom line is that the Zionists were successful. Israel would not have become a state without a great many deeply ethnocentric Jews willing to engage in any means necessary to bring about their dream: a state that would be a vehicle for their ethnic interests. It would not have come about without the most radical among them—people like Jabotinsky, Begin, Shamir, Sharon, and their supporters—a group which now includes the entire organized American Jewish community. The impending dispossession of Europeans will only be avoided if people of their ilk can be found among the political class of Europeans.
The final paper in this series will discuss neo-conservatism as a Jewish intellectual and political movement. A main point of that paper will be that Jewish neo-conservatives are the current radicals who are charting the direction of the entire Jewish community.
Kevin MacDonald is Professor of Psychology, California State University —Long Beach, and the author of a trilogy on Judaism as an evolutionary strategy: A People That Shall Dwell Alone (1994), Separation and its Discontents (1998), and The Culture of Critique (1998), all published by Praeger 1994-1998. A revised edition of The Culture of Critique (2002), with an expanded introduction, is available in a quality soft cover edition from http://www.1stBooks.com or http://www.amazon.com.
References to the Book of Jubilees are from Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament II, ed. R. H. Charles, 1–82. Reprint, Oxford: Clarendon Press,  1966.
References to the Book of Maccabees are to The New English Bible: The Apocrypha. London: Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press, 1970.
Alderman, G. (1983). The Jewish Community in British Politics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Alexander, R. (1979). Darwinism and Human Affairs. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Aruri, N. H. (1986). Preface to this edition. In L. Rokach, Israel’s Sacred Terrorism, 3rd edition. Belmont, MA: Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc.
Aschheim, S. E. (1982). Brothers and Strangers: The East European Jew in Germany and German Jewish Consciousness, 1800–1923. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Bendersky, J. W. (2000). The “Jewish Threat”: Anti-Semitic Politics of the U.S. Army. New York: Basic Books.
Bookman, M. Z. (1997). The Demographic Struggle for Power: The Political Economy of Demographic Engineering in the Modern World. London and Portland, Oregon: Frank Cass.
Brubacher, M. (2002). From war on terror to plain war. Israel: Walled in, but never secure. Le Monde diplomatique, November.
Chomsky, N. (1999). The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel and the Palestinians, 2nd ed. Boston: South End Press.
Hertzberg, A. (1979). Being Jewish in America. New York: Schocken Books.
Herzl, T. (1970). The Jewish State, trans. H. Zohn. New York: Herzl Press.
Herzl, T. (1960). Complete Diaries, vol. II, p. 711.
Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology 53:575–604.
Hitler, A. (1943). Mein Kampf, trans. R. Manheim. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; originally published 1925–1926.
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1987). Social Identifications. New York: Routledge.
John, R., & Hadawi, S. (1970a). The Palestine Diary, 1914–1945: Britain’s Involvement. New York: The New World Press.
John, R., & Hadawi, S. (1970b). The Palestine Diary, 1945–1948: United States, United Nations Intervention. New York: The New World Press.
Johnson, G. (1995). The evolutionary origins of government and politics. In Human Nature and Politics, ed. J. Losco & A. Somit. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Keller, B. (2002). The sunshine warrior. New York Times Magazine, September 23.
Kornberg, R. (1993). Theodore Herzl: From Assimilation to Zionism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Laqueur, W. (1972). A History of Zionism. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Lilienthal, A. M. (1953). What Price Israel? Chicago: Henry Regnery Co.
Lilienthal, A. M. (1978). The Zionist Connection: What Price Peace? New York: Dodd, Mead.
Lindemann, A. S. (1991). The Jew Accused: Three Anti-Semitic Affairs (Dreyfus, Beilis, Frank) 1894–1915. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lindemann, A. S. (1997). Esau’s Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews. New York: Cambridge University Press.
MacDonald, K. B. (1994/2002). A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism As a Group Evolutionary Strategy, with Diaspora Peoples. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse. Originally published in 1994 by Praeger (Westport, CT).
MacDonald, K. B. (1997). Life history theory and human reproductive behavior: Environmental/contextual influences and heritable variation. Human Nature 8:327–359.
MacDonald, K. B. (1998a). Separation and Its Discontents:: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism. Westport, CT: Praeger.
MacDonald, K. B. (1998b/2002). The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements. Bloomington, IN: 1stBooks Library. Originally published in 1998 by Praeger (Westport, CT).
MacDonald, K. B. (2000). Book Review Essay: The numbers game: Ethnic conflict in the contemporary world. Population and Environment 21:413–425.
MacDonald, K. B. 2002.What makes Western culture unique? The Occidental Quarterly 2(2):8–38.
MacDonald, K. B. (2003). Understanding Jewish activism I: Background traits for Jewish activism. Occidental Quarterly 2(3):5–38.
Mahler, R. (1985). Hasidism and the Jewish Enlightenment: Their Confrontation in Galicia and Poland in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America.
Masalha, N. (1992). Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of “Transfer” in Zionist Political Thought, 1882–1948. Washington, DC: Institute for Palestine Studies.
Massing, M. (2002). Deal breakers, American Prospect, March 11.
Meyer, M. A. (1988). Response to Modernity: A History of the Reform Movement in Judaism. New York: Oxford University Press.
Neusner, J. (1987). Judaism and Christianity in the Age of Constantine: History, Messiah, Israel, and the Initial Confrontation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Nicosia, F. R. (1985). The Third Reich and the Palestine Question. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Niewyk, D. L. . (1980). The Jews in Weimar Germany. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.
Norden, E. (1995). An unsung Jewish prophet. Commentary 99(4):37–43.
Novick, P. (1999).The Holocaust in American Life. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Parsons, J. (1998). Human Population Competition. A Study of the Pursuit of Power through Numbers. Lewiston, NY & Lampeter, Wales: The Edwin Mellen Press.
Podhoretz, N. (2002). In praise of the Bush doctrine. Commentary, September.
Prinz, J. (1934). Wir Juden. Berlin: Erich Press.
Rokach, L. (1986). Israel’s Sacred Terrorism, 3rd edition. Belmont, MA: Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc. Originally published 1980.
Rubenstein, J. (1996). Tangled Loyalties: The Life and Times of Ilya Ehrenburg. New York: Basic Books.
Ruppin, A. (1971). Arthur Ruppin: Memoirs, Diaries, Letters, ed. A. Bein, trans. K. Gershon. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson.
Sachar, H. M. (1992). A History of Jews in America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Sacks, J. (1993). One People? Tradition, Modernity, and Jewish Unity. London: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization.
Salter, F. K. (2002a). Fuzzy but real: America’s ethnic hierarchy. Paper presented at the meetings of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences, Montreal, August 9.
Salter, F. K. (Ed.) (2002b). Risky Transactions. London: Berghan.
Schatz, J. (1991). The Generation: The Rise and Fall of the Jewish Communists of Poland. Berkeley: University of California Press.
The names of Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon will certainly be found one day inscribed in big red letters in the official annals of the rise and fall of the United states.
These seven masters of deception incurred their guilt by debasing their solemn oaths of office on behalf of undisclosed domestic and foreign principals without any apparent qualms or misgivings, to enhance their political fortunes totally oblivious of the threat to United States security and survival.
These seven masters of deception knowingly and willingly in effect and in fact “poisoned the wells” of security and survival for the United States. Without any evident scruples, they individually betrayed the sacred traditions enshrined in the letter and spirit of their oaths of office, that precious heritage bequeathed to each of these seven masters of deception as successors to that high office exalted by the immortalized first president of the United States, the venerated George Washington.
The disclosures which follow here are now revealed for the first time anywhere. They now expose for the first time to the grass roots population of the United States the secret un-American, non-American and anti-American strategy to which these seven masters of deception knowingly subscribed. The uninhibited practice of that strategy by these seven masters of deception is primarily responsible for desperate predicament in which the United States today finds itself in the Middle East.
Very early in their political careers, these seven masters of deception by their determination acquired their proficient skill in detecting on which side their political bread was buttered. Their remarkable perfection in that skill provides the answer to why these seven masters of deception went so far and so fast in so few years in the political world in which they moved.
Throughout their political careers these seven masters of deception demonstrated that political shrewdness invariably identified with the immoral dogma of 20th century politicians who preach and practice “any means justifies all ends.” Accordingly, future grass roots populations of the United States will one day find inscribed in the history of the rise and fall of the United States the verdict that the “means” today advocated by these seven masters of deception were primarily responsible for the “end” of the United States.
It is today a well recognized fact of life in political circles in the United States that the censorship exercised today by Zionists over the media for mass information constitutes a virtual monopoly. It is likewise today a well recognized fact of life in political circles in the United States since President Wilson won his first election in 1912 as president of the United States, that elections in the United States are seldom won or lost today based upon the candidates’ qualification for office.
Elections in the United States since 1912 are won or lost on the battlefields of the media for mass information by character assassination. Zionist ownership of media for mass information, or by Zionist control exercised by some devious corporate device in effect and in fact censors the news and editorial policies of as the leading daily and Sunday newspapers, all the weekly and monthly news magazines, all leading radio and television stations and networks, the entire motion picture industry, the entire entertainment world and the entire book publishing industry, in effect and in fact the entire complex of media for mass information in the United States, truly a brainwashing monopoly.
Talmudist Jews Control News and editorial Policies of Mass Media
As a result of that condition in the United States, for approximately the past fifty years the grass root population of the United States has only read, heard and seen what passed Zionist censorship and best served Zionist objectives, instead of reading, hearing and seeing what best served the interests of the grass roots population of the United States.
The Zionist-ruled media for mass information in the United States never informed the grass roots population of the United States how and why President Woodrow Wilson lied the United States into the desperate predicament in which the United States today finds itself in the Middle East. In their consideration recently of the alleged theft of the so-called Pentagon Papers, the United States Supreme Court declared “the public has a right to know the truth.” The Supreme Court should have said “the public has a right to know the WHOLE truth.”
The reason half-truths often are more harmful than lies. The United States declared war against Germany on April 6, 1917. On April 2, 1917 President Wilson addressed both houses of Congress and pleaded with them to declare war against Germany. President Wilson’s appeal to Congress to declare war against Germany in effect and in fact was primarily President Wilson’s liquidation of his obligation to his blackmailers.
The following incontestible facts confirm that conclusion beyond all question of any doubt. President Wilson’s hand trembled as he read his address. The members of Congress present had no reason to suspect why President Wilson’s hand trembled. By the time the grass roots population finish reading this, they will know the reason President Wilson’s hand trembled as he read his message to Congress.
By the time President Wilson finished reading his appeal to Congress, many of his listeners were in tears but not for the reason the grass roots population of the United States today will be in tears when they finish reading this manuscript. When President Wilson asked Congress to declare war against Germany, President Wilson was in effect and in fact conspiring to pay the debt he obligated himself to pay to the Zionists.
Congress only declared war against Germany because President Wilson informed Congress that a German submarine had sunk the S.S. Sussex in the English Channel in violation of international law and that United States citizens aboard the S.S. Sussex had perished with the ship. After General Pershing’s troops were fighting in Europe, the hoax was exposed.
The alleged sinking of the S.S. Sussex was used as the “pretext” to justify a declaration of war against Germany by the United States. The S.S. Sussex had not been sunk and no United States citizens had lost their lives. The United States was now at war in Europe as Great Britain’s ally. That is what Great Britain and the Talmudists (“Jews”) of the world conspired to achieve in their crooked diplomatic underworld.
The discovery of the hoax by the British Navy shocked many honorable Englishmen. A large segment of the British public were shocked to learn the S.S. Sussex had not been sunk. The S.S. Sussex was available for anyone to visit who might care to do so to see the S.S. Sussex for themselves with their own eyes. In that war the United States mobilized 4,734,991 men to serve in the armed forces, of whom 115,516 were killed and 202,002 were either injured or maimed for life.
The Right Honorable Francis Neilson, a member of Parliament, wrote a book in England called Makers of War (pp. 149-150). Mr. Neilson’s book created such a sensation that Mr. Neilson was compelled to resign his seat in Parliament. Things became so intolerable for Mr. Neilson in Great Britain as a Result of the exposures in his book that he was compelled for his personal safety to flee from his home in Great Britain and to make his home in the United States.
In Mr. Neilson’s book Makers of War (pp. 149-150), he discloses many unsuspected and undisclosed reasons for the outbreak of World War I in Europe in August 1914. With reference to the alleged sinking of the S.S. Sussex in the English Channel, Mr. Neilson emphasizes: “In America, Woodrow Wilson, desperate to find a pretext to enter the war, found it at last in the ‘sinking’ of the Sussex in mid-channel. Someone invented a yarn that American lives had been lost. With thus excuse he went to Congress for a declaration of war. Afterwards, the Navy found that the Sussex had not been sunk, and that no lives had been lost.”
This author crossed the English Channel many times on the S.S. Sussex.
The alleged sinking of the S.S. Sussex was the figment of an over-worked Zionist imagination. The alleged sinking of the S.S. Sussex was conceived in the imagination of a Zionist to facilitate the purpose planned and successfully executed.
President Wilson Blackmailed
Shortly after President Wilson’s first inauguration, he received a visitor in the White House by the name of Mr. Samuel Untermeyer. Mr. Untermeyer was a prominent New York City attorney who contributed generously to the National Democratic Committee that installed President Wilson in the White House in Washington in the 1912 election.
Mr. Untermeyer was a very welcome guest and President Wilson was very glad to welcome him to the White House. They had met before during the campaign. Mr. Untermeyer surprised President Wilson when he finally stated what brought hum to the White House. Mr. Untermeyer informed President Wilson that he had been retained to bring a breach of promise action against President Wilson.
Mr. Untermeyer informed President Wilson that his client was willing to accept $40,000.00 in lieu of commencing the breach of promise action. Mr. Untermeyer’s client was the former wife of a Professor at Princeton University at the same time President Wilson was a professor at Princeton University.
Mr. Untermeyer produced a packet of letters from his pocket, written by President Wilson to his colleague’s wife when they were neighbors at Princeton University. These letters established the illicit relationship which had existed between President Wilson and the wife of his colleague neighbor.
He had written many endearing letters to her, many of which she never destroyed. President Wilson acknowledged his authorship of the letters after examining a few of them. President Wilson left Princeton University to become the Governor of New Jersey, In 1912 he was elected to his first term as president of the United States. In the interim, President Wilson’s former sweetheart had divorced her husband and married again.
Her second husband resident in Washington with a grown son who was in the employ of one of the leading banks in Washington. Mr. Untermeyer explained to President Wilson that his former sweetheart was very fond of her husband’s son. He explained that this son was in financial trouble and suddenly needed $40,000.00, as he told the story, to liquidate a pressing liability to the bank for which he worked.
The details are not relevant here except that the son needed the $40,000.00 badly and quickly. President Wilson’s former sweetheart thought that Wilson was the logical prospect for that $40,000,00 to help her husband’s son. Mr. Untermeyer visited President Wilson at the White House to break the news to him about the breach of promise action being considered.
Wilson expressed himself as very fortunate that his former sweetheart went to Mr. Untermeyer to seek his assistance. The publicity could have proven very embarrassing to President Wilson if his former sweetheart had instead consulted a Republican attorney.
President Wilson quickly set Mr. Untermeyer’s mind at rest by informing him that he did not have $40.000.00 available for any purpose. Mr. Untermeyer suggested that President Wilson should think the matter over and said he would return in a few days to discuss the matter further.
Mr. Untermeyer used the next few days in Washington looking into the credibility of the son’s story about his pressing need for $40,000.00 to liquidate a pressing liability. He learned that the son’s story was not misrepresented in any way to his mother by her son.
Mr. Untermeyer returned to President Wilson a few days later as they had agreed. President Wilson did not hesitate to inform Mr. Untermeyer that he did not have the $40,000.00 to pay his blackmailer. President Wilson appeared irritated. Mr. Untermeyer considered the matter a few Moments and then volunteered a solution to President Wilson for his problem.
Mr, Untermeyer volunteered to give President Wilson’s former sweetheart the $40,000.00 out of his own pocket on one condition: that Wilson promise Untermeyer to appoint to the first vacancy on the United States Supreme Court a nominee to be recommended to Wilson by Untermeyer.
Without further talk, President Wilson accepted Mr. Untermeyer’s generous offer and Mr. Untermeyer promptly paid the $40,000.00 in currency to President Wilson ‘s former sweetheart. The contemplated breach of promise suit was never heard of after that.
Mr. Untermeyer retained in his possession permanently the packet of letters to insure against any similar attempt at some future time. President Wilson was most grateful to Mr. Untermeyer for everything he was doing to solve problem. Mr. Untermeyer was a man of great wealth.
The law firm in New York of which he was the leading partner, Messrs. Guggenheim, Untermeyer and Marshall, is still today one of the nations most prominent and most prosperous law firms. Mr. Untermeyer organized the Bethlehalem Steel Company for his friend, Mr. Charles M. Schwab, who resigned from the United States Steel Company to form his company in competition with it.
Justice Brandeis – The Pay Off
Louis Dembitz Brandeis
As anyone might reasonable suspect, Mr. Untermeyer must have had something in mind when he agreed to pay President Wilson’s former sweetheart $40,000.00 out of his own pocket.
He paid the money out of his own pocket in the hope that it might bring to pass a dream close to his heart – a Talmudist (“Jew”) on the United States Supreme Court on which none had ever served. The day soon arrived when President Wilson was presented with the necessity of appointing a new member of the United States Supreme Court.
Mr. Untermeyer recommended Louis Dembitz Brandeis for the vacancy, who was immediately appointed by Wilson. President Wilson and Justice Brandeis became unusually intimate friends. Justice Brandeis knew the circumstances of his appointment to the Supreme Court by President Wilson. In l9l4 Justice Brandeis was the most prominent and most politically influential of all Zionists in the United States.
As a Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Brandeis was in a better position than ever before to be of service to Talmudists (“Jews”) both at home and abroad. The first opportunity to perform a great service for his Zionist followers soon became available to Brandeis.
Justice Brandeis volunteered his opinion to President Wilson that the sinking of the S.S. Sussex by a German submarine in the English Channel with the loss of lives of United States citizens justified the declaration of war against Germany by the United States.
Relying to a great extent upon the legal opinion of Justice Brandeis, President Wilson addressed both houses of Congress on April 2, 1917. He appealed to Congress to declare war against Germany and they did on April 7, 1917. After the October 1916 agreement was concluded between the British War Cabinet and the World Zionist Organization, the Talmudists throughout the world were hopeful that an international incident would soon occur to Justify a declaration of war against Germany by the United States.
The declaration of war against Germany by the United States guaranteed the Talmudists throughout the world that Palestine was to be turned over to them upon the defeat of Germany. The defeat of Germany was certain if the United States could be railroaded into the war in Europe as Great Britain’s ally. Prior to the October 1916 London Agreement, Talmudists throughout the world were pro-German.
The German Emancipation Edict of 1822 guaranteed Talmudists in Germany all civil rights enjoyed by Germans. Every country in Europe had quotas for Talmudists. The quota systems had existed for centuries in all European countries. Under the quota system in European countries, Talmudists were Limited in all activities to a small percentage of the Christian population of the country.
The quota systems applied to all occupations. After the Emancipation Edict In 1822, Germany was the only country in Europe which did not place restrictions on Talmudists under a quota system limiting their civil rights. Talmudists throughout the world were informed by cable from London about the October 1916 London Agreement.
That information transformed them from pro-German to pro-British. Great Britain placed at the disposal of Talmudists in London their secret codes and worldwide cable facilities to inform Talmudists throughout the world about Great Britain’s pledge to turn over Palestine to them as compensation for railroading the United States into the war in Europe as Great Britain s ally in their war against Germany. Talmudists enlisted in great numbers in October 1916 in Great Britain’s Department of Defense.
Their purpose was to facilitate transforming Talmudists throughout the world from pro-German to pro-British. After the London Agreement was concluded, Great Britain left no stone unturned to impress Talmudists in London with the necessity of immediately notifymg Talmudists throughout the world about Great Britain’s pledge to turn over Palestine to them for their future sovereign Zionist state.
Guided by the recommendation of Justice Brandeis that the sinking of the S.S. Sussex justified a declaration of war under international law against Germany by the United States, President Wilson addressed a joint session of both houses of Congress on April 2, 1917.
In that address President Wilson pleaded with Congress to declare war against Germany. Congress met on April 6. 1917. and declared war against Germany without justification. On April 6, 1917, President Wilson and Justice Brandeis knew something the grass roots population of the United States did not know – they knew full particulars about the October 1916 London Agreement.
They also knew the declaration of war against Germany by the United States activated this agreement and that Talmudists of the world would not have to wait long for Palestine, their sovereign Zionist state, if their plan worked. On this same day, Wilson and Brandeis knew something else the grass roots population of the United States did not know – they knew that the declaration of war by the United States against Germany discharged President Wilson from his obligation to his blackmailers.
Wilson’s declaration of war was to satisfy his commitment to his blackmailers. There was seldom any address made to Congress that stirred the people of the United States, and the world, as did President Wilson’s April 2, 1917, plea to Congress to declare war against Germany.
Wilson was aware when he addressed Congress that Germany had not committed any act against the United States which justified a declaration of war by the United States against Germany under international law. This author at that time knew President Wilson was informed to that effect before he made his plea to Congress.
Prime Minister Lloyd George – A Zionist Tool
David Lloyd George
There were great numbers of Talmudists in the United States who questioned the reality of the October 1916 London Agreement. They found it extremely difficult to believe that Great Britain would promise to turn over Palestine to them as compensation for railroading the United States into the war in Europe as Great Britain’s ally.
These Talmudists could not believe that Great Britain would promise anything to anyone that Great Britain did not own as compensation. That appeared inconceivable to Talmudists familiar with Great Britain’s reputation for respect of property rights under their laws.
To overcome doubts that existed in the minds of Talmudists in the United States, Prime Minister Lloyd George immediately sent Mr. Josiah Wedgewood to the United States. Mr. Wedgewood was one of the most respected and dedicated members of Parliament.
Josiah Clement Wedgwood
Prime Minister Lloyd George, a rabid well-known Zionist, was unexpectedly appointed Prime Minister on December 4, 1916. He rushed Mr. Wedgewood to the United States on December 5, 1916, under pressure by Talmudists in London. The prime minister whom Lloyd George succeeded was unsympathetic Toward Zionist objectives.
He was replaced at that time because Zionists could not rule him. Great Britain was helpless in October 1916. It was seriously considering surrender to Germany. Germany had made several peace offers to Great Britain earlier to discontinue the war. Mr. Lloyd George considered Mr. Wedgewood’s hasty trip to the United States vital to Great Britain’s survival.
Mr. Wedgewood went to the United States with documented evidence proving the reality of the October 1916 London Agreement with the Talmudists.
Colonel Edward M. House – A Conspiring Enigma
Edward Mandel House
Mr. Wedgewood arrived in the United States on December 23, 1916. Upon his arrival he was met at the pier by Colonel Edward Mandel House, President Wilson’s closest personal friend and most trusted adviser.
Col. House in early life negotiated cotton purchases in the United States for Rothschild interests in Great Britain. Col. House did not claim or disclaim his Talmudist ancestry to this author. He had arranged with Mr. Wedgewood to live in his apartment on 54th Street during his stay in the United States.
Col. House quickly made arrangements for the meeting at which Mr. Wedgewood was to prove the reality of the October 1916 London Agreement. The meeting was to be held on Sunday afternoon, December 25, 1916, at the old Hotel Savoy at 59th Street and Fifth Avenue in New Yolk City.
There were fifty-one invited Talmudists present there when Col. House introduced Mr. Wedgewood to the audience. Mr. Wedgewood then presided. Mr. Wedgewood presented evidence there that left no doubt in the minds of the fifty-one Talmudists present about the reality of the October 1916 London Agreement.
On behalf of Mr. Lloyd George, Mr. Wedgewood further vouched for the reality of Great Britain pledge that Palestine would be turned over to Talmudists of the world by Great Britain upon the defeat of Germany as compensation for railroading the United States into the war in Europe as Great Britain’s ally.
After concluding the October 1916 London Agreement, Talmudists in England were invited by Great Britain to take an increasingly active participation in Great Britain’s Department of Defense for the duration of the war. The Talmudists who accepted the invitation were trained as experts in the use of Great Britain’s codes and Great Britain’s worldwide diplomatic cable facilities.
The available data in Great Britain’s archives for World War I will dispel all existing doubt whether the information cabled to Washington from London alleging the sinking of the S.S. Sussex and the loss of United States lives was the invention of Talmudists in London in Great Britain’s Department of Defense to facilitate and expediate railroading the United States into the war in Europe as Great Britain’s ally. The hoax was discovered by the British Navy.
It was also confirmed by other equally reliable sources for information on the subject by qualified united States experts. The reality of the October 1916 London Agreement was known to the Germans shortly after it was concluded, in fact, on the same day. Germany thereafter exercised great care both on land and on sea not to commit any act which, under international law, could provide the United States with justification to declare war against Germany.
German military and naval commanders leaned over backwards in their effort not to provide the United States with that justification and they were successful. In the crisis in October 1916, Germans had reason to feel if the war in Europe continued a few more months without the entrance of the United States into the war, that Great Britain would be compelled to surrender to Germany by circumstances beyond Great Britain’s power to control.
Germany made another peace offer to Great Britain in October 1916. Great Britain this time welcomed the offer but it was also declined like several previous peace offers. In referring to the declaration of war against Germany by the United States, Sir Winston Churchill said in an interview with a prominent editor, published in Scribner’s Commentator in 1936, that he “could never understand why he put us in in 1917,” referring to President Wilson.
In that interview Sir Winston Churchill stated further: ”America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War. If you hadn’t entered the war the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the spring of 1917. Had we made peace there would have been no collapse of Russia followed by Communism, no breakdown in Italy followed by Fascism, and Germany would not have signed the Versailles Treaty, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany.
If America had stayed out of the war, all of these ‘isms’ wouldn’t be sweeping the continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government, and if England made peace early in 1917, it would have saved over one million British, French, American and other lives. Germany’s peace offer to Great Britain asked for neither indemnities nor reparations.
Germany offered to restore the territorial status and the political independence of every country with whom Great Britain was at war, as they existed in August 1914 when the war in Europe started. Germany demanded no benefits.
Talmudist Jews Select America’s Ally for First World War
Germany’s October 1916 peace offer was on the table before the British War Cabinet; it needed only one signature to end the war. Great Britain would have quickly accepted Germany’s peace offer if the World Zionist Organization had not Interfered.
The British War Cabinet was then taking their instructions from Talmudists in London. When the British War Cabinet decided to accept Germany’s peace offer, the World Zionist Organization offered to railroad the United States into the war in Europe as Great Britain’s ally if Great Britain promised the Talmudists of the world Palestine as compensation after Germany’s defeat with the United States as an ally.
Talmudist pressure in London and New York prevailed. President Wilson had little choice in the matter, it seemed. He was the captive of circumstances in his early life that could not be altered. His April 2, 1917, address to Congress was about to decide the fate of the world.
Congress, without hesitation, declared war against Germany for him. The Germans attributed their crushing defeat in World War I to the entry of the United States into the war in Europe as Great Britain’s ally.
Germany considered the October 1916 London Agreement a stab in the back by Talmudists of the world. In view of the Emancipation Edict in Germany in 1822, Germans regarded the London Agreement as a double-cross by Talmudists in Germany. Quota systems then existed in all other countries in Europe. There was no quota system in Germany after the Emancipation Edict of 1822 for Talmudists.
Talmudist Jews Promote Germans Victory, Then Stab them in the Back
The Kaiser provided the World Zionist Organization with the offices for their world headquarters in Berlin. He, his family and government officials were constantly extending assistance to Theodore Herzl. Germany extended opportunities to Talmudists not available in other European countries.
The Kaiser himself arranged the personal beeting between the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire and Theodore Herzl. Bleichroeder & Company in Berlin were the private bankers of the Kaiser’s family for generations. They were Talmudists. Warburg & Company of Hamburg were the world’s largest merchant bankers. They were Talmudists.
The head of the German General Electric Company, then the world’s largest industrial enterpnse, was a Talmudist. The head of the Hamburg- American and North German Lloyd steamship companies, the two largest steamship companies in the world, second only to the Cunard Line, was a Talmudist. Countless prominent German industrialists, bankers and merchants were Talmudists The attitude of Germans towards Talmudists in Germany and throughout the world worsened much after the October 1916 stab in the back by Talmudists.
Mr. Samuel Landman, the secretary of the World Zionist Organization in London from 1917 to 1922, wrote in his Great Britain, the Jews and Palestine, published in London in 1936, on page six: “The fact that it was Jewish help that brought the U.S.A. into the war on the side of the Allies has rankled ever since in German – especially Nazi – minds and has contributed in no small measure to the prominence which anti-Semitism occupied in the Nazi programme.”
The sentiments of prominent German leaders were expressed in the Jewish Daily Bulletin of New York City on October 30, 1934, in an article reprinted on page three from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency dispatch from Berlin which stated: “The New Germany persists toward the complete extermination of the Jew because it was Jews who instigated the United States to enter the World War, accomplishing the defeat of Germany, and who later caused the inflation in Germany, Herr Richard Kunze, a leading Nazi Parliament figure, declared at a mass meeting in Magdeburg yesterday.”
Talmudists throughout the world made bad matters worse on August 7, 1933, when they declared their “holy war” to destroy the German nation “by destroying their export trade upon which their very existence depends.” Under the leadership of Mr. Samuel Untermeyer, Talmudists of the world declared a world boycott on all German goods and services.
They asked their “Christian friends” to join their worldwide boycott of German goods and services. Mr. Samuel Untermeyer arranged for the “International Boycott Conference” in Amsterdam in July 1933.
There he was elected the president of the “World Jewish Economic Federation.” Talmudists throughout the world had tried in vain since 1919 to silence German resentment against them for railroading the United States into the war in Europe without justification or provocation by the United States as Great Britain’s ally. Talmudists were held responsible for Germany’s defeat and for every disadvantage that resulted from that defeat.
The New York Times of August 7, 1933, published the Talmudists’ declaration of their “holy war” against Germany in a three-column report of Mr. Untermeyer’s address to the nation from the Columbia Broadcasting Company’s studio on the night of his arrival home from Europe.
Mr. Untermeyer, among other things, stated: “…holy war…in which we are embarked..it is a war which must be waged unremittingly…the Jews are the aristocrats of the world… the economic boycott against all German goods, shipping and services…boycott is our only really effective weapon…bring the German people to their senses by destroying their export trade on which their very existence depends…we shall force them to learn…it is not sufficient that you buy no goods in Germany…you must refuse to deal with any merchant or shopkeeper who sells any German-made goods…we will drive the last nail in the coffin… “
That statement was made on August 7, 1933, when not a hair on the head of a Talmudist in Germany had been touched. Germany was plunged into a depression difficult to describe in a few words, Germany’s export business suddenly ending as if by magic.
Talmudists hoped that way to stop Germans from continuing to talk about why they lost the war. Talmudists in Germany were finding it difficult to live that down. Germans then felt the way Sir Winston Churchill in 1936 expressed himself about the entry of the United States into World War I in 1917.
Zionist Worldwide Boycott Against German Merchandise Creates Domestic Crisis
Judea Declares War Against Germany
The eminent Rabbi Maurice L. Perlman, head of the British Section of the World Jewish Congress, stated to a Canadian audience as reported by The Toronto Evening Telegram of February 26, 1940, that: “The World Jewish Congress has been at war with Germany for seven years.”
Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon delivered an address on December 20, 1951, as reported in The National Jewish Post of Indianapolis of December 28, 1951, in which he stated: “One of the major causes for our going to war against Hitler was the persecution of the Jews in Germany. “
Dr. Donald C. Blaisdell, professor of government at the College of the City of New York, published an important document entitled American Policy for the near East in a publication called Issues published in New York, the official organ of the American Council for Judaism, in the fall issue in 1959, in which Dr. Blaisdell stated:
“No minority of Irish. of German, of Polish, Italian, or Greek extraction has been able to manipulate policy to its advantage as have the Zionist leaders of American Jews. Nor does there appear to be any politically feasible means by which the American government can place the claims of its important clientele in proper perspective.
Like American Jews who are presumed to be members of Israel ‘s American clientele are never allowed to forget it, so the American government, Congress and Executive branch alike, is never permitted to free itself from the pressure, propaganda and power emanating from the same Zionist sources.”
This author has been in a position since 1912 to witness what was going on behind the scenes. This author served on the National Democratic Committee in the 1912 campaign that elected President Wilson to his first term. No doors have been closed to this author since then.
This author was ushered into this world in 1890 by Dr. Simon Baruch, the father of Mr. Bernard M. Baruch. Mr. Bernard Baruch was a good friend of this author’s family and would very often consult this author on this situation.
Franklin D. Roosevelt Manipulated by Talmudic Jews
President Franklin D. Roosevelt was a captive of the Talmudists from the time he went to Albany as governor of the state of New York. President Roosevelt was long beholden to the Talmudists.
The story of how President Roosevelt lied the United States into the desperate predicament in which the United States today finds itself in the Middle East is not a long story.
It is the story of how President Roosevelt railroaded the United States into the Second World War: Germany and Poland had agreed upon a formula giving Germany access across the Danzig Corridor. President Wilson, in 1919, created the Danzig Corridor which separated Germany into two halves.
In order to keep Germany weak, at the instigation of Talmudists at theVersialles Peace Conference, President Wilson cut Germany into two halves, separated by a strip of German territory granted to Poland which divided Germany into two halves. Crossing the Danzig Corridor from western Germany to eastern Germany or vice versa was like traveling from one country to another.
The inconveniences, the delays and the annoyances to Germany and Poland had finally worked out their acceptable arrangement that eliminated a majority of German objections to the Danzig Corridor. Germany and Poland reached a basis that would serve to prevent Germany’s resort to more aggressive action. Adolf Hitler was the head of the German government at the time.
Talmudists throughout the world opposed the peaceful adjustment between Germany and Poland of the Danzig Corridor situation. Unrestricted access of traffic between the western half and the eastern half of Germany would soon make Germany again the most powerful country in the world. Talmudists throughout the world dreaded the thought. In spite of the difficulties placed in the way of reaching a solution for the Danzig Corridor problem, Germany and Poland finally agreed upon a formula.
Preparations were being made to consummate their understanding in a treaty. Both Germany and Poland were satisfied the formula agreed upon served both governments. Shortly before the agreement with Germany was to be signed, Poland secretly signed a treaty with Great Britain dated August 25, 1939.
Great Britain agreed in that treaty to hasten the military assistance of Poland “with all the support and assistance in its power” if Poland were attacked by Germany. With that assurance from Great Britain, Poland broke off negotiations with Germany. Germany did not understand the reason for Poland’s sudden change of mind and decided to proceed with the terms of the arrangement agreed upon with Poland. That was the start of World War II.
Great Britain knowingly deceived Poland when Great Britain actually promised military assistance to Poland if Poland were attacked by Germany. Great Britain could not come to Poland’s assistance and Great Britain knew it when Great Britain’s offer of military assistance to Poland was made.
Poland fell into Great Britain’s trap and discontinued negotiations with the Germans. Poland’s unexplained discontinuance of negotiations with Germany to complete the Danzig Corridor agreement resulted in Germany’s troops moving into the Danzig Corridor without an agreement with Poland.
Great Britain knew exactly what would take place in that event, that it would mean the beginning or World War II. The rest is history. Talmudists of the world welcomed a war against Germeny in l939 to somehow crush the Nazi government as the Talmudists of the world crushed Germany in World War I in 1917 by railroading the United States into the war in Europe as Great Britain’s ally.
President Roosevelt tried his hardest in 1939 to railroad The United States into the war in Europe to accommodate Talmudists in the United States. Germany learned by experience in World War I that the entry of the United States into thc war in Europe in 1939 could prove equally disastrous to Germany if the United States were raiiroaded into war in Europe as Great Bntain’s ally.
Germany exercised extraordinary caution not to provide the United States with justification under internationai law to declare war against Germany. That situation presented President Roosevelt with a problem. President Roosevelt decided if it were impossible for him to get into the war in Europe through the front door that he would railroad the United States into the war in Europe through the back door.
Through the back door meant through Japan. Presidcnt Roosevelt finally did railroad the United States into the war in Europe through the back door, through Japan.
Henry L. Stimson – Secretary of Defense During World War II – Makes Startling Revelation
Henry L. Stimson
Germany and Japan had a treaty under which if either Germany or Japan were attacked by a third powcr, the country which was not attacked by the third power automatically is at war with that third power.
President Roosevelt planned to provoke Japan so Japan would attack the United States. Japan in December 1941 attacked Pearl Harbor. The United States immediately declared war against Japan and automatically was at war with Germany.
The personal diary of the Hon. Mr. Henry L. Stimson and all his papers are in Yale University Lihrary. Mr. Stimson each day entered in his personal diary in his own handwriting the important events in his life that day. Mr. Stimson was President Roosevelt’s secretary of defense.
Mr. Stimson’s diary was introduced as evidence in the United States Senate investigation of the Pearl Harbor attack by Japan over the strong objections of friends of President Roosevelt.
Mr. Stimson entered in his diary on November 25, 1941, two weeks before Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, that at a meeting with President Roosevelt and his cabinet that morning at the White House, President Roosevelt told those present that he wished to be at war against Japan but that he “did not want it to appear that the United States fired the first shot.”
Zionist Conspirators Provoke Pearl Harbor Incident
President Roosevelt knowingly provoked Japan to attack the United States. President Roosevelt advised Japan they could purchase no more steel scrap or oil from the United States.
Japan was in the midst of a war against China. Without scrap steel and without oil Japan would be unable to continue that war. Japan was totally dependent upon the United States for both steel scrap and oil. Professor Charles Callan Tansill, professor of diplomatic history at Georgetown University in Washington, wrote a classic work he called Back Door to War, published by Henry Regnery of Chicago in 1952.
Professor Tansill spent five years after the war in the confidential files of the State Department doing research there on World War II. Professor Tansill’s book has 652 pages all filled with alarming authenticated facts little known to the public during the war.
In a scholarly detailed manner easily understood, Professor Tansill supplies facts which are incontrovertible proof showing how President Roosevelt railroaded the United States into World War II in Europe. President Roosevelt’s desire to please Talmudists among his friends, influenced his better judgment. He overlooked that he was president of all the people of the United States.
President Roosevelt realized if he expected political support by Talmudists in the United States to continue he must find some way to railroad the United States into the war then in progress in Europe against Germany. Surely nobody can any longer question that railroading the United States into World War II was President Roosevelts contribution to the desperate predicament in which the United States today funds itself in the Middle East.
President Harry S. Truman made his great contribution to the desperate predicament in which the United States today funds itself in the Middle East when he recognized as a sovereign state an armed uprising in Palestine by 800,000 armed aliens transplanted into Palestine in a conspiracy organized by Talmudists throughout the world.
President Truman in 1946 suffered from a pathological obsession that he must be elected president of the United States in 1948 on his own account.
Mr. Clarke M. Clifford, Secretary of War under President Lyndon B. Johnson, deserves a great deal of credit for the recognition of the State of Israel on May 14, 1948, by the United States. Mr. Eliahu Epstein, the United States representative of the Jewish Agency in Washington in 1948, told the story in his three-page article in the Jewish Chronicle of London in its 10th anniversary issue of June 1958 celebrating the 10th anniversary of the founding of the State of Israel.
Mr. Clifford undoubtedly was anxious to help because President Truman had confided in his close friends that he wished to recognize the Zionist state in the “first hour of its birth” as he did. The State of Israel was officially “proclaimed” in Tel Aviv at midnight on May 14, 1948.
President Truman recognized the birth of the State of Isreal eleven minutes after midnight. President Truman finally advised this author that he did not wish to carry on the discussion of the Zionist question with him any further.
He wrote to this author that he had turned over the entire Palestine question to “the Hon. David Niles.”
Talmudists were willing to carry out their part of their bargain with President Truman after he recognized the State of Israel.
Although the odds in President Truman’s election in 1948 were 20 to 1 against his election, President Truman romped home the winner over Governor Dewey assisted by the invisible and invincible Zionist political steam-roller that always elects their candidates.
President Truman not only used the power and prestige of the United States to compel the United Nations to admit the State of Israel as a peace-loving nation, the regime of an armed uprising in Palestine by transplanted aliens, but he made billions of United States taxpayers dollars available to Talmudists to make the State of Israel powerful.
When the day to vote for the admission of the State of Iseral arrived they were short two votes. The plan was about to collapse. In the emergency, Mr Charles H. Silver engaged Cardinal Spellman to make two trips to South America to change their votes in the United Nations against the admission of the State of Israel into the United Nation to vote in favor of the admission of the State of Israel into the United Nations as a member.
The newspapers around the world on June 11, 1964, published Mr. Silver’s “confession” of a “secret I have kept for fifteen years.” The “secret” Cardinal Spellman kept with Mr. Silver was that Cardinal Spellman was sent to South America by Mr. Silver on behalf of the Talmudists in New York to “persuade” the South American countries to change their votes against admitting the State of Israel to the United Nations to vote in favor of admitting the State of Israel to the United Nations as a member.
This author was a close personal friend of Cardinal Spellman for twenty-five years. Cardinal Spellman “confessed” to this author several years ago that he felt he had committed an irreparable sin by conspiring with the Talmudists in the United States to elect the State of Israel a member of the United Nations.
In the midst of that bloody fighting in the Middle East in June 1967, Cardinal Spellman told this author when alone with him in his study that he felt personally responsible for all the lives lost in the 1967 invasion of the United Arab Republic and Syria by the State of Israel.
H.J. 117 a Talmudic Creation – Eisenhower Steps in Line
The story of how President Dwight D. Eisenhower lied the United States into the desperate predicament in which the United States today finds itself in the Middle East is not a complicated story.
Talmudists m the United States pressured President Eisenhower into sponsoring Joint Resolution by Congress of H J Res. 117, on January 5, 1950, which was then refined by Congress to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
President Eisenhower knew less about what he was doing than a new born babe. It was pitiful for this author to witness a great general being figuratively pushed around by Talmudists unfit to shine his shoes.
President Eisenhower was always friendly towards this author. This author met President Eisenhower when he was being considered by Mr. Thomas M. Watson, Sr., as a presidential candidate on the Democratic ticket.
Mr. Watson was the founder of the International Business Machines Company. He told this author at that time that he believed General Eisenhower as a Civilian would make a great president.
As president of the United States, General Eisenhower was faithful to these Talmudist supporters whose friendship he first cultivated in Europe during his political activities in Germany after the end of World War 11.
Talmudists curried his favor after World War 11. They knew that as president of the United States, General Eisenhower in their hands would be like clay in the hands of the potter. In 1956 it appeared that Middle East countries were undergoing changes in their governments.
The Zionist illegal occupation of Palestine still existed. Populations in Middle East countries were growing restless. Talmudists recognized something must be done to silence the unrest. President Eisenhower then obliged the Talmudists. Lebanon is the heart of Middle East political activity.
To nip action in the bud, by native populations aiming to assert their independence from domination by Talmudists, Talmudists arranged with President Eisenhower to occupy Lebanon with fourteen thousand (14,000) troops and to station the Sixth Fleet off the coast To make it legal, Talmudists had Congress pass a Joint resolution like the Tonkin Bay Resolution passed by Congress to legalize the war in Vietnam.
President Eisenhower Performs Fulfillment of Zionist Demands in Middle East
President Eisenhower occupied Lebanon with fourteen thousand (14,000) United States troops and stationed the sixth Fleet off the Lebanon coast.
President Eisenhower was warning the Middle East nations not to attempt to regain Palestine from the Zionists in illegal possession of Palestine. President Eisenhower must have had a consortium of the smartest Talmudists the state defense and justice departments prepare that joint resolution.
The intent of that unclear language is to conceal the purpose of the joint Resolution not to explain its purpose. The purpose was to have a joint resolution in record that would permit President Eisenhower to use the United States armed forces and navy to aid and abet the Zionist thieves to hold onto their stolen loot without any necessity to ask Congress to declare war.
Every word President Eisenhower uttered to defend the crooks in occupation of Palestine was a lie which contributed to the desperate predicament in which the United States today finds itself in the Middle East.
Talmudists in the United States were able to camouflage their illegal aggression in the Middle East behind the glamour of President Eisenhower’s record as a great soldier. The story of how President John F. Kennedy lied the United States into the desperate predicament in which the United States today finds itself in the Middle East is very distressing.
President Kennedy’s future was uncertain after digressing on August 25, 1960, from the straight and narrow path he had followed all his life. President Kennedy could not escape the consequences of his betrayal of the high principles to which he aimed to dedicate his life.
President Kennedy surrendered to the lure of Talmudists who pledged to put him in the White House as the president of the United States. On August 23 1960, in the United States Senate office building in Washington President Kennedy, at that time a senator, gave this author a copy of the address he was to deliver in New York City on August 25, 1960.
In the copy of that address he stated among other things: “Israel…three weeks ago I said in a public statement ‘Israel is here to stay…my flat prediction that Israel is here to stay…will endure and flourish…a special obligation on the Democratic Party…it was President Truman who first recognized the new State of Israel and gave it status in world affairs…may I and…my hope and my pledge to continue the democratic tradition…if the Democratic platform is to have any meaning…the White House must take the lead…American intervention.. will not now be easy…I propose that we make it crystal clear…we will act promptly and decisively…I propose that we make it clear…our guarantee that we will act with whatever force and speed are necessary..the risk of war…”
President (Senator) Kennedy was giving Talmudists his pledge that as the president of the United States he would send sons, husbands and brothers of the grass roots population of the United States to fight in Palestine under the flag of the United States in a war in Palestine to help crooks hold onto stolen loot, to aid and abet thieves retain possession of their stolen plunder.
This author met President Kennedy for the first time in his father’s office at 230 Park Avenue, in New York City, on the day after he was elected for the first time as a Congressman in November 1946.
This author was in a conference with Ambassador Joseph Kennedy and Judge Landis, an associate of Ambassador Kennedy. In his private office they were consulting this author on the Middle East situation which had recently taken an ugly turn in the United Nations.
President John Kennedy Pledges Zionists He Will Act in Their Favor Even at the Risk of War
Ambassador Kennedy discussed the subject matter for a short while with those present. The Congressman then asked to leave as he was catching a train for Washington.
This author invited the Congressman to lunch and he accepted. After lunch Congress Kennedy asked if this author had nothing else to do than ride to Washington with him on the train.
This author was willing and rode to Washington with him. From that day in November 1946 to August 23, 1960, this author saw the Congressman, and the Senator, countless times in his office in Washington and New York City.
This author was happy to enlighten Senator Kennedy on the Palestine question. Without a doubt there were soon few people in the world who were better informed on this subject than Senator Kennedy.
In the fourteen years this author had the honor of enjoying the confidence of President Kennedy he never failed to express his appreciation for this author’s interest in his career.
President Kennedy also appreciated the friendship this author demonstrated for his father, Ambassador Kennedy. Ambassador Kennedy was blackmailed by President Roosevelt. President Roosevelt told Ambassador Kennedy not to write the book he planned to write.
President Roosevelt removed Ambassador Kennedy as Ambassador to the Court of St. James in London for circulating what Neville Chamberlain told Ambassador Kennedy in London in 1938.
The Senior Kennedy Liquidated Politically by Franklin Roosevelt for Reporting Talmudic Conspiracy
Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler
Ambassador Kennedy reported to Washington in 1938 that Neville Chamberlain told him that the United States and Talmudists throughout the world forced Great Britain into the Second World War.
Chamberlain also told Ambassador Kennedy in 1938 that Great Britain had nothing with which to fight Germany, that Great Britain should not risk going to war against Germany.
Chamberlain complained to Ambassador Kennedy that United States Ambassador to France William C. Bullit in 1938 was urging President Roosevelt that Germany must be “faced down” in their attitude towards Poland in the Danzig Corridor matter.
President Roosevelt recalled Ambassador Kennedy to silence him. Ambassador Kennedy planned to return to the United States to write a book telling what he knew that he thought the grass roots population of the United States should be told. President Roosevelt sent for Ambassador Kennedy upon his return to the United States to come to Washington to see him.
President Roosevelt told Ambassador Kennedy that he had heard that he was planning to write a book which he asked him not to do. After Ambassador Kennedy’s unpleasant meeting with President Roosevelt in Washington after his recall from London for daring to circulate what Chamberlain had told him about Talmudists, his ambition in life was to see one of his sons in the White House as president of the United States.
The story of how President Lyndon Baines Johnson lied the United States into the desperate predicament in which the United States today finds itself in the Middle East is not a long story.
It commences with a telephone call to this author in New York from Congressman Ed Gosset in Washington to come there at once. Congressman Gosset represented Amarillo, Texas, in the House of Representatives.
Congressman Gosset was alarmed that the Senate Armed Services Committee the day before confirmed the appointment of Anna M. Rosenberg as Assistant Secretary of Defense without a public hearing. The only witness who appeared to testify concerning Anna Rosenberg’s fitness to serve as Assistant Secretary of Defense was Ann Rosenberg herself.
That by itself aroused suspicion among the country’s leaders. Congress Gosset took this author to Senator Johnson’s office and explained to him the reason for the visit. Senator Johnson was a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee which had confirmed Anna Rosenberg’s appointment the previous day.
Senator Johnson was very much interested in learning about Anna Rosenberg’s associations with communists. Senator Johnson asked this author if he would assist him in looking into the matter further by producing a communist who knew Anna Rosenberg. Upon this author’s return to New York that day, he mentioned Senator Johnson’s request to his attorney, Mr. Hallam Richardson.
Within a few hours, Mr. Richardson produced Mr. Ralph de Sola, a prominent communist, the head of film photography of documents by communist Organizations in the United States. After Anna Rosenberg’s confirmation by the Senate Armed Services Committee was withdrawn, another hearing was held to confirm her second appointment.
Anna Rosenberg testified she was born m Hungary and came to the United States in 1912 at the age of eleven years. The second hearing brought out some interesting facts – it confirmed her extended appointment for four years. In this author’s meetings with Senator Johnson, this author had occasion to discuss the Palestine question with him.
Senator Johnson was very interested in the Palestine question. That subject was of great interest to the Senate Armed Services Committee. The occupation of Palestine by the Zionists concerned the Armed Services Committee.
Lyndon Johnson Master-Minded Six Day War
Senator Johnson was vice-president before the death of President Kennedy elevated him. He then became president of the United States. As president of the United States, Johnson was aware of the possibility of armed conflict in the Middle East in which the United States might become involved.
President Johnson understood the power Talmudists exerted in the United States and in the United Nations. One of his closest friends in Washington was Mr. Abe Fortas, a prominent Zionist, whom President Johnson appointed to the Supreme Court.
President Johnson knew he was violating the letter and spirit of his oath of office as the president of all the people of the United States when he filled the pipe lines of the State of Israel with munitions of war paid for with the money of Christian taxpayers in the United States.
President Johnson cannot plead ignorance of the facts. Though a very close mutual friend, this author kept President Johnson constantly informed on developments in the Middle East.
President Johnson will be the first to admit he lied the United States into the desperate predicament in which the United States today finds itself in the Middle East if he will glance at the promises, pledges and predictions he made to Talmudists in the United States while he occupied the White House as president of the United States.
President Johnson now seeks to justify his generosity with United States taxpayers’ money by referring to a “commitment.” President Johnson knows that he is in error. The only commitment the taxpayers in the United States recognize is President Johnson’s commitment to serve the best interests of the grass roots population of the United States.
According to the Pentagon Papers he was not very successful in that respect. President Johnson does not display mature judgment when he squanders billions of the taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars to aid and abet crooks to hold onto their stolen loot, their stolen plunder.
President Johnson would feel differently if the Soviet Union financed an invasion of Texas by Mexicans who expelled Texans from their homes with only shirts on their backs to survive in refugee camps in the deserts of Arizona and New Mexico on six cents a day for food provided by the United Nations.
Mexicans have a more legitimate claim to the territory called Texas today than the eastern European Talmudists ever had to Palestine.
What would President Johnson’s attitude have been if the Soviet Union contributed thirty-two billion dollars ($32,000,000,000.00) to go towards entrenching these Mexican invaders in Texas, and then supplying the Mexican invaders with sophisticated military hardware to threaten the other forty-nine United States if they interfered with the illegal possession of Texas by the Mexican invaders in illegal occupation of Texas, without having paid one cent to the lawful landowners for a square foot of Texas.
The story how President Nixon lied the United States into the desperate predicament in which the United States today finds itself is of great interest to the grass roots population of the United States every time President Nixon grants the Zionists, in illegal occupation of Palestine, another five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000.00) of United States taxpayers’ money.
Is President Nixon serving two masters? President Nixon is as guilty as the other six masters of deception who lied the United States into the desperate predicament in which the United States today finds itself in the Middle East. President Nixon is both an eminent lawyer and President of the United States.
President Nixon cannot produce any evidence of a legitimate “commitment” to anyone to support President Nixon’s generous use of United States taxpayers’ money for financing the permanent possession by thieves of their stolen loot. Does President Nixon mean the “commitment” by political leaders to the Talmudists in the United States who control the media for mass information?
President Nixon belittles himself as well as the United States Administration for whom he speaks when he talks about a “commitment” of the United States to underwrite the perpetual possession of the illegal and immoral theft of Palestine by Talmudists.
President Nixon’s generosity has reached epidemic proportions. Each of the additional five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000.00) of United States taxpayers’ money he donates to the so-called State of Israel is that many more nails in the coffin of the United States.
These seven masters of deception mock the elementary and equitable principles upon which the United States was founded when they throw hard-earned United States taxpayers’ dollars by the billions to criminals in possession of their stolen loot as if it were stage money. Have they no shame or conscience?
When there were civil wars recently in the Congo, in Nagana, in Pakistan and other countries in this century, did the United States “recognize” the populations as independent indigenous populations who planned to secede and form their sovereign independent states?
Then why recognize transplanted alien invaders financed by Talmudists? If these seven masters of deception reflected the honorable attitude the United States should exhibit, they would not traffic with thieves, murderers, and scoundrels as they are doing with the hooligans from the State of lsrael.
The United States refused to “recognize” the independence of Katanga, of Biafra, of East Pakistan, of Quebec and of total Ireland, but they rushed to “recognize” the hooligans of an armed Palestine uprising by transplanted aliens as a legitimate sovereign state. What next?
Talmudic Hidden Hand Controls the U.S. Vote in the United Nations
The one hundred and twenty-five other members of the United Nations know that the United States was as crooked as a cork screw to recognize the so-called State of Israel as a lawful representative government of the indigenous population.
The other nations of the world all know by this time that Talmudists elect the presidents of the United States and members of Congress. If these Talmudists in the United States were paupers, they could not elect a dog catcher in the United States. How rotten can the political system in the United States get before it drops into the lap of a more honorable nation like a rotten piece of fruit falls from a tree?
Rothschild Conspiracy Fulfilled
The so-called State of Israel is positive that the United States must at the request of the State of Israel veto any resolution introduced in the Security Council to expel the so-called State of Israel.
Consequently, this so-called State of Israel feels as smug as a bug in a rug regardless of what they do. The Talmudists control the delegation in the United States. Nobody but a fool or an ignoramus doubts that today.
The Talmudists always instruct the delegates of the United States how to vote in the Security Council. If a resolution is ever introduced to expel the so-called State of Israel, the United States must veto the resolution.
The grass roots population of the United States deserves to know the truth about the Middle East crisis. They will pay with their lives unless they soon acquire a better understanding about why the Middle East crisis exists. The United States finds it convenient to blame everything that goes wrong anywhere in the world on Communism.
Communism provides a convenient whipping boy for politicians. The arch villains behind the world’s difficulties are the Rothschilds. For the moment, this author will only deal with the Rothschilds interest in the subject matter of this article, the Middle East desperate predicament of the world.
This author can speak with confidence on this subject as his knowledge was obtained first hand from members of the Rothschild dynasty in London, New York and elsewhere. The extent of the Rothschild wealth cannot be estimated with any degree of certainty.
A conservative guess of the total value of the Rothschild fortunes would be billions of dollars, if that amount can be imagined. The important thing is the major portion of this wealth is in the Far East. The Rothschild interest in Europe, and the Western Hemisphere, are tremendous.
However, in comparison to their wealth in the Far East, it is significant. A most vital single thing in the world to the Rothschild dynasty is access to the Far East. Access to the Far East through the Mediterranean is know as Great Britain’s lifeline.
The Rothschild dynasty had plunged Great Britain into many wars only to preserve their lifeline to the Far East. History tells that story. The Suez Canal was not constructed by the Rothschilds. They did their utmost to prevent its construction.
The Suez Canal was constructed by the Frenchman, de Lesseps, and the Khedive of Egypt. The Rothschilds refused to invest one cent of their money in the company which obtained the concession to construct the Suez Canal. The Suez Canal was completed in 1869.
It, from the very start, proved a great success. The Rothschilds swindled a forty percent (40%) interest in the Suez Canal Company from the Khedive of Egypt. They found a forty percent (40%) interest insufficient for their purpose as the value of the Suez Canal had been demonstrated after it was in use two years.
The Rothschilds decided they must control their lifeline to their fortune in the Far East. Without justification or provocation of any description, the Rothschilds had Great Britain occupy Egypt exactly as a defeated power is occupied by the victor. The British ran the schools, the banks, the railroads, the courts, and Egypt ceased to be Egypt except in name.
Naturally, the Suez Canal came under complete control of Great Britain. The original concession for the Suez Canal was for ninety-nine years. The more important the Suez Canal became to the Rothschilds, the more the Rothschilds worried what was going to happen when the ninety-nine year concession for the Suez Canal expired in 1969 and reverted to Egypt as the concession provided.
Great Britain spent large fortunes and spilled much blood in many wars to maintain uninterrupted and undisturbed possession of the Suez Canal. The Rothschilds knew that Egypt would be free to grant a new concession for the Suez Canal to a power unfriendly to Great Britain, like France, Germany or Russia, when the concession expired.
The Rothschilds feared the consequences should the Suez Canal fall into the hands of an unfriendly power and Great Britain had many powers in mind who could make good use of the Suez Canal politically also against the British Empire.
Rothschild Fortune Risked Collapse Without Middle East Controls Under Zionist Supervision
The Rothschild dynasty’s fortune and Great Britain’s authority would diminish in the Far East if Great Britain no longer controlled the Suez Canal. Looking ahead, the Rothschilds planned their future without the Suez Canal.
The First World War ended in l9l8 and the Rothschilds had their plan ready. Their plan was very simple. Under the October 1916 London Agreement, Great Britain planned to turn over Palestine to the Zionists after the war.
The eastern European Talmudists had no money. Without money Palestine was a headache to the Zionists. The Rothschilds in London promised the Zionists unlimited financial assistance with which to develop Palestine, but on one condition – that as soon as Palestine was turned over to the Zionists, they apply for admission to the British Empire as a member.
The Rothschilds planned to construct a canal in Palestine from Ashkelon on the Mediterranean to Aqaba on the Gulf of Aqaba. They planned to construct a modern steel and concrete canal with two lanes for ships.
The canal would be on British territory in perpetuity enjoying the advantages of defense by Great Britain if needed and international recognition as a member of the British Empire. Great Britain occupied Palestine from 1921 to 1948 as the Mandatory of the League of Nations.
During that period the British Empire fell apart. By the time the Zionists established a Zionist state in Palestine, the British Empire had fallen apart and no longer existed. Palestine under the Zionists could not apply for admission to the British Empire. There was no British Empire.
When the Rothschilds realized what was happening, they were compelled to alter their plans. The Rothschilds were determined that Great Britain must turn over Palestine to the Zionists for a sovereign Zionist state.
The idea of a United Nations was then a reality and the Rothschilds planned upon getting the sovereign Zionist state admitted to the United Nations. The United Nations would provide Palestine with the same advantages that the British Empire would have provided once upon a time.
If the sovereign Zionist state could be admitted to the United Nations, Palestine’s future was assured. Rothschilds did not know what to do. Then in October 1916, the World Zionist Organization entered the picture.
When Great Britain was considering surrender to Germany, the World Zionist Organization and the British War Cabinet entered into the October 1916 London Agreement. The Rothschild dynasty was astonished when, on April 6, 1917, the United States declared war against Germany.
By July 1917 it appeared that Germany would be defeated after the entry of the United States into the war. The Rothschild dynasty sought out Mr. Chaim Weizmann and cultivated his friendship. The Rothschilds realized that the World Zionist Organization must be recognized.
The Rothschilds purchased a Prince Albert frock coat and a silk hat for Chaim Weizmann and treated him as though he was already the head of the government of Palestine, which he eventually became.
The Rothschilds renewed their interest in the plan to finance the Zionist movement in Palestine in exchange for the concession to construct their modem canal across Palestine in competition with the Suez Canal.
Great Britain was certain to defeat Germany. Great Britain had agreed to turn over Palestine to the Talmudists of the world for railroading the United States into the war in Europe as Great Britain’s ally.
The only link missing now was the existence in Palestine of an independent sovereign Zionist state.
The Rothschilds financed transplanting 600,000 eastern European Talmudists into Palestine and arranged to remove the last of General Allenby’s 200,000 British troops from Palestine.
In collaboration with President Truman in the United States the armed 600,000 transplanted alien Talmudists on May 18, 1948, began their expulsion from Palestine of the Christian and Moslem disarmed and defenseless 1,350,000 population and at the same time declared their armed uprising the State of Israel. The Rothschilds were now satisfied.
The only unfinished business was to force the Middle East nations to recognize the State of Israel. The Rothschilds commenced their final stage by building the present oil pipeline from Ashkelon on the Mediterranean to Aqaba, along the route of their future modern long-planned steel and concrete two-lane canal.
The Middle East situation is the result of the Rothschild efforts to secure permanent and secure access to the Far East. This nonsense about the “repatriation” of “Gods chosen people” to “their promised land” has been revealed the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind.
The single purpose of the Rothschilds was to secure permanent and secure access to their vast natural resources in the Far East. This author has had the patience and the time to inform seven presidents of the United States about the underlying reason for the Middle East aggression by the Talmudist throughout the world.
These seven masters of deception were all briefed by this author on the reason for the aggression in Palestine.
This author spent a small fortune acquainting members of Congress and political and industrial leaders in the United States with all these facts, supplying them with photostat reproductions of documentary evidence to support every statement made by this author.
It cries out to heaven that this country and the world has been put to the expense of billions of billions of dollars to see the Rothschilds have secure and permanent access to their unlimited wealth in the Far East.
If the Talmudists of the world say they are willing to see another world war fought to establish “God’s chosen people” in “their promised land” to rule the world from Palestine, then it is time to tell the grass roots of the United States population what all the excitement is about.
This issue must be dragged into the light for the grass roots of the population of the United States to see why they are expected to die in an unnecessary war with a smile on their face.
Benjamin Harrison Freedman [Friedman] was one of the most intriguing and amazing individuals of the 20th century. Born in 1890, he was a successful Jewish businessman of New York City at one time principal owner of the Woodbury Soap Company. He broke with organized Jewry after the Judeo-Communist victory of 1945, and spent the remainder of his life and the great preponderance of his considerable fortune, at least 2.5 million dollars, exposing the Jewish tyranny which has enveloped the United States.
Mr. Freedman knew what he was talking about because he had been an insider at the highest levels of Jewish organizations and Jewish machinations to gain power over our nation. Mr. Freedman was personally acquainted with Bernard Baruch, Samuel Untermyer, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Kennedy, John F. Kennedy, and many more movers and shakers of our times.
The Willard Hotel, Washington, D.C., speech was given before a patriotic, Christian audience (NOT before “Nazis” as some have suggested) in 1961 on behalf of Conde McGinley’s patriotic newspaper of that time, Common Sense.
Though in some minor ways this wide-ranging and extemporaneous speech has become dated, Mr. Freedman’s essential message to us — his warning to the West — is more urgent than ever before.
40 Minute Excerpt If you don’t want to listen to the entire speech, here is the most important 40 minute section. (5.6M MP3)
Here in the United States, the Zionists and their co-religionists have complete control of our government. For many reasons, too many and too complex to go into here at this time, the Zionists and their co-religionists rule these United States as though they were the absolute monarchs of this country. Now you may say that is a very broad statement, but let me show you what happened while we were all asleep.
What happened? World War I broke out in the summer of 1914. There are few people here my age who remember that. Now that war was waged on one side by Great Britain, France, and Russia; and on the other side by Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey.
Within two years Germany had won that war: not only won it nominally, but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean. Great Britain stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, with one week’s food supply — and after that, starvation. At that time, the French army had mutinied. They had lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting, they were picking up their toys and going home, they didn’t want to play war anymore, they didn’t like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed.
Not a shot had been fired on German soil. Not one enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany. And yet, Germany was offering England peace terms. They offered England a negotiated peace on what the lawyers call a status quo ante basis. That means: “Let’s call the war off, and let everything be as it was before the war started.” England, in the summer of 1916 was considering that — seriously. They had no choice. It was either accepting this negotiated peace that Germany was magnanimously offering them, or going on with the war and being totally defeated.
While that was going on, the Zionists in Germany, who represented the Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet and — I am going to be brief because it’s a long story, but I have all the documents to prove any statement that I make — they said: “Look here. You can yet win this war. You don’t have to give up. You don’t have to accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany. You can win this war if the United States will come in as your ally.” The United States was not in the war at that time. We were fresh; we were young; we were rich; we were powerful. They told England: “We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war.” In other words, they made this deal: “We will get the United States into this war as your ally. The price you must pay is Palestine after you have won the war and defeated Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey.” Now England had as much right to promise Palestine to anybody, as the United States would have to promise Japan to Ireland for any reason whatsoever. It’s absolutely absurd that Great Britain, that never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is known as Palestine should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the Zionists for bringing the United States into the war. However, they did make that promise, in October of 1916. And shortly after that — I don’t know how many here remember it — the United States, which was almost totally pro-German, entered the war as Britain’s ally.
I say that the United States was almost totally pro-German because the newspapers here were controlled by Jews, the bankers were Jews, all the media of mass communications in this country were controlled by Jews; and they, the Jews, were pro-German. They were pro-German because many of them had come from Germany, and also they wanted to see Germany lick the Czar. The Jews didn’t like the Czar, and they didn’t want Russia to win this war. These German-Jew bankers, like Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar. They stood aside and they said: “As long as France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!” But they poured money into Germany, they fought beside Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime.
Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting Palestine, went to England and they made this deal. At that time, everything changed, like a traffic light that changes from red to green. Where the newspapers had been all pro-German, where they’d been telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, all of a sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains. They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting off babies’ hands. They were no good. Shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany.
The Zionists in London had sent cables to the United States, to Justice Brandeis, saying “Go to work on President Wilson. We’re getting from England what we want. Now you go to work on President Wilson and get the United States into the war.” That’s how the United States got into the war. We had no more interest in it; we had no more right to be in it than we have to be on the moon tonight instead of in this room.
There was absolutely no reason for World War I to be our war. We were railroaded into — if I can be vulgar, we were suckered into — that war merely so that the Zionists of the world could obtain Palestine. That is something that the people of the United States have never been told. They never knew why we went into World War I.
After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they said: “Well, we performed our part of the agreement. Let’s have something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war.” They didn’t know whether the war would last another year or another ten years. So they started to work out a receipt. The receipt took the form of a letter, which was worded in very cryptic language so that the world at large wouldn’t know what it was all about. And that was called the Balfour Declaration.
The Balfour Declaration was merely Great Britain’s promise to pay the Zionists what they had agreed upon as a consideration for getting the United States into the war. So this great Balfour Declaration, that you hear so much about, is just as phony as a three dollar bill. I don’t think I could make it more emphatic than that.
That is where all the trouble started. The United States got in the war. The United States crushed Germany. You know what happened. When the war ended, and the Germans went to Paris for the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought to know. Now what happened? The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these nations who claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, said, “How about Palestine for us?” And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration. So the Germans, for the first time realized, “Oh, so that was the game! That’s why the United States came into the war.” The Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered the terrific reparations that were slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and were determined to get it at any cost.
That brings us to another very interesting point. When the Germans realized this, they naturally resented it. Up to that time, the Jews had never been better off in any country in the world than they had been in Germany. You had Mr. Rathenau there, who was maybe 100 times as important in industry and finance as is Bernard Baruch in this country. You had Mr. Balin, who owned the two big steamship lines, the North German Lloyd’s and the Hamburg-American Lines. You had Mr. Bleichroder, who was the banker for the Hohenzollern family. You had the Warburgs in Hamburg, who were the big merchant bankers — the biggest in the world. The Jews were doing very well in Germany. No question about that. The Germans felt: “Well, that was quite a sellout.”
It was a sellout that might be compared to this hypothetical situation: Suppose the United States was at war with the Soviet Union. And we were winning. And we told the Soviet Union: “Well, let’s quit. We offer you peace terms. Let’s forget the whole thing.” And all of a sudden Red China came into the war as an ally of the Soviet Union. And throwing them into the war brought about our defeat. A crushing defeat, with reparations the likes of which man’s imagination cannot encompass. Imagine, then, after that defeat, if we found out that it was the Chinese in this country, our Chinese citizens, who all the time we had thought were loyal citizens working with us, were selling us out to the Soviet Union and that it was through them that Red China was brought into the war against us. How would we feel, then, in the United States against Chinese? I don’t think that one of them would dare show his face on any street. There wouldn’t be enough convenient lampposts to take care of them. Imagine how we would feel.
Well, that’s how the Germans felt towards these Jews. They’d been so nice to them: from 1905 on, when the first Communist revolution in Russia failed, and the Jews had to scramble out of Russia, they all went to Germany. And Germany gave them refuge. And they were treated very nicely. And here they had sold Germany down the river for no reason at all other than the fact that they wanted Palestine as a so-called “Jewish commonwealth.”
Now Nahum Sokolow, and all the great leaders and great names that you read about in connection with Zionism today, in 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, and 1923 wrote in all their papers — and the press was filled with their statements — that the feeling against the Jews in Germany is due to the fact that they realized that this great defeat was brought about by Jewish intercession in bringing the United States into the war. The Jews themselves admitted that. It wasn’t that the Germans in 1919 discovered that a glass of Jewish blood tasted better than Coca-Cola or Muenschner Beer. There was no religious feeling. There was no sentiment against those people merely on account of their religious belief. It was all political. It was economic. It was anything but religious. Nobody cared in Germany whether a Jew went home and pulled down the shades and said “Shema’ Yisroel” or “Our Father.” Nobody cared in Germany any more than they do in the United States. Now this feeling that developed later in Germany was due to one thing: the Germans held the Jews responsible for their crushing defeat.
And World War I had been started against Germany for no reason for which Germany was responsible. They were guilty of nothing. Only of being successful. They built up a big navy. They built up world trade. You must remember that Germany at the time of the French Revolution consisted of 300 small city-states, principalities, dukedoms, and so forth. Three hundred separate little political entities. And between that time, between the times of Napoleon and Bismarck, they were consolidated into one state. And within 50 years they became one of the world’s great powers. Their navy was rivaling Great Britain’s, they were doing business all over the world, they could undersell anybody, they could make better products. What happened as a result of that?
There was a conspiracy between England, France, and Russia to slap down Germany. There isn’t one historian in the world who can find a valid reason why those three countries decided to wipe Germany off the map politically.
When Germany realized that the Jews were responsible for her defeat, they naturally resented it. But not a hair on the head of any Jew was harmed. Not a single hair. Professor Tansill, of Georgetown University, who had access to all the secret papers of the State Department, wrote in his book, and quoted from a State Department document written by Hugo Schoenfelt, a Jew whom Cordell Hull sent to Europe in 1933 to investigate the so-called camps of political prisoners, who wrote back that he found them in very fine condition. They were in excellent shape, with everybody treated well. And they were filled with Communists. Well, a lot of them were Jews, because the Jews happened to comprise about 98 per cent of the Communists in Europe at that time. And there were some priests there, and ministers, and labor leaders, and Masons, and others who had international affiliations.
Some background is in order: In 1918-1919 the Communists took over Bavaria for a few days. Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht and a group of other Jews took over the government for three days. In fact, when the Kaiser ended the war he fled to Holland because he thought the Communists were going to take over Germany as they did Russia and that he was going to meet the same fate as the Czar. So he fled to Holland for safety, for security. After the Communist threat in Germany was quashed, the Jews were still working, trying to get back into their former status, and the Germans fought them in every way they could without hurting a single hair on anyone’s head. They fought them the same way that, in this country, the Prohibitionists fought anyone who was interested in liquor. They didn’t fight one another with pistols. Well, that’s the way they were fighting the Jews in Germany. And at that time, mind you, there were 80 to 90 million Germans, and there were only 460,000 Jews. About one half of one per cent of the population of Germany were Jews. And yet they controlled all the press, and they controlled most of the economy because they had come in with cheap money when the mark was devalued and bought up practically everything.
The Jews tried to keep a lid on this fact. They didn’t want the world to really understand that they had sold out Germany, and that the Germans resented that.
The Germans took appropriate action against the Jews. They, shall I say, discriminated against them wherever they could. They shunned them. The same way that we would shun the Chinese, or the Negroes, or the Catholics, or anyone in this country who had sold us out to an enemy and brought about our defeat.
After a while, the Jews of the world called a meeting in Amsterdam. Jews from every country in the world attended this meeting in July 1933. And they said to Germany: “You fire Hitler, and you put every Jew back into his former position, whether he was a Communist or no matter what he was. You can’t treat us that way. And we, the Jews of the world, are serving an ultimatum upon you.” You can imagine what the Germans told them. So what did the Jews do?
Samuel UntermeyerIn 1933, when Germany refused to surrender to the world conference of Jews in Amsterdam, the conference broke up, and Mr. Samuel Untermyer, who was the head of the American delegation and the president of the whole conference, came to the United States and went from the steamer to the studios of the Columbia Broadcasting System and made a radio broadcast throughout the United States in which he in effect said, “The Jews of the world now declare a Holy War against Germany. We are now engaged in a sacred conflict against the Germans. And we are going to starve them into surrender. We are going to use a world-wide boycott against them. That will destroy them because they are dependent upon their export business.” And it is a fact that two thirds of Germany’s food supply had to be imported, and it could only be imported with the proceeds of what they exported. So if Germany could not export, two thirds of Germany’s population would have to starve. There was just not enough food for more than one third of the population. Now in this declaration, which I have here, and which was printed in the New York Times on August 7, 1933, Mr. Samuel Untermyer boldly stated that “this economic boycott is our means of self-defense. President Roosevelt has advocated its use in the National Recovery Administration,” which some of you may remember, where everybody was to be boycotted unless he followed the rules laid down by the New Deal, and which was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of that time. Nevertheless, the Jews of the world declared a boycott against Germany, and it was so effective that you couldn’t find one thing in any store anywhere in the world with the words “made in Germany” on it. In fact, an executive of the Woolworth Company told me that they had to dump millions of dollars worth of crockery and dishes into the river; that their stores were boycotted if anyone came in and found a dish marked “made in Germany,” they were picketed with signs saying “Hitler,” “murderer,” and so forth, something like these sit-ins that are taking place in the South. At a store belonging to the R. H. Macy chain, which was controlled by a family called Strauss who also happen to be Jews, a woman found stockings there which came from Chemnitz, marked “made in Germany.” Well, they were cotton stockings and they may have been there 20 years, since I’ve been observing women’s legs for many years and it’s been a long time since I’ve seen any cotton stockings on them. I saw Macy’s boycotted, with hundreds of people walking around with signs saying “murderers,” “Hitlerites,” and so forth. Now up to that time, not one hair [on the head] of any Jew had been hurt in Germany. There was no suffering, there was no starvation, there was no murder, there was nothing.
Naturally, the Germans said, “Who are these people to declare a boycott against us and throw all our people out of work, and make our industries come to a standstill? Who are they to do that to us?” They naturally resented it. Certainly they painted swastikas on stores owned by Jews. Why should a German go in and give his money to a storekeeper who was part of a boycott that was going to starve Germany into surrendering to the Jews of the world, who were going to dictate who their premier or chancellor was to be? Well, it was ridiculous.
The boycott continued for some time, but it wasn’t until 1938, when a young Jew from Poland walked into the German embassy in Paris and shot a German official, that the Germans really started to get rough with the Jews in Germany. And you found them then breaking windows and having street fights and so forth.
Now I don’t like to use the word “anti-Semitism” because it’s meaningless, but it means something to you still, so I’ll have to use it. The only reason that there was any feeling in Germany against Jews was that they were responsible for World War I and for this world-wide boycott. Ultimately they were also responsible for World War II, because after this thing got out of hand, it was absolutely necessary for the Jews and Germany to lock horns in a war to see which one was going to survive. In the meanwhile, I had lived in Germany, and I knew that the Germans had decided that Europe is going to be Christian or Communist: there is no in between. And the Germans decided they were going to keep it Christian if possible. And they started to re-arm. In November 1933 the United States recognized the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was becoming very powerful, and Germany realized that “Our turn was going to come soon, unless we are strong.” The same as we in this country are saying today, “Our turn is going to come soon, unless we are strong.” Our government is spending 83 or 84 billion dollars for defense. Defense against whom? Defense against 40,000 little Jews in Moscow that took over Russia, and then, in their devious ways, took over control of many other countries of the world.
For this country now to be on the verge of a Third World War, from which we cannot emerge a victor, is something that staggers my imagination. I know that nuclear bombs are measured in terms of megatons. A megaton is a term used to describe one million tons of TNT. Our nuclear bombs had a capacity of 10 megatons, or 10 million tons of TNT, when they were first developed. Now, the nuclear bombs that are being developed have a capacity of 200 megatons, and God knows how many megatons the nuclear bombs of the Soviet Union have.
What do we face now? If we trigger a world war that may develop into a nuclear war, humanity is finished. Why might such a war take place? It will take place as the curtain goes up on Act 3:
Act 1 was World War I, Act 2 was World War II, Act 3 is going to be World War III.
The Jews of the world, the Zionists and their co-religionists everywhere, are determined that they are going to again use the United States to help them permanently retain Palestine as their foothold for their world government. That is just as true as I am standing here. Not alone have I read it, but many here have also read it, and it is known all over the world.
What are we going to do? The life you save may be your son’s. Your boys may be on their way to that war tonight; and you don’t know it any more than you knew that in 1916 in London the Zionists made a deal with the British War Cabinet to send your sons to war in Europe. Did you know it at that time? Not a person in the United States knew it. You weren’t permitted to know it. Who knew it? President Wilson knew it. Colonel House knew it. Other insiders knew it.
Did I know it? I had a pretty good idea of what was going on: I was liaison to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., in the 1912 campaign when President Wilson was elected, and there was talk around the office there. I was “confidential man” to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., who was chairman of the finance committee, and I was liaison between him and Rollo Wells, the treasurer. So I sat in these meetings with President Wilson at the head of the table, and all the others, and I heard them drum into President Wilson’s brain the graduated income tax and what has become the Federal Reserve, and I heard them indoctrinate him with the Zionist movement. Justice Brandeis and President Wilson were just as close as the two fingers on this hand. President Woodrow Wilson was just as incompetent when it came to determining what was going on as a newborn baby. That is how they got us into World War I, while we all slept. They sent our boys over there to be slaughtered. For what? So the Jews can have Palestine as their “commonwealth.” They’ve fooled you so much that you don’t know whether you’re coming or going.
Now any judge, when he charges a jury, says, “Gentlemen, any witness who you find has told a single lie, you can disregard all his testimony.” I don’t know what state you come from, but in New York state that is the way a judge addresses a jury. If that witness told one lie, disregard his testimony.
What are the facts about the Jews? (I call them Jews to you, because they are known as Jews. I don’t call them Jews myself. I refer to them as so-called Jews, because I know what they are.) The eastern European Jews, who form 92 per cent of the world’s population of those people who call themselves Jews, were originally Khazars. They were a warlike tribe who lived deep in the heart of Asia. And they were so warlike that even the Asiatics drove them out of Asia into eastern Europe. They set up a large Khazar kingdom of 800,000 square miles. At the time, Russia did not exist, nor did many other European countries. The Khazar kingdom was the biggest country in all Europe — so big and so powerful that when the other monarchs wanted to go to war, the Khazars would lend them 40,000 soldiers. That’s how big and powerful they were.
They were phallic worshippers, which is filthy and I do not want to go into the details of that now. But that was their religion, as it was also the religion of many other pagans and barbarians elsewhere in the world. The Khazar king became so disgusted with the degeneracy of his kingdom that he decided to adopt a so-called monotheistic faith — either Christianity, Islam, or what is known today as Judaism, which is really Talmudism. By spinning a top, and calling out “eeny, meeny, miney, moe,” he picked out so-called Judaism. And that became the state religion. He sent down to the Talmudic schools of Pumbedita and Sura and brought up thousands of rabbis, and opened up synagogues and schools, and his people became what we call Jews. There wasn’t one of them who had an ancestor who ever put a toe in the Holy Land. Not only in Old Testament history, but back to the beginning of time. Not one of them! And yet they come to the Christians and ask us to support their armed insurrections in Palestine by saying, “You want to help repatriate God’s Chosen People to their Promised Land, their ancestral home, don’t you? It’s your Christian duty. We gave you one of our boys as your Lord and Savior. You now go to church on Sunday, and you kneel and you worship a Jew, and we’re Jews.” But they are pagan Khazars who were converted just the same as the Irish were converted. It is as ridiculous to call them “people of the Holy Land,” as it would be to call the 54 million Chinese Moslems “Arabs.” Mohammed only died in 620 A.D., and since then 54 million Chinese have accepted Islam as their religious belief. Now imagine, in China, 2,000 miles away from Arabia, from Mecca and Mohammed’s birthplace. Imagine if the 54 million Chinese decided to call themselves “Arabs.” You would say they were lunatics. Anyone who believes that those 54 million Chinese are Arabs must be crazy. All they did was adopt as a religious faith a belief that had its origin in Mecca, in Arabia. The same as the Irish. When the Irish became Christians, nobody dumped them in the ocean and imported to the Holy Land a new crop of inhabitants. They hadn’t become a different people. They were the same people, but they had accepted Christianity as a religious faith.
These Khazars, these pagans, these Asiatics, these Turko-Finns, were a Mongoloid race who were forced out of Asia into eastern Europe. Because their king took the Talmudic faith, they had no choice in the matter. Just the same as in Spain: If the king was Catholic, everybody had to be a Catholic. If not, you had to get out of Spain. So the Khazars became what we call today Jews. Now imagine how silly it was for the great Christian countries of the world to say, “We’re going to use our power and prestige to repatriate God’s Chosen People to their ancestral homeland, their Promised Land.” Could there be a bigger lie than that? Because they control the newspapers, the magazines, the radio, the television, the book publishing business, and because they have the ministers in the pulpit and the politicians on the soapboxes talking the same language, it is not too surprising that you believe that lie. You’d believe black is white if you heard it often enough. You wouldn’t call black black anymore — you’d start to call black white. And nobody could blame you.
That is one of the great lies of history. It is the foundation of all the misery that has befallen the world.
Do you know what Jews do on the Day of Atonement, that you think is so sacred to them? I was one of them. This is not hearsay. I’m not here to be a rabble-rouser. I’m here to give you facts. When, on the Day of Atonement, you walk into a synagogue, you stand up for the very first prayer that you recite. It is the only prayer for which you stand. You repeat three times a short prayer called the Kol Nidre. In that prayer, you enter into an agreement with God Almighty that any oath, vow, or pledge that you may make during the next twelve months shall be null and void. The oath shall not be an oath; the vow shall not be a vow; the pledge shall not be a pledge. They shall have no force or effect. And further, the Talmud teaches that whenever you take an oath, vow, or pledge, you are to remember the Kol Nidre prayer that you recited on the Day of Atonement, and you are exempted from fulfilling them. How much can you depend on their loyalty? You can depend upon their loyalty as much as the Germans depended upon it in 1916.
We are going to suffer the same fate as Germany suffered, and for the same reason.