…by Jonas E. Alexis
Last week, I received an email from a certain David Straight with the heading title, “Specious Historiography.” That quickly got my attention and I immediately clicked my inbox to see what was up.
I also was hoping that the author of the message would use a historiographical approach to make a convincing case.
Yet I simply could not hold my laughter right after the second sentence. After identifying himself as a “historian,” my unsavory correspondent got right to the point. Here is a condensed version:
Dear Mr. Alexis,
I had, until now, believed that there was no such thing as a black Nazi. But after reading your article, “Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers – Part 1”, I stand corrected…
I wish I had the time and resources to pick your article apart…but I don’t, and it probably wouldn’t make any difference anyway.
People like you start out with a conclusion, you only accept the evidence that supports your conclusion…and your conclusion appears to be that the Jews are responsible for their own persecution in Europe, because of their participation in revolutionary activities.
You even make the completely specious (and easily disprovable) assertion that Jews were entirely behind the Revolutions of 1848, and dominated the Russian Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 (how then do you explain the Russian Jewish Bolshevik leader, Trotsky, having to flee for his life, and later being assassinated by a Stalinist agent? Stalin used traditional Russian anti-Semiticism [sic] to turn the tables against his rival).
All part of the whole anti-Semitic delusion that there is a world Jewish organization that controls all events in the world (your use of “Holocaust establishment” speaks volumes)…
You, sir, are not an historian…you are a propagandist (the difference being, that while historians try to get to the truth, you try to distort or cover up the truth)…
To me, Holocaust deniers like you take part in the crimes that the Nazis committed…it saddens my heart…I hope and pray that you recover from your spiritual and moral disease.
I usually avoid correspondents who start with ferocious ad-hominem attacks and red herring and use them as their basis for their subsequent pitfalls. But I just simply could not believe what I was reading. So I decided to respond. Here’s what I wrote back:
Dear Mr. Straight,
I would be more than happy to discuss the article with you. What bothers you about “Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers—part 1”? The sources? Are they complete fabrications? If so, please help me here because I certainly want to be cured from my “spiritual and moral disease.” If the problem is not with the sources, tell me specifically where you disagree and why.
You declared that you don’t have the “time and resources to pick” my article apart but your underlying premise is that I am definitely wrong! If you cannot see the implicit weltanschauung which posts beneath your assertion here, I am not sure that I have “the time and resources” to help you.
How can you really call yourself a historian when you don’t have the resources to argue your case but still maintain that your view is right? Doesn’t that betray your prejudice and irresponsible behavior as a historian?
How would you like to defend your position in a court of law? Is it really fair to accuse someone of lying when you yourself implicitly admit that the evidence is not at your disposal? And if you are intellectually lazy to provide the evidence, who will? You want me to do that for you?
Moreover, I would definitely like to know the kind of evidence you would accept as a historian. I have cited Jewish historians in the article—and they themselves have laboriously gone through the archives, talked to people of Jewish descent who were in Nazi Germany, and meticulously recorded what they have said—but that does not seem to satisfy your historical criteria or standard. Would you like to discuss your idiosyncratic standard?
What is even more interesting is that instead of producing counter-evidence using historiographical approach and serious argument, you attack the messenger by saying that Alexis is “a black Nazi”! Is that a rationally feasible position? Is that how historical research is done? Is that how you triumphantly dismiss a counter-argument? If so, I must have missed that in my history and logic classes.
I never said that “Jews were entirely behind the Revolution of 1848.” I have made it explicitly clear that Jewish revolutionaries were largely responsible for the Revolution of 1848—a completely different statement. And this has been well documented by historians of various stripes. For example, Jewish historian Michael Laurence Miller notes in his study Rabbis and Revolution that
“The Jews of Moravia had retained their reputation for having ‘most enthusiastically’ participated in the revolution. Samson Raphael Hirsch’s prominent role in the struggle for emancipation certainly contributed to this reputation, but not as much as the visible and celebrated ‘martyrdom’ of two Moravian Jews in the first eight months of the revolution: Carl Heinrich Spitzer of Bisenz and Hermann Jellinek of Drslawitz.”
Miller moves on declare that by 1848, the revolution had already gotten a full grip of many Jews in Moravia. For example, Adolf Brecher wrote in the same year:
“In light of the latest happenings, the crisis in which our recent freedom now finds itself, I have turned all of my attention to politics, and this currently absorbs all of my time.
“I am in the coffee house already at 6:60 a.m. and I study the newspapers until approximately 10 a.m. At 10 a.m. I visited my friends and we discuss—newspapers. In the afternoon, newspapers, in the evening, newspapers; at night I dream about newspapers.”
Miller writes that
“Brecher also read the German-language Jewish papers, which reported on the strides and pitfalls in the struggle for Jewish emancipation throughout Europe. Although the Allgemeine Zeitzung des judenthums, published in Leipzig, barely reported in Moravia, it provided extensive coverage of the revolution in the German states and elsewhere.”
Jewish historian Amos Alon admitted,
“All over the country [Germany], the rabbis in their sermons greeted the revolution as a truly messianic event….’The savior for whom we have prayed has appeared. The fatherland has given him to us.”
Karl Marx for example began to spark Communist ideology as early as 1845, and all through the 1860s and 70s, Marx was enthusiastically “involved in revolutionary politics, running the International Working Men’s Association.”
And if you are going to deny that Jewish revolutionaries “dominated the Russian Bolshevik Revolution of 1917,” then I have no reason to call you a historian whatsoever. I would suggest you pick up at least the following books (I could name dozens more):
Eric E. Haberer, Jews and Revolution in Nineteenth-Century Russia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995); Jean-Louis Panne, ed., The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999); Yuri Slezkine, The Jewish Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004); Jerry Z. Muller, Capitalism and the Jews (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010).
But far be it from me—“a black Nazi”—to tell a reputable historian how to do his job.
Jonas E. Alexis
I doubt that my correspondent would actually peruse those books, since his mind was already made up, and since the historical account itself will ruin his mumbo jumbo.
Jewish historian Yuri Slezkine notes in his widely read study The Jewish Century that a number of Russian Jewish intellectuals wrote a collection of essays in 1923 entitled Russia and the Jews, in which they argued throughout that Jews committed a “bitter sin” in the Bolshevik Revolution.
I. M. Berkerman, one of the contributors, lamented that
“it goes without saying that not all Jews are Bolsheviks and not all Bolsheviks are Jews, but what is equally obvious is that disproportionate and immeasurably fervent Jewish participation in the torment of half-dead Russia by the Bolsheviks.”
Even Winston Churchill, a committed Zionist, could not avoid the obvious fact that Jewish participation in the Bolshevik movement caused anti-Jewish reactions.The Bolsheviks’ repressive violent acts were “not simply against the soldiers [they] captured but against civilians.”
In one instance, they threw
“fifty Junkers and ‘White’ officers, their hands and feet bound, into a blast furnace. In Evpatoria several hundred officers and ‘bourgeois’ were tied up, tortured, and thrown into the sea.
“Similar acts of violence occurred in most of the cities of the Crimea occupied by the Bolsheviks, including Sevastopol, Yalta, Alushta, and Simferopol…
“The extremely precise files of the Denikin commission record ‘corpses with the hands cut off, broken bones, heads ripped off, broken jaws, and genitals removed.”
The Bolshevik Revolution, as a letter from a young captain suggests, was Jewish revenge against the Gentiles:
“They think that they will now have their revenge, after all those centuries of servitude. They say to us: ‘You were the barini before, but now it’s our turn!’”
“The Bolshevik leaders encouraged anything that might promote this aspiration to ‘social revenge’ among the masses, seeing it as a moral legitimation of the terror, or what Lenin called ‘the just civil war.’”
In 1917, when the Bolsheviks took over Russia, Jacob Schiff, “the most well known leader of the anti-Russian forces in North America,” was thrilled to see that Jewish revolutionaries were taking control of their destiny:
“I’ve always been a foe of Russian Autocracy, which had persecuted my co-religionists mercilessly. Allow me at this moment to congratulate the Russian people for the noble deed which they have brought to completion.”
This tendency, although given much freer reign, can also be found in the medieval ages. Jewish scholar Elliott Horowitz gives a number of plausible accounts during the medieval period where Jews used to proclaim their disdain for Christianity by appalling actions such as urinating on Christian symbols. (Larry David’s desecration is a modern manifestation of that period.)
Schiff hated the Tsarists and called Russia “the enemy of all mankind.” To this very day, Jewish revolutionaries and intellectuals continue to pronounce their hatred for Russia—and indeed for Putin—in a very subtle way.
To a large degree, Russia under Putin has been keeping the Zionist world in check. Putin made things even worse when he declared that at least 80 percent of the members of the first Soviet government were Jewish.
Yori Yanover of the Jewish Press immediately said that Putin was producing “anti-Semitic lies.” At this present movement, the Zionist world wants America to get into a way with Russia, and the recent plane crash is a classic Zionist excuse. The war drums have already been beaten.
My correspondent never responded to the historical challenge, and now he has no excuse. But for those who do not know some of the historical nuances, let us review just two books.
Jerry Z. Muller is an interesting Jewish scholar. He writes that it was “anti-anti-Semitism [that] led Jews to prominent positions in Communist movements.” That argument is a terrible non-sequitur, most specifically when one looks at communistic ideas in Hollywood in the 1920s and 1930s.
While asserting that “the identification of Jews with Communism was based upon a distortion,” Muller nevertheless admits that
“a sizable minority of young Jews was attracted to the more radical and revolutionary movement of Communism. And this occurred in a remarkable range of settings: from Russia to the United States, from Egypt to South Africa. It proved to be a fatal attraction.”
Muller has to say minority, but he does not tell the fact that Jews have always been a minority in every country in Europe and America. So the “sizable minority” was indeed much bigger and much potent in scope.
In the end, Muller had to admit that anti-Jewish attitudes were in several ways a reaction to the roles Jews played in the Communist movement.
Muller, like a number of Jewish historians, does not want to go all the way, but contradictory statements in his book show that he is torn between two worldviews.
For example, he frequently objects to the idea that Jews were overrepresented in the Bolshevik Revolution. Yet in the same breath, he admits that
“the rapid movement of Jews into the economic, cultural, and political fields continued through the 1920s and reached its high point in the mid-1930s. In 1926, the last Jewish member was appointed to the Politburo:
“he was Lazar Kaganovich, who later presided over the politically motivated famine in the Ukraine that took the lives of millions of Ukrainian peasants.
“The multilinguality of the Communists of Jewish origin also led to their overrepresentation in the Comintern, and their key role in organizing new Communist movements around the world.
“During the Great Purge of 1934-1939, Jews were overrepresented among the purgers (as employees of the secret police) and among the purged.”
Moreover, “if Jews were highly visible in the revolutions in Russia and Germany, in Hungary they seemed omnipresent…Of the government’s forty-nine commissars, thirty-one were of Jewish origin.”
Muller goes out of his way to cite the names of many of those revolutionaries: Bela Kun, Tibor Szamuely, Otto Korvin (Klein), Georg Lukacs, and Matyas Rakosi (Roth). Sandor Garbai, a Gentile, was chosen only because the Jews needed “someone who could sign the death sentences on Saturday.”
The same pattern continues in places like Czechoslovakia, where the general secretary of the Communist party was Rudolf Slansky; in Poland, it was Jakub Berman who was in charge of the secret police, and Jacek Rozanski, trained by the NKVD, “became head of the investigative department of the ministry of public security.”
Ana Pauker was fanning the flame of revolution in Romania, with other revolutionaries such as Losif Chisinevski, Leonte Rautu, and Mihail Roller. Those people were known as Muscovites. Muller continues,
“The prominence of Jews in the Hungarian Soviet Republic is all the more striking when one considers that the Jews of Hungary were richer than their coreligionists in eastern Europe and remarkably successful in attaining positions of status.”
Moreover, argues Muller, “the Magyar upper classes welcomed Jewish assimilation into Hungarian culture.”
Yet when the revolutionaries took over,
“Statues of Hungarian kings and national heroes were torn down, the national anthem was banned, and the display of the national colors was made a punishable offense.”
Not only that, “Radical agitators were dispatched to the countryside, where they ridiculed the institution of the family and threatened to turn churches into movie theaters.”
The same is true with Jewish contributions to other revolutionary movements in the United States. As Jewish intellectual historian Russell Jacoby has argued,
“The Jewish contribution to the Left in the United States during the twentieth century ranks the highest of any immigrant or ethnic group…
“American Jewry has provided socialist organizations and movements with a disproportionate number—sometimes approaching or surpassing a majority—of their leaders, activists, and supporters.”
When Jews were only “3 percent of the United States population,” they “constituted a majority of the New Left’s membership and its leaders.”
How then can Muller talk about 1) “The myth of the Jew as Boshevik” and 2) “the identification of Jews with Communism was based upon a distortion” while at the same time documenting the disproportionate number of Jewish revolutionaries in those movements? How Muller can maintain both views simultaneously without committing historical and intellectual suicide is beyond comprehension.
Communism was not a reaction to anti-Semitism, as Muller implies by saying that “anti-anti-Semitism led Jews to prominent positions in Communist movements, and their very salience in a movement that threatened existing society provided new fuel for anti-Semitism.”
Anti-Semitism has largely been a reaction to Jewish revolutionary activities and movements, including Bolshevism and Communism. This is true even when examining Muller’s book.
When Jews became involved in the revolutions between 1917 and 1919, a number of books began to circulate, labeling Jews as “Lenin Boys.”
Had a disproportionate number of Jews not participated in the revolutions, there would not have been a book published by Jean and Jerome Tharaud entitled Quand Israel est roi (“When Israel is King”).
But Muller does not seem to see things that way, blaming the “Christian churches” as powerhouses of anti-Semitism prior to the nineteenth century. Other Jewish historians such as Esther Benbassa also follow similar lines of reasoning.
Jews such as Lev Kamenev, Grigory Zinoviev, Alexander Parvus, and countless others were the movers and shakers of the Russian Revolution.
Moreover, the founders of the Gulag death camp operation were largely Jews. These revolutionary activities surely intensified the conflict between Nazism and Bolshevism and Communism.
For example, in Russia, two of the leading figures in the “Russian-Jewish revolutionaries since the days of Grigorii Peretts” were Veniamin Osipovich Portugalov and Lev Moiseevich Zelenskii.
Portugalov was expelled from Kharkov University because of his revolutionary activity and left the school
“to continue his studies—and subversive activity—at the University of Kiev. Besides initiating the formation of so-called literary student circles, he took advantage of the nascent Sunday-school movement to spread revolutionary ideas among common people seeking an elementary education.”
Portugalov and his revolutionary associates were eventually arrested and imprisoned. They were ultimately released within months, and Portugalov directed his energy somewhere else: he completed his medical training
“and made himself a name as Russia’s foremost humanist physician by working among the urban and rural poor and campaigning for social health care and public hygiene.”
Yet even then he was strongly committed “to the cause of Jewish enlightenment and emancipation,” and became “a role model for Jewish nihilist youths who sought to follow ‘the example of the extremely popular…zemskii doctor Portugalov.’”
Portugalov and his associates were merely some of the Jewish revolutionaries prominent during that era. Nikolai Utin and the Baskt brothers were among those who sparked revolutionary cells, and they were educated at the Zhitomir Rabbinical Seminary.
Utin used his own party (“Utin’s party”):
“for circulating numerous proclamations and manifestos of decidedly revolutionary character, some of which were apparently printed by Osip Bakst who was a popular publisher in his own right.
“Agitated by these inflammatory leaflets, as well as the fiery speeches of Utin, the students took to the streets on 26 and 27 September.
“Here they were met by tsarist troops and police who arrested almost 300 protesters, including Utin and his brother Evgenii, who together with still another 6 Jews were very active in the student movement.”
When riots broke out, tsarist officials were not fixated on race, but “were above all concerned with control, law, and order.”
During 1880 and 1881, where joblessness was quite high in Russia and where many Russians could not even feed themselves,
“some tried to get arrested so that they would at least have food and shelter in jail. Anti-Semitism may not have been primary for such men; Jewish shops and homes were simply natural and easy targets.”
There were cases, however, in which “local non-Jewish businessmen, artisans, and professionals, resentful about Jewish competition, encouraged the roving bands to attack the Jews.”
The simple fact is that while some reactions may have been motivated by anti-Semitism, some were not, and to present the latter case without the former is completely misleading.
Utin was released within a short time, and his followers began to taste “the revolutionary excitement—and ‘martyrdom’—of opposing a government which seemed to be determined to return to pre-1855 regimentation.”
During the winter of 1862, Utin was associated with a political movement that sought “close cooperation with the Polish insurrectionists.” Fearing that he would be arrested again, he fled to London “several days before he was meant to be captured.”
The revolutionary spirit lay dormant after his departure, and only one Jew between 1864 and 1868 “had been linked to revolutionary activity in Russia.” Yet cultural and political insurrections sprang back to life; it was
“when a new wave of student disorder erupted in St. Petersburg and Moscow that Jewish radical involvement made itself again noticeable and, in fact, became the take-off point for a sustained and substantial participation in Russian revolutionary activity.”
Many universities in Russia constituted colonies of Jewish revolutionary activity, but when Mark Natanson set foot in St. Petersburg in August 1868 and enrolled at the Academy there, revolution had a new spirit.
Within a short time, Natanson became a rising star among his fellow freshmen, who “elected him to be their spokesman in dealings with the academic and administrative staff of the Academy.”
Inevitably, Natanson began to put his talents to work by creating a “‘sub-library of revolutionary-socialist more knowledge about socialist ideas and revolutionary history.”
His approach here was “moderate” in that it did not follow the radical approach of his predecessor, Russian radical Sergei Nechaev. But later on his Jewish friend Pavel Akselrod noted that
“Natanson, a person steeled in revolutionary work…lived for one purpose only: to gather again the scattered forces and resume revolutionary work.”
Haberer writes that
“Jewishness in Natanson must not be seen as a function of promoting consciously Jewish aspirations, rather it must be comprehended in terms of how ethnicity shaped his theory and practice of revolution.”
“to his Talmudic bend of mind in retaining encyclopaedic information and approaching any given problem from all possible angles of interpretation. Even his sense of social responsibility and ‘striving for moral ideals’ has been attributed to his religious upbringing.”
If that is the case, then it stands to reason that consciously or unconsciously, Natanson was following Talmudic interpretations. Haberer goes on to declare,
“During Natanson’s adolescence these traditional Judaic values were revitalized by the finest representatives of mid-nineteenth-century Lithuanian Jewry, Rabbi Israel Salanter and Rabbi Isaac Elhanan.”
Natanson’s revolution, in Haberer’s view, was a secular version of the Protestant Reformation, and Natanson lived in a time where
“the father of modern Hebrew prose, Abraham Mapu…strongly defended the virtues of secular knowledge, ethical idealism, and Jewish-socio-economic self-improvement.”
In a nutshell, Natanson was influenced primarily by two schools of thought: Judaic Talmudism and Jewish Enlightenment.
It is therefore safe to say that he was drawn to revolutionary nihilism—which he saw as “an ideology of salvation” and himself as a “nihilist personality”—because of his “Jewishness,” though other factors might have played minor roles.
Natanson’s contemporaries recognized both nihilism and Jewishness “in shaping Natanson’s personality,” and others saw that his approach to
“revolutionary affairs was due to his upbringing in a Jewish merchant household, his intellectual perseverance bordering on dogmatism derived from his Talmudic studies.”
Natanson’s other ideas were “possible only because of his Jewishness.” After many years of struggle, Natanson eventually built a party that was considered revolutionary in spirit and action between the years of 1876 and 1879. The party was named “the Society of Land and Freedom,” or “Zemlia i Volia.”
“The historical significance of Zemlia i Volia was far reaching. It laid the foundation for two subsequent ‘parties,’ the People’s Will (Narodnaia Volia) and the Black Partition (Chernyi Peredel), both of which were of great importance for the evolution of modern Russian revolutionary politics.
“Indeed, by stepping into the ‘revolutionary vacuum’ of 1874-75, Natanson initiated a process that eventually led to the formation of three political parties—Liberal, neo-Populist, and Marxist—which seriously challenged tsarism in 1905 and destroyed it in 1917.”
After Natanson, revolutionary colonies like the Chaikovskii circle began to reach their zenith in Russia, and spread like wildfire among young Jewish intellectuals and political activists such as Pavel Borisovich Akselrod, Grigorii Evseevich Gurevich, and the Levental brothers.
Revolutionaries like Samuil Kliachko were agitators “for the radical student movement emanating from St. Petersburg in the late 1860s,” and Jewish-led revolutionary activity was well-known to academics and scholars in the era that followed it in Europe.
Iankel-Abel Finkelstein planted revolutionary ideas in Russia among Jewish radicals. Finkelstein started to work on his subversive activity at the Vilna Rabbinical Seminary, which was a “centre of revolutionary propaganda.”
From there he spread his wings into other venues such as “illegal socialist literature.” Even while he was in school, Finkelstein was known for his “rebellious personality,” and “found himself constantly in trouble with the school authorities.”
Finkelstein left his Talmudic shackles in favor of fundamental atheism, which is compatible with the revolutionary Jewish mindset (even in 2011 many Jews saw atheism as compatible with Judaism).
Many Jews during that era in Russia felt the same way—that Judaism and Talmudic mores created a stumbling block for progress. For that reason, many “had no intention of continuing their work in a Jewish setting.”
Finkelstein was expelled from the Rabbinical seminary for “bad expressions demonstrating his disrespect for Christian and Judaic Religion,” and other “numerous offenses” such as setting up a “library of socialist literature” and “organizing an illegal ‘educational society.’”
Eventually the tsarist authorities began to keep an eye on Finkelstein and subsequently deported him “to his native Vladislavov where he was to be kept under police surveillance.”
When he escaped to Konigsberg, Finkelstein
“enrolled as a medical student at the local university. But instead of earning a medical degree he won for himself the name of the ‘red postmaster’ who, operating from Konigsberg, began to handle the ‘red mail’ of the revolutionary movement, particularly of the Chikovtsy, across the Russo-Prussian frontier.”
Finally, it was Jewish Bolshevik Yakov Yurovsky, along with a group of fellow Bolsheviks, who murdered the last Tsar and his family in 1918.
Rakov, who went to a Talmudic school, saw his act as a form of revenge. After his father had been sent to a Jewish settlement for theft, Yurovsky developed an undying hatred for the Tsar.
As historical accounts have discovered, Yurovsky was one of Lenin’s willing executioners. German historian Joachim Hoffmann notes that both Lenin and Trotsky issued the order to assassinate the Tsar.
After seventy-two years, even the New York Times was willing to admit this incontrovertible fact.
“In the early morning dark of July 17, 1918, they were taken to the basement and shot by local Chekists, members of the Bolshevik secret police. Bullets ricocheted from the jewels hidden in the corsets of the royal daughters, who had to be finished off with bayonets.
“When the screams died down, the bodies were carted to the countryside, stripped, burned and tossed in a mine shaft. The next night, to prevent a cult of the Romanovs, the leader of the firing squad exhumed the remains, doused them with disfiguring acid and reburied them in a secret grave.”
Even Jewish historian Richard Pipes agreed that Lenin “ordered the execution of the imperial family.” Pipes wrote,
“It can be established that the final decision to ‘liquidate’ the Romanovs was taken personally by Lenin…One could have inferred this fact much from the knowledge that no provincial soviet would have dared to act on the matter of such importance without explicit authorization from the center.”
Trotsky, Lenin’s collaborator, wrote in his diary that Lenin himself ordered that the imperial family be assassinated, and the order was carried out by his regime.
If history is not that important to my “historian” correspondent, perhaps he should take a look at what the Israeli regime is currently doing in the concentration camps in Gaza.
On July 17, it was reported that 220 Gazans lost their lives and 1,500 were wounded. How many Israelis were killed? Only one.
42-year-old Ofer Neiman and a number of Israeli Jews simply could not hold it much longer. With one voice, they declared,
“I feel my government is murdering children using my money and claiming to do it in my name, which is totally unacceptable.”
Nurit Peled-Elhaman, an Israeli education professor and a member of the “Jews against Genocide” group, added:
“The ceasefire means the previous situation will return, albeit much worse, because Gaza has been destroyed now and nobody will help rebuild it. Entire families are dead; there are a lot of orphans; hospitals are damaged.”
Here’s the funny thing. On July 15, it was reported that Israel orders some 100,000 Gazans to leave their homes. A number of Israeli and Jewish writers declared in the Wall Street Journal: “Israel warns thousands to leave Northern Gaza as army readies broader offensive.”
Sure. But where would those poor Gazans go?
Back in the States, my first teaching job was in a correctional facility, teaching math and science. I remember after one particular class session, I said, “Class is dismissed.” Little Suzy responded,
“Why do you have to say ‘class is dismissed?’ I mean, where will we go? Home?” My supervisor was right next to me and we tried to hold our laughter but it did not work.
Gaza, in Ron Paul’s own words, has been a “concentration camp” for years. Jewish writer Lawrence Weschler has recently declared the same thing, that “Gaza is a concentration camp.” He adds,
“I say ‘concentration camp’ and not ‘death camp.’ I am not comparing Gaza to Auschwitz-Birkenau, but one cannot help but liken the conditions today in Gaza to the sorts of conditions once faced by Japanese-Americans during World War II, or the Boers in South Africa during the Anglo-Boer War, or the black South Africans years later in such besieged townships as Soweto, or for that matter Jews and gays and gypsies at Dachau and Theresienstadt in the years before the Nazis themselves settled on their Final Solution.
“And it is quite simply massively self-serving delusion that Israelis (and their enablers and abettors here in America, among whom incidentally I count a steadily declining number of American Jews) refuse to recognize that fact.”
But now we are told that the Israelis have warned their victims to leave before they attacked! Isn’t that interesting?
Let us suppose that they go to a hospital nearby. What would have happened? Listen to Moshe Feiglin, the deputy speaker for the Knesset, Israel’s parliament:
“The blood of a dialysis patient in Gaza is not redder than the blood of our IDF [Israeli army] soldiers who will, God forbid, need to enter [Gaza].
“Therefore I call on the prime minister who we all support in this difficult hour, before we send the IDF into Gaza, we should simply shut down their electricity.”
Seumas Milne of the Guardian reported,
“Since Israel’s bombardment of the Gaza Strip began, just over a week ago, more than 200 Palestinians have been killed. Nearly 80% of the dead are civilians, over 20% of them children.
“Around 1,400 have been wounded and 1,255 Palestinian homes destroyed. So far, Palestinian fire has killed one Israeli on the other side of the barrier that makes blockaded Gaza the world’s largest open-air prison.
“But instead of demanding a halt to Israel’s campaign of collective punishment against what is still illegally occupied territory, the western powers have blamed the victims for fighting back. If it weren’t for Hamas’s rockets fired out of Gaza’s giant holding pen, they insist, all of this bloodletting would end.”
In the same vein, a senior official in the Medecins Sans Frontieres (doctors without borders) humanitarian charity has described the Israelis’ recent invasion in Gaza as similar to being “an open-air prison to patch up prisoners in between their torture sessions.”
The official continued,
“An entire population is trapped in what is essentially an open-air prison. They can’t leave and only the most limited supplies – essential for basic survival – are allowed to enter. The population of the prison have elected representatives and organized social services.
“Some of the prisoners have organized into armed groups and resist their indefinite detention by firing rockets over the prison wall. However, the prison guards are the ones who have the capacity to launch large-scale and highly destructive attacks on the open-air prison.
“the voice of outrage of MSF medical teams is drowned out by the propaganda war that erupts each time a [military] operation such as this takes place and by the concerns that too loud a voice of criticism could cut off the organisation’s surgical teams from being able to reach the Gaza Strip.
“Everyone pays the price for living under siege and for their acts of resistance. Medical workers have been killed and health structures damaged.
“In such a densely populated environment, the claims of not targeting civilians in air raids are of little comfort.
“There are always limits to humanitarian action. Humanitarian organisations can treat the wounded. But we can’t open borders to end violence”
But how does the Zionist world in America respond? Listen to those Looney Tunes:
If those Zionists are going to use the argument that Hamas is responsible for the innocent children, then they make our job very easy. I think Hamas should accept the challenge, so long that those same Zionists accept the following argument, which is historically accurate:
Were Jewish revolutionaries, then, responsible for the innocent Jews who died during Nazi Germany? Was Hitler’s anger justified when he realized that pornography in Germany was largely a Jewish movement? I will let Bill Maher and others answer that question for us.
If my “historian” correspondent cannot see this as a problem, then there is absolutely nothing I can do to help him out. It’s a good thing that he never got back to me because he ought to know that his so-called argument is firmly planted in mid-air.
His objection simply has no purchase against the overwhelming evidence indicating that Jewish revolutionaries have always played a major role and subversive activities. Perhaps he needs to quarrel with Benjamin Disraeli, who wrote in his 1844 novel Conningsby:
“You never observe a great intellectual movement in Europe in which the Jews do not greatly participate.”
If my correspondent wants to reject Disraeli’s assertion as irrelevant because it is a work of fiction, let us hear from flaming Zionist Winston Churchill:
“From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing.
“It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.
“There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and 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.”
 “Certainly that can’t be a spam or someone trying to sell sex,” I thought. We all know by now that pornography is so widespread online that it can easily be filtered through various channels, including spam. In fact, about three years ago a dear Swedish friend of mine called me up and said, “What in the world is on your Facebook page?” That quickly got my attention. I immediately opened my account and instantly I was greeted with a naked woman on the front page! That happened twice. I no longer receive naked pictures on Facebook, but once in a while I would get unsolicited messages from some creeps sending me their email addresses and phone numbers and asking me for a chat. I have tried to be careful with an unsolicited email message from questionable sources, especially if the message does not explicitly have a serious heading title.
 I have added a number of footnotes and a few things here and there.
 Again, I added just two endnotes so that readers will be able to pursue this study further.
 Michael Laurence Miller, Rabbis and Revolution: The Jews of Moravia in the Age of Emancipation (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2011), 219. Of course, Miller has to argue that this is because of anti-Semitism.
 Ibid., 226.
 Quoted in Jones, Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, 590.
 Paul Johnson, Intellectuals (New York: HarperCollins, 1987), chapter 3.
 For further studies, see for example Steven Beller, Vienna and the Jews, 1867-1938: A Cultural History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990). Even philo-Semitic historian Paul Johnson admits the disproportionate number of Jews in the Bolshevik Revolution, though he defends this by saying that those Jews were “non-Jewish Jews,” a clumsy way to avoid the implication that Jewish revolutionaries were responsible for anti-Jewish reactions.
 Slezkine, The Jewish Century, 183.
Black Book of Communism, 60.
 Ibid., 60-61.
 Ibid., 61.
 Jones, Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, 733-734.
 Elliott Horowitz, Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006), chapter 6.
 Quoted in Naomi Wiener Cohen, Jacob H. Schiff: A Study in American Jewish Leadership (Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press, 2007), 38.
 See for example the article written by Jewish historian Vladimir Tismaneanu, ‘Czar Putka’s Imperial Delusions,” FrontPageMag.com, July 18, 2014.
 “Putin: First Soviet Government Was Mostly Jewish,” Jerusalem Post, June 20, 2013.
 Yori Yanover, “Putin Perpetuates Anti-Semitic Lie of First Soviet ‘Mostly Jewish,’” Jewish Press, June 20, 2013.
 Jerry Z. Muller, Capitalism and the Jews (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010), 133.
 See for example Neal Gabler, An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood (New York: Anchor Books, 1989).
 Muller, Capitalism and the Jews, 135.
 Ibid., 136.
 Ibid., 188.
 Ibid., 133-136.
 Ibid., 143.
 Ibid., 152, 153.
 Ibid., 153.
 Ibid., 168-169.
 Ibid., 153.
 Ibid., 154.
 Ibid., 155.
 Jacoby, The Last Intellectuals, 86-87.
 Ibid., 87.
 Muller, Jews and Capitalism, 133, 135.
 Ibid., 133.
 Ibid., 158-160.
 Ibid., 158.
 Esther Benbassa, The Jews of France: A History from Antiquity to the Present (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999), 133.
 Haberer, Jews and Revolution in Russia, 19-20.
 Ibid., 20.
 Ibid., 20-21.
 Lindemann, Esau’s Tears, 68.
 Haberer, Jews and Revolution in Russia, 22-23.
 Ibid., 23.
 Ibid., 29-31, 53-55.
 Ibid., 31.
 Ibid., 32.
 Ibid., 31-33.
 Ibid., 120.
 Ibid., 39-40.
 Ibid., 40.
 Ibid., 41.
 Ibid., 42.
 Ibid., 117-147.
 Ibid., 118.
 Ibid., 56-73.
 Ibid., 53.
 Ibid., 74.
 Kimberly Winston, “Judaism Without God? Yes, Say American Atheists,” USA Today, October 26, 2011.
 Haberer, Jews and Revolution in Russia, 84.
 Ibid., 74.
 Ibid., 75.
 Helen Rappaport, The Last Days of the Romanovs: Tragedy at Ekateringburg (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2009), 131-133.
 Hoffmann, Stalin’s War of Extermination, 195-196.
 Bill Keller, “Cult of the Last Czar Takes Root in Russia,” NY Times, Nov 21, 1990.
 Richard Pipes, The Russian Revolution (New York: Vintage Books, 1991), 770.
 Tamer El-Ghobashy, Nicholas Casey and Joshua Mitnick, “Palestinians Told to Clear Out: Israel Warns Thousands to Leave Northern Gaza as Army Readies Broader Offensive,” Wall Street Journal, July 16, 2014.
 Seumas Milne, “Gaza: This Shameful Injustice Will Only End if the cost of it Rises,” Guardian, July 16, 2014.
 Quoted in Robert Fisk, “Israel-Gaza conflict: Medical charity official likens job to ‘patching up torture victims in an open-air prison,’” The Independent, July 17, 2014.
 Benjamin Disraeli, Coningsby (Boston: Adamant Media Corporation, 2005), 299.
 Winston Churchill, “Zionism vs. Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People,” Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 8, 1920.