Saturday, May 08, 2010

ZIONISM versus BOLSHEVISM -- A struggle for the soul of the Jewish people

Dennis Mangan posted an article where he claims that "Jews were greatly over-represented among the early revolutionaries and later among the leaders of the Soviet Union, including the various incarnations of the secret police." I have heard this claim over and over by Eastern European commenters over at Gates of Vienna, not only about the Jewish dominance in the Soviet Union but in Bolshevism all across Eastern Europe. But is it really so? If it is, Dennis Mangan is making several points that are right on target in his article.

Dennis' brother Dave entered the discussion bringing up the Holodomor, that is the forced starvation of some 7 million Ukranians in 1932-33. Which Dave Mangan claims was enacted by Jewish commissars. But was it really so? Well, according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency it was. They write about how in July 2008 the Ukrainian Security Service released a list of the high-ranking Soviet state and Communist Party officials responsible for perpetrating and executing the famine, and most of the names on the list were Jewish. (The Ukrainian Jewish Committee, however, called on the secret service to revise the list, which "incited interethnic hatred", in order to clear up the “inaccuracy”.)

But back to Dennis Mangan's article. It is interesting to find that his claims are backed up by someone I consider probably the most sound political thinker of the 20th century: Winston Churchill. Churchill published in 1920 an article named "ZIONISM versus BOLSHEVISM -- A struggle for the soul of the Jewish people", where he detailed the Jewish involvement in the Bolshevik revolution. Churchill discusses in this article the split between Jews: some are Communists, he wrote, while others are Jewish nationalists. Churchill favored the Jewish nationalists and he appealed to what he called "loyal Jews" to ensure that the Communist Jews did not succeed. Churchill went even further and blamed the Jews for "every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century". He also pointedly accused Leon Trotsky of wanting to establish a "world wide Communistic state under Jewish domination" in this article.

Under the subtitle of "Terrorist Jews" Churchill writes:
- - - - - - - - -

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution, by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek -- all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.
This backs the claims made by Dennis Mangan (and Slezkine, who he is quoting) by someone considered credible by most people (who counts). That should cue anyone in doubt about the Jewish character of Bolshevism to look more closely into the matter. Furthermore, this whole story, as suggested by Mangan, "puts a crimp in the Jewish notion that they have been unique victims, and in the notion that Germans have been uniquely evil."

Today the Jews that Churchill refers to as International and Terrorist Jews have shifted from Bolshevism onto multiculturalism, neoconservatism and other destructive internationalist causes (George Soros anyone?). So the same thing still applies, albeit in new shapes. Likewise, in my view, Churchill's endorsement of "national Jews" and Zionism is the remedy and the way forward. Churchill ends his article by writing:
But a negative resistance to Bolshevism in any field is not enough. Positive and practicable alternatives are needed in the moral as well as in the social sphere; and in building up with the utmost possible rapidity a Jewish national centre in Palestine which may become not only a refuge to the oppressed from the unhappy lands of Central Europe, but which will also be a symbol of Jewish unity and the temple of Jewish glory, a task is presented on which many blessings rest.
So yes, Zionism is the answer. However, in these sick times even that isn't without issues and problems, especially for America . (More about the role of America and Israel in our current mythology here: four subsequent comments). Churchill, however, was all through his life a firm pro-Zionist (see Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship) which he was absolutely right to be.

In parallel to this discussion I'm having another discussion with Chechar (and to some extent Rollory). One of the problems I have with Chechar is the way he takes Hitler and Nazism as the starting point for the reconstruction of a revitalized and healthy Europe. I cannot understand why he wouldn't take Churchill (whose outlook largely harmonizes with Dennis Mangan's) as the starting point instead. For starters Churchill denounced and warned about Islam while Hitler and the Nazis admired it. Go figure....

Read further...

Wednesday, May 05, 2010

What do we get if we would add together Chechar's two latest fads?

For some reason Dennis Mangan wouldn't let through this comment in the discussion thread, so I post it here:


Regarding what I wrote about "full-blown Nazi", I said that either your obsessions are whimsical (and not to be taken too seriously) or you are a full-blown Nazi. I do not know which, but one has to be true.

During your previous fad, when you described yourself as a non-anti-Semitic white nationalist, you where very fond of bringing up "Hitlerian views", "4th Reich scenarios", how you "can appreciate WN’s Third Reich nostalgia" and mottos such as "Himmler is my friend!". You seemed to believe that you brought up important truths that no one else dared to say. But at the same time you were eager to solemnly declare how you were non-anti-Semitic, which you apparently considered the only evil of Nazi-Germany. Now you have reversed that. So where do you end up then? Since you begun your new MacDonald fad you haven't talked about Hitlerian views and your 3rd Reich nostalgia. But I couldn't help thinking already back then: Where would he end up if he removes his non-anti-Semitism from all that? And now you have indeed removed it.

Here are some examples of what you used to write:

- - - - - - - - -
We would restore and re-inaugurate Auschwitz and Birkenau but this time showing through the television the cremated remains at the top of Birkenau’s chimney of the white traitors who created Eurabia. [...]
As you can see, no legal or moral law is broken in my 4th Reich scenario. But our ethnic cleansing would be as effective as the 3rd. Our beloved children would thus remain pure Aryan, uncontaminated with the genotype of the ugly races.

In this thread you insisted on describing German people as uniquely evil, "infected with a malicious sort of anti-Semitism". By doing so you perpetuated the most fundamental PC myth, the very standard example for all anti-white racism.

And you wrote: Aufheben statement, which both suppresses the evils of the German anti-Semitism of the 1930s and at the same time recovers the pride for one’s own ethny.

Now you have given up your Aufheben. So according to our own writings, where does that make you end up? Or are we not supposed to add together the writings of your two subsequent fads, but just consider them as two separate and incommensurable obsessions?

Read further...